August 10-11, 1992
BOARD OF REGENTS
UNIVERSITY AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM OF NEVADA
August 10, 1992
The Board of Regents met on the above date in the Computing
Services video conference room at the University of Nevada,
Reno and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas for a special video
Members present: Las Vegas: Mrs. Carolyn M. Sparks, Chairman
Mrs. Shelley Berkley
Mr. Joseph M. Foley
Dr. Lonnie Hammargren
Mrs. June F. Whitley
Reno: Dr. Jill Derby
Dr. James Eardley
Mr. Daniel J. Klaich
Elko: Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher (via
Others present: Chancellor Mark H Dawson
President Joseph Crowley, UNR
Mr. Donald Klasic, General Counsel
Mr. Ron Sparks, Vice Chancellor
Dr. John Richardson, Vice Chancellor
Ms. Mary Lou Moser, Secretary
Also present was Unit Senate Chairman Diane Dietrich.
Chairman Sparks called the meeting to order at 10:10 A.M. Monday,
August 10, 1992.
1. Review of Nevada State Press Association Law Suit
Chairman Sparks stated that General Counsel Klasic had pro-
vided the Board with a written update on the law suit. Dr.
Hammargren informed the Board that just prior to this meet-
ing he had prepared a page of questions he would like an-
swered, and requested the discussion on this item be delayed
until that page could be sent by facsimile to Reno and Elko
so that the Board members would have the information before
them during the discussion.
2. New Business
Dr. Hammargren announced that he had information for the
Board concerning the land acquisition in Clark County
of approximately 118 acres of BLM land near the airport.
He stated that the party who was suing Clark County for
the land did not file an appeal with the U. S. Supreme
Court and that UCCSN could now pursue the purchase from
the County. Chairman Sparks referred to a letter re-
ceived from the Clark County Commission, dated July 9,
1992, in which they state the County still has plans to
develop a golf course on this property.
General Counsel Klasic cautioned that this matter was
not posted for this meeting, but will be on the agenda
for the August 27-28, 1992 meeting.
B. Mr. William Shields introduced himself, stating he was
a candidate for Regent Berkley's district.
C. Mrs. Gallagher asked that an item be placed on a future
agenda for the Regents to consider a policy concerning
payment of private attorneys. Mr. Klaich stated that
there is an existing statute which would have to be
3. Review of Nevada State Press Association Law Suit/Request
Copies of Dr. Hammargren's fax were distributed to those
present, filed as Ref. A with the permanent minutes. Mr.
Foley asked whether Dr. Hammargren wanted something more
than the written update from General Counsel.
Mr. Klaich stated that at least Questions No. 1 through 4
did not have anything to do with the noticed agenda, and to
act would be a clear violation of the Open Meeting Law to
have discussion on or to take action on at this time. Ques-
tion No. 5 concerned being allowed to listen to the tape of
the January 9, 1992 personnel session. General Counsel
Klasic stated that he had been in contact with Dr. Hammar-
gren's counsel on that matter, and the difficulty with al-
lowing anyone to listen to the tape was the necessity to
preserve the integrity of the tape inasmuch as the Court
has requested it be presented at a hearing on August 19,
1992. Dr. Hammargren's counsel stated that the same reasons
for not discussing Questions No. 1 through 4 would apply to
No. 5, but also that it would be his recommendation that no
action be taken to listen to that tape, that in order to
preserve the integrity and the chain of custody, the tape
be turned over to the Judge, who will listen to it, and make
a decision. Further, these questions are the ultimate is-
sues of law which are the subject of the law suit.
Mr. Foley called for a comment by General Counsel on Ques-
tion No. 6, "If General Counsel Klasic is counsel for the
Board of Regents, I demand that he furnish me with all cor-
respondence regarding this law suit which he has refused to
date." General Counsel Klasic stated that part of the prob-
lem is that Dr. Hammargren is fully aware of what has hap-
pened in this matter, that:
Not only has he received previously all of the corre-
spondence, and all of the documents which General
Counsel Klasic has had in this case up to July 22, 1992,
but he was present at the hearing on July 22, 1992 and
he knows exactly what the status of the case is.
The case has not gone any further from that which hap-
pened on July 22, 1992.
Essentially, the law suit was filed in March, 1992.
General Counsel Klasic filed a Motion for Summary Judge-
ment and an answer in April, 1992. Briefs were filed.
A hearing was scheduled for July 22, 1992. The Judge
decided to postpone the matter because she wanted to
listen to the tape. During the July 22, 1992 meeting,
she entertained an action by Dr. Hammargren which
he requested that General Counsel Klasic make, that
General Counsel Klasic withdraw as his counsel so that
he could get his own attorney, which she approved.
There was a request by the attorney for the Nevada State
Press Association to talk with Dr. Hammargren about this
case. General Counsel Klasic objected on the basis of
privilege. The Judge ordered Dr. Hammargren not to
talk to the attorney, pending the outcome of that motion
and that will be briefed. On August 19, 1992, the tape
will be delivered to the Court, and presumably General
Counsel Klasic will argue his motion on the privilege.
After August 19, 1992 and the Judge has had an opportu-
nity to listen to the tape, there will be another hear-
ing, but no date has been scheduled yet. At that time,
there will be a hearing on the motion.
On the issue of correspondence, General Counsel Klasic
informed the Board that Dr. Hammargren is not "being
kept in the dark"; that he certainly got full corre-
spondence prior to the time he got his own attorney; he
was present at the hearing in July. There is nothing
new since that time.
Mr. Klaich stated that he felt the Board was wasting a great
deal of time and wanted the meeting over as quickly as pos-
sible. He stated that Dr. Hammargren's first four questions
are insulting to every member of the Board and appear to be
nothing more than a calculated attempt to embarrass the
Board. He continued that with respect to Question No. 5,
he felt that General Counsel's suggestion of giving the tape
to the Judge is absolutely appropriate and the Judge should
deal with the tape in whatever manner she suggests. As far
as correspondence coming from General Counsel, he felt that
any member of the Board could have any of the correspondence
he/she wants. He stated that he was getting tired of the
sniping going on between Dr. Hammargren and General Counsel
Klasic, and the claim that everything that Dr. Hammargren
doesn't like being General Counsel Klasic's fault. He stat-
ed he does not feel this has anything to do with the Nevada
State Press Association law suit. He added that if Dr.
Hammargren has a problem with how General Counsel Klasic is
handling his job, then Dr. Hammargren should request the
Chairman of the Board to call a personnel session on General
Counsel Klasic to look into his competency; that it was the
only fair thing to do for General Counsel Klasic and the
only fair thing for Dr. Hammargren to do. Mr. Klaich stated
that he was getting bored with Dr. Hammargren's trying to be
an attorney as well as a Regent.
Chairman Sparks stated that in this matter Dr. Hammargren is
the most informed of anyone on the Board since he was actu-
ally present at the court hearing. She added that the Board
has done its best to satisfy his request for information,
and all his various requests, of which there have been many.
She stated she was not certain what was hoped to be satis-
fied by this meeting.
Chairman Sparks stated that there was a great deal of cor-
respondence from another attorney of Dr. Hammargren, Mr.
Alan Jones, and that she failed to see there was anything
left undone at this point.
Dr. Hammargren stated that the first thing he would like to
know is the Board's position in relation to the particular
issues involved. He stated the purpose was not to embar-
rass but was to "bring out in the open" the type of things
he felt the Board should be talking about. Chairman Sparks
asked him to be specific.
Dr. Hammargren stated that he would like to know whether the
Board of Regents is going to make their decisions in public
or in private, which is a very, very fundamental decision,
and specifically how they vote as to whether they should
have personnel sessions on themselves. That was the purpose
of the meeting, not embarrassment, but to make a better plan
for the future. Dr. Hammargren stated that he did not call
for the personnel session (January 9, 1992); people objected
to the personnel session going in; that he obeyed the rules
of the personnel session and that the only thing he said was
that "yes, it was a personnel session on me". He added
that other people didn't necessarily do that, but he kept
obeying the rules until he kept reading in the newspaper
about the law suits in which he was discussed. He stated
that he felt it was inconsistent to have an emergency item
introduced at the last Regents' meeting to protect against
a "flash article in the newspaper" when there are consistent
law suits that have not been brought to the Board, and the
issues have not been talked about by the Board, and they
are settled by either one or two people behind closed doors.
Mr. Foley stated that he did not feel anything was being
accomplished with these "wild accusations" from Dr. Hammar-
gren. He added that he felt about 80% of the Board's time
since Dr. Hammargren has been a member has been his demands,
and almost a command, that the Board devote all its time to
his business. He stated that so long as Dr. Hammargren
continues, he will continue to "holler" about it.
Mr. Foley moved that the Board deny the request by Dr.
Hammargren in Item 2 for attorney fees to be paid to his
special counsel, at his selection, in the law suit. Mr.
Mrs. Berkley asked that the Board hear Dr. Hammargren's
comments, that he obviously was frustrated and unhappy
with the procedures of this Board.
Mr. Foley stated that he had to leave the meeting but would
like to be notified when the vote would be taken.
Chairman Sparks stated she felt the Board has "bent over
backwards" to be fair to Dr. Hammargren; they had listened;
they had read "reams of paper"; there has not been anything
new or different presented in the last two months.
Dr. Hammargren continued that the intent was not to embar-
rass, unless the Board is embarrassed by the non-public way
it does business. Chairman Sparks objected to Dr. Hammar-
gren's accusation that the Board does business in a non-
public way. Dr. Hammargren stated that the waste of time
in this meeting was, in his mind, to try to discuss these
issues as a Board of Regents, and to come up with a deci-
sion, and instead, the first thing that was said was that
the Board could not talk about this, because it hadn't
been noticed specifically. He stated that the first four
questions were the "heart" issues of the Nevada State Press
Association law suit, which was noticed. He stated that he
found it strange that the Board could not discuss them, and
suggested that those items could be noticed again in detail.
He stated that he felt the Board was making a travesty of
the Open Meeting Law by demanding every little detail and
discussion be noticed.
Chairman Sparks stated that it was a law suit and details
should not be discussed, but the suit was reviewed. Dr.
Hammargren said that it was not a question of a review of
the past, that he was trying to make something constructive
of it, and that is, what is the position of the individual
Regents -- they can't meet privately and discuss this issue;
they can't meet publically and discuss this issue.
Mr. Klaich suggested that the Attorney General of the State
of Nevada, and the court system of the State of Nevada, are
charged with enforcing, interpreting the Open Meeting Law,
and that was not the job of the Board of Regents. He added
that was not making a mockery of the statute; it's not doing
anything, it is just saying it is the Board's job to take
care of higher education in the State of Nevada, or is it
the Board's job to interpret the Open Meeting Law? Mr.
Klaich related that the Attorney General has already ex-
pressed her opinion on most, if not all, of these questions.
If a District Judge in Clark County disagrees with that in-
terpretation, then that will be another interpretation of
Dr. Hammargren stated that helped him put into perspective
his thoughts, because he was the one who has been embar-
rassed, not the Board of Regents, in relation to this. He
agreed that it was not the Board's job to interpret State
law except as to how it does business every day, and he
felt every day that he is trying to learn how to do the
business, the rules change. He gave as an example, this
meeting in which the Chairman stated Dr. Hammargren could
review the January 9, 1992 tape, but Counsel said that he
Mr. Klaich declared Dr. Hammargren's comments was a mis-
statement because Counsel had not informed the Chairman of
his conversation with Mr. Dickerson (Dr. Hammargren's at-
torney); General Counsel corrected the Chairman as soon as
the statement was made and she stated that she was mistaken.
Mr. Klaich suggested that if Dr. Hammargren had a difference
with Mr. Dickerson, then the Board should hear about that,
but that he should not state that the rules had been changed
because that is not what happened. Chairman Sparks inter-
jected that Dr. Hammargren did know, through his attorney,
that he could not listen to the tape. Dr. Hammargren stated
that he did not know that.
Dr. Hammargren referred to some information which purported-
ly was sent to the Regents, that the Chairman and the Chan-
cellor had both told him about the information, but that he
was not privileged to the information, and that other Re-
gents were prevented from giving him that information in
relation to what the law suit at the present time was about.
He declared that communication was still withheld from him,
and so therefore there was misinformation that has purposely
Chairman Sparks, speaking to Dr. Hammargren, stated that he
has chosen to separate himself from the individual members
of the Board by seeking his own counsel. She stated that
the Board had not forced him to do this nor did they recom-
mend it. She stated that the Board is a 9-person elected
Board of Regents whose job is to oversee the policy and
budget making of the UCCSN. She added that Mr. Foley is
correct when he stated the Board has spent 80% of its time
in this last year dealing with items which have no interest
or concern to the other institutions in this System; it has
had to take an extreme amount of personal time and meeting
time to deal with subjects that simply are not pertinent
to this Board. She stated she felt the Board had given him
every courtesy, had made every attempt to provide him with
time in a forum to conduct his business, and he has chosen
to separate himself from the other members of this Board,
and that is not anything that the Board members feel they
have to deal with him personally. She stated she would
not feel the Board had to pay for any of its members' elec-
tions campaigns. She continued that if Dr. Hammargren
chooses to take a position separately from the individual
members of the Board, it is following the statutes of the
State of Nevada, the Code of UCCSN, it goes by the rules
established by the Board, and if he does not like those
rules, the Board can see about changing them. However, she
added, that the Board cannot constantly disrupt every action
it takes by something that Dr. Hammargren knows full well
going into the meeting the answer to every one of his ques-
tions. She stated that they have been discussed in full
detail and he did know where the Board stands on the items
and yet he persists in making a public spectacle of all
Dr. Hammargren questioned where the Board stands on any one
of the items, and asked for justification for that action.
Mr. Foley stated that it was done through discussion, and
suggested that Dr. Hammargren put his questions on the
agenda. Dr. Hammargren stated that Mr. Foley always inter-
rupts when he is talking, but that he remembers a famous
interruption Mr. Foley had made, because Mr. Foley had not
been present for the January personnel session, and when
served with the law suit, Mr. Foley had declared he was
going to sue because he was not a party to the session.
Dr. Hammargren asked why Mr. Foley was so upset with a law
suit in which he was not involved. Mr. Foley replied that
it wasn't the law suit that was upsetting him.
Mrs. Gallagher asked whether Dr. Hammargren's attorney was
present, with the answer being that he was not. Mrs.
Gallagher stated she felt the attorney would be delighted
with Dr. Hammargren being his own attorney after he had
retained an attorney. Dr. Hammargren replied that he was
not trying to be an attorney in the law suit, and added
that he was certain the attorney would "reprimand" him,
just as Mrs. Gallagher had suggested.
Dr. Hammargren stated that he was trying to get at the is-
sues of how the Board does business, which is what "people"
were trying to ignore.
Mrs. Gallagher stated she was highly offended with this
discussion because she did not feel that the Board does
business behind closed doors, and that she is offended
when Dr. Hammargren accuses the Board without any facts
that it is doing business behind closed doors. She added
that she feels he often times feel that because of his own
inattention. She stated she resented the manner in which
he is portraying this matter because he is "pointing fin-
gers" with "absolutely nothing" to support it.
Dr. Hammargren asked where was the deliberation of the
position of the Board of Regents on this issue.
Chairman Sparks asked for a clarification of the item 2 re-
quest since it appears that Dr. Hammargren has more than
one attorney. She asked if the request was for all at-
torneys and referred to the letter from Mr. Alan Jones.
Dr. Hammargren stated he was requesting only for this
situation and that is payment for Mr. Dickerson, and stated
he had asked the Secretary to change the notice to that
effect. He added that this request was only to do with
this particuar personnel item as a decision of can a
person have a different opinion? and added that "we all"
may have different personal opinions, but the Board does
have a collective decision. He stated that he would "go
along" with collective problems of the Board, but that is
not what led to this law suit, and the Board's own at-
torney, in writing, has said that he would not represent
Dr. Hammargren; would not present any opinion, even though
Counsel is representing Dr. Hammargren as an individual
and as the Board, and, therefore, Dr. Hammargren was abid-
ing by State law that allows that if there is a conflict,
a public official may have a representative of a different
Chairman Sparks again asked for a clarification, that
General Counsel Klasic has not said he would not represent
Dr. Hammargren; that Dr. Hammargren had made the request to
not be represented by General Counsel Klasic. General
Counsel Klasic answered Chairman Sparks' question that he
had not stated he would not represent Dr. Hammargren, that
Dr. Hammargren was referring to an affidavit he wanted
General Counsel to submit to the court which was entirely
contrary to the legal position this Board has taken, and
General Counsel Klasic told Dr. Hammargren that he just
did not believe he could do that. General Counsel Klasic
denied that he had at any time said he would not represent
Mr. Klaich made an analogy between questions asked of an
attorney and of a neurosurgeon. He stated the answers, in
his opinion, would depend on the circumstances of actions
of a particular case at a particular time, but if the
questions were asked in a vacuum, the answers would or
might be different.
Dr. Derby stated she felt there was an important issue
around the motion on the floor, and that has to do with
how the Board does business under the circumstances of
facing a law suit that pertains particularly to the behavior
of the Board of Regents. She continued that if there is a
division of opinion on how the law suit should be perceived,
she asked how the Board should deal with it.
Mrs. Berkley stated she tended to agree with Dr. Derby that
the Board does need to make a determination, and that her
opinion was that majority rules. She stated that her ques-
tion has to do with procedure, and when she was practicing
law her clients told her the position they wished the at-
torney to take, and she followed through with their wishes.
She added that she was not certain the Board did business
in that manner when it pertained to law suits that were
significant to them as a Board. She stated that it seemed
to her that General Counsel takes the lead in these matters
and the Board does not have the opportunity as a full Board
to come to an understanding as to what the Board's position
will be before it enlists the services of its attorney. She
stated she understood it was somewhat different when the
Board has an in-house attorney than when a client goes to
an attorney, but she felt the Board was lax, and that so
long as the Board was the client that it would make a deter-
mination as to what it wishes their attorney to present as
its position in a law suit and then the attorney carries
out its wishes. Mrs. Berkley stated that in this particu-
lar case, and it is indicative that all of the cases that
the Board is involved in, she did not recall, as a Board,
ever sitting down and having a frank and open discussion
about this law suit, and reaching a consensus, no matter
what the consensus is, of how to instruct the Board's at-
torney to go forward with the law suits. She stated she
felt that was the way the Board should do business. She
stated that what the Board generally tends to do is that
its counsel goes forward and then advises the Board members
of the progress. She stated she felt that was backwards.
Mrs. Whitley stated that in General Counsel Klasic's defense
there had been many occasions when he had called her and
asked her position on cases, and most of them were person-
nel cases, they discussed the cases and she gave her opinion
as a Regent, and that General Counsel Klasic would discuss
what some of the other Regents' positions were on the par-
ticular case. She stated that when it comes to hiring an
attorney outside the realm of General Counsel Klasic's
office, she did not agree with that. She continued, that
if, however, in a particular case, and this one might fall
into the realm of her statement, that there is a personnel
problem that General Counsel Klasic may not have the ex-
pertise for, or any other kind of problem, that she did not
see why this Board could not allow him to go outside the
office and hire a lawyer who does have that expertise. But,
she added, that it should be for the whole Board to decide,
not for an individual.
General Counsel Klasic stated that he felt Mrs. Berkley
had confused "apples and oranges" in this instance. He
explained that in most of the cases, the "slip and fall"
cases, the Board just does not get involved. He stated
that in other cases where something comes up and he does
not know what the Board plans to do for the future, he does
go to the Board every single time, because he does not know
what the Board position will be. He gave the example of the
NCAA vs. Miller case, in which he brought it forth to the
Board, the Board made a decision, and he acted accordingly.
Another example was one that happened a number of years ago
where the question was whether the System would back up a
couple of employees in the UNR College of Agriculture who
had problems with the Public Employees Retirement System.
That matter was brought to the Board and permission was
given to enter into the law suit on their behalf. He stated
that was the "apples".
General Counsel Klasic continued that this particular case
is the "oranges", because this is a situation where the
Board already took a decision. Its decision was to have a
closed meeting concerning one of its officers; the meeting
was held and the Board was sued over it. General Counsel
Klasic stated that the only thing he could have done was to
come to the Board and ask whether it wanted him to confess
judgment, or did it want to plead guilty? Obviously, he
stated, the Board did not want to do that or it would not
have had the meeting in the first place. General Counsel
Klasic stated that he filed a defense in behalf of the
Board. He declared that was standard operating procedure
for in-house counsel, and during the course of this law
suit, as things came up, he stated he has kept the Board
Chairman Sparks stated that the general procedure in the
8 years she has been receiving law suits, that when she
is served with anything, she immediately calls General
Counsel Klasic and gets the details. She added that it
is very seldom that Board members are served individually
on these suits.
Mrs. Berkley stated that with all due respect, not all Board
members were advised of that closed personnel session and
there were a number of Regents who walked into the closed
personnel session without knowing what it was all about,
and she felt that was a deliberate effort to keep some of
the members uninformed of what was to transpire. Mrs.
Whitley stated she was not aware, either, and when she
walked into the session she asked another Regent what the
session was about. Chairman Sparks explained that the
purpose of that meeting was to deal with a request by an
employee who had a problem. General Counsel Klasic stated
that the matter should not be discussed because the matter
is under litigation at this point.
General Counsel Klasic stated in response to some of the
comments he had just heard that while it may even be true
that some didn't know until that moment, a motion was made,
a second was made, there was discussion in open meeting as
to what the purpose of that meeting was going to be about,
and there was a vote taken. Those who objected could have
voted "no". The vote was unanimous in favor of going into
Chairman Sparks stated that it just happened that one Regent
happened to be the focus point, the intent of that meeting
was not to discuss any Regent, it was to have a meeting.
One Regent happened to have been the one involved in all of
this. Mrs. Whitley asked whether when the vote was taken
the question had been asked who the person was, or whether
there had been just a broad statement as is the usual man-
ner? General Counsel Klasic stated the individual was dis-
cussed in open session; that Dr. Hammargren was mentioned
in open session during the discussion of the motion.
Dr. Derby asked why Dr. Hammargren feels that it would be
appropriate for the Regents to pay for his special counsel.
Mrs. Gallagher stated that if the Board did pay for individ-
ual counsel for individual members, it would open up a con-
dition that the Board could not handle. The Board has been
through horrendous attorney fees the last year or two be-
cause it has been representing everybody on both sides of
the question insofar as paying for the attorneys. She
stated this would be setting a very poor precedent if the
Board volunteered to pay for any Regent's outside counsel
when it retains an office with competent attorneys to do as
the Board requests them. She emphasized that she would be
very opposed to setting that kind of precedence.
Dr. Hammargren stated he had not prepared a statement other
than that included in the memorandum previously mentioned.
He continued that in accordance with NRS 41.034, which
states: "Special counsel paid by the State may be employed
on behalf of a public officer when it has been determined
to be impractical, ... constitute a conflict of interest to
provide the usual defense." He stated that he felt it was
"crystal clear" by General Counsel Klasic's own word, "I do
not believe that submitting this affidavit would be in the
best interests of the remaining defendants in this case,
whom I also represent." (General Counsel Klasic's memo of
July, 1992.) He continued that General Counsel Klasic had
written there was a conflict of interest; he made some other
suggestions on the affidavit that were objections, so Dr.
Hammargren had them re-done according to General Counsel
Klasic's form, and then asked him again in court if he would
present them to the Judge and he refused, for the second
time. He continued that, therefore, the real issue is that
there is a conflict of interest and Nevada law covers that
very well. He added that the Board of Regents' position
may be different from him, and as an elected official,
everybody has that right to counsel.
Dr. Hammargren stated there was also another minor point
because ... it was an ambush, not by a concerted act of the
Board of Regents, but it was an ambush by a few people on
the Board, and that is, some people are notified ahead of
time, and they boycotted the meeting. He stated that Mr.
Foley left because he didn't believe in the personnel ses-
sion. Other people objected to the personnel session right
in the beginning; they then agreed to go along with it. Dr.
Hammargren continued that he happened to make the motion be-
cause he was advised that it was legal and he was "sort of
brash and impulsive" and not afraid of such a session. He
stated that he did not cause this action; that it was the
Board of Regents' action that caused this. And, he continu-
ed, it was also secretive action by select members of the
Board of Regents. And, so therefore, Dr. Hammargren stated,
that he felt he had the right as a "personnel", if he is a
"personnel", which the Board is trying to accuse him of be-
ing, then he asked for the rights of a personnel.
Dr. Derby asked that General Counsel Klasic comment on Dr.
Hammargren's comments. General Counsel Klasic stated he
did not think there was a conflict; Dr. Hammargren was sued
as a defendant; all members of the Board were sued as de-
fendants. The position he took, General Counsel Klasic
said, was consistent with that of defendants. He continued
that Dr. Hammargren attempted to file an affidavit which
took the position of the plaintiff, and that certainly is
not consistent with the position of the defendants. He
explained that if Dr. Hammargren wishes to go on the side
of the plaintiff, he can do that, that is his choice, but
the law doesn't say that the Board pays for someone to sue
them, the law states that the Board pays for a defense.
General Counsel Klasic stated that Dr. Hammargren has chosen
voluntarily to take that position.
Chairman Sparks repeated the motion, item number 2, whether
or not to pay Dr. Hammargren's private, individual law suit.
Dr. Hammargren corrected that, stating that it was to pay
his individual law suit as a Regent.
Mr. Foley related that the motion was that the Board not
pay for such special counsel. Chancellor Dawson asked
whether that pertained to the Legislative Commission inquiry
and the Grand Jury inquiry, or just the Nevada State Press
Association law suit? Mr. Foley stated that the motion was
to not pay for Dr. Hammargren's private counsel. Dr.
Hammargren stated he had not asked anyone to pay for his
private counsel, that he was asking the Board of Regents to
pay for the suit in which he had been sued as a Regent, not
as a private person. He continued that the motion has noth-
ing to do with what he asked for. Mr. Foley countered that
Dr. Hammargren is using private counsel, he is not using
the counsel the rest of the Board is using, which is the
counsel of the Board.
Mr. Klaich questioned Dr. Hammargren, stated that in a let-
ter of July 13, 1992 from Alan Jones to Chancellor Mark
Dawson, Alan Jones identified himself as Dr. Hammargren's
lawyer, and requested payment be made for the doctor's fees
in all these matters, the Legislative investigation, the
Grand Jury investigation and the Nevada State Press Associ-
ation litigation. General Counsel Klasic corrected that
Mr. Jones had asked for only two of those three. Mr. Klaich
asked whether the request of Dr. Hammargren was solely for
the Nevada State Press Association law suit? Dr. Hammargren
agreed in the affirmative. Mr. Foley stated that whatever
is on the agenda (Ref. B, filed with the permanent minutes)
in the nature of paying for Dr. Hammargren's counsel is a
motion to deny it. It was explained that a "yes" vote would
deny payment for Dr. Hammargren's outside counsel.
On a role call vote, the motion carried to deny payment for
Dr. Hammargren's outside counsel.
No : Regents Berkley, Hammargren
Aye: Regents Derby, Eardley, Foley, Gallagher, Klaich,
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 A.M.
Mary Lou Moser
Secretary of the Board