09/09/2010

BOARD OF REGENTS
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Sierra Building, Elizabeth Sturm Library
Truckee Meadows Community College
7000 Dandini Boulevard, Reno
Thursday, September 9, 2010, 9:00 a.m.
Friday, September 10, 2010, 8:30 a.m.
 
Members Present:        Mr. James Dean Leavitt, Chairman
Dr. Jason Geddes, Vice Chairman
Mr. Mark Alden                                  {via teleconference}
Dr. Andrea Anderson
Mr. Robert Blakely
Mr. William G. Cobb
Mr. Cedric Crear
Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mr. Kevin J. Page
Dr. Raymond D. Rawson
Mr. Michael B. Wixom
 
Members Absent:        Mr. Jack Lund Schofield
 
Others Present:            Chancellor Daniel J. Klaich
Executive Vice Chancellor & CEO, HSS, Maurizio Trevisan
Vice Chancellor, Academic & Student Affairs, Jane Nichols
Vice Chancellor, Administrative & Legal Affairs, Bart Patterson
Interim Vice Chancellor, Finance, Mark Stevens
Vice Chancellor, Health Sciences System, Marcia Turner
CEO & Special Counsel to the Board, Scott Wasserman
President Michael D. Richards, CSN
President Stephen G. Wells, DRI
President Carl Diekhans, GBC
President Lesley DiMare, NSC
President Maria C. Sheehan, TMCC
President Neal J. Smatresk, UNLV
President Milton D. Glick, UNR
President Carol A. Lucey, WNC
 
 
Also present were faculty senate chairs Mr. Bill Kerney, CSN; Ms. Laura Edwards, DRI; Ms. Sarah Negrete, GBC; Ms. Robin Herlands, NSC; Ms. Mary Arbutina, NSHE (Vice Chair); Dr. Cecilia Maldanado, UNLV; Dr. Eric Herzik, UNR; Mr. Scott Huber, TMCC; and Mr. Jim


Strange, WNC. Student government leaders present included Mr. J.T. Creedon, ASCSN President, CSN; Mr. Steve Gronstal; GRAD President, DRI; Ms. Jacqueline Lemback, SGA Vice President, GBC; Ms. Dymonde King, NSSA Vice President, NSC; Mr. David Rapoport, CSUN President, UNLV; Mr. Kyle George, GPSA President, UNLV; Mr. Charlie Jose, ASUN President, UNR; Mr. Matthew J. Smith, GSA President, UNR; Mr. Adam Porsborg, ASTM Board Chair, TMCC; and Mr. Jason McGill, ASWN President, WNC.
 
Chairman James Dean Leavitt called the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m. on Thursday, September 9, 2010, with all members present except for Regent Schofield.
 
President Sheehan introduced Mr. Kiet Tai Cao to sing the National Anthem. Mr. Cao is a student and lead performer in TMCC’s Musical -Theater Touring Company. Last year he was in two productions: “Rent,” and “The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee.” He will graduate in spring 2010 with a degree in musical theater.
 
Chairman Leavitt requested a moment of silence in honor of the recent passing of Ms. Robyn Render, NSHE’s Vice Chancellor of Information Technology, as well as the recent passing of Governor Kenny Guinn and of NSC President Fred Maryanski.
 
Chairman Leavitt congratulated Dr. Lesley DiMare as NSC’s newly appointed president.
 
1.                  Information Only - Introductions and Campus Updates (Agenda Item #1) - President Lucey reintroduced Mr. Dan Neverett, WNC’s Vice President of Finance and Administrative Services, Ms. Carol Lange, Interim Vice President of Student and Academic Affairs, WNC’s Faculty Senate Chair, Mr. Jim Strange and ASWN President, Mr. Jason McGill. She expressed her pride in the ASWN for taking on new service-related initiatives within the community and at the college.  President Lucey related that WNC continues to grow in its full-time degree seekers (a 10% increase). In addition, President Lucey was proud to report that as a result of Senator Reid’s efforts, WNC recently received a $150,000 appropriation to assist the local manufacturing community.
 
President Sheehan related that TMCC has embarked on a new initiative called Success First. She was proud to announce that TMCC received a National Science Foundation grant in the amount of $500,000 to launch the first geothermal plant operator training program, not only in the nation but also internationally. That effort was led by Dr. Jim Nichols, Physical Sciences faculty, and Dr. Ted Plaggemeyer, Dean of the School of Sciences. She added that Dr. Nichols and Dean Plaggemeyer will be working closely with DRI and UNR to keep that initiative fresh. 
 
President Diekhans related that the grand opening of GBC’s Paul and Gwendolyn Leonard Center for Student Life building would be held the following week. GBC has also recently learned of a donation for a 2,500 watt wind turbine to be installed on campus as part of the alternative energy phase for student demonstration projects for GBC’s vocational programs. GBC also received a $1 million federal grant for enhancing the geothermal program. In addition, Senator Reid’s staff just notified them that the United States Senate Appropriation Committee has moved forward with an additional $1 million for that geothermal enhancement and a $200,000 appropriation for jobs for the next decade. 


1.         Information Only - Introductions and Campus Updates (Agenda Item #1) - (Cont’d.)
President Diekhans related that the installation of 67 kilowatt solar panels on the High Tech Center will be the final phase of the alternative energy student demonstration project that will be used for student training. President Diekhans reported that GBC’s Foundation will be moving forward with a $12 million to $15 million target capital campaign to fund scholarships, new and emergent programs, sustainability, health sciences, the Center for Emergent Technologies, and a new facility in Nye County. 
 
President Richards introduced Interim Vice President for Administration, Dr. Chemene Crawford and related that Mr. Larry Mason has been appointed as Chief Diversity Officer at CSN. Over the last several weeks, a number of positive things have occurred at CSN including the dedication of the fire station and training facility on August 30th and the Engelstad building addition that will allow CSN to offer a premier set of programs in the allied health fields. CSN’s enrollment is approaching approximately 5% growth for the fall 2010 semester. The science lab in the Cheyenne campus will soon be under construction to upgrade those facilities. President Richards related that several solar panels have been installed on the roof of the D Building as part of CSN’s ongoing solar master plan in order for all three CSN campuses to implement green technology and reduce operating costs.
 
President DiMare introduced NSSA Vice President, Ms. Dymonde King as well as NSC’s Interim Provost for the 2010 academic year, Dr. Erika Beck. She was pleased to report that on November 4 and 5, 2010, NSC will be hosting the Southwest Technology Fellow Showcase, which is an outcome of the Southwest Technology Institute. Five western states are involved and this is the first southwest regional conference. She was pleased to say that the NSHE and the Southwest Technology Institute were co-sponsors of this event with NSC. Currently over 100 participants have registered. NSC is looking forward to highlighting the classroom technology that has made their institution so successful. In addition, President DiMare related that NSC recently received a Blackboard Catalyst Award, which was a national award. NSC’s enrollment increase projections are conservatively estimated to be between 5% and 7%.
 
President Wells introduced DRI’s new Executive Vice President of Research, Dr. Terry Surles. Dr. Surles has had a distinguished career that includes being the technology integration and policy analyst program manager at the University of Hawaii’s Natural Energy Institute as well as serving at the Senior Advisor at the University of California’s Institute for Energy and Environment, the Vice President of Electric Power Research Institute, the program director for public interest research for the California Energy Commission, associate laboratory director for energy programs at Lawrence Livermore and the program general manager for Argon Programs. President Wells felt that Dr. Surles comes to DRI at the right time when Nevada is looking at areas of renewable energy. It was also his pleasure to introduce the GRAD Vice President, Mr. Charles Norton, who received his undergraduate degree from UNR in mechanical engineering and is now pursuing a master’s degree in geography on analyzing evapotransferation in Nevada from satellite imagery.
 


1.         Information Only - Introductions and Campus Updates (Agenda Item #1) - (Cont’d.)
President Wells was proud to report that the American Indian Science and Engineering Society announced that Dr. Karletta Chief was one of the recipients of the Most Promising Engineer Scientist Award, a prestigious award presented by the American Indian Science and Engineering Society. Dr. Chief is currently a post doctoral fellow at DRI-Las Vegas. She is a first-generation college student, having earned her bachelor’s and master’s in civil engineering at Stanford. She also served as Ms. Navajo Nation and represented her people as a leader, role model and environmental advocate. In addition, Dr. Chief was a National Science Foundation post doctoral fellow at the University of Arizona before coming to DRI where her research interests are in groundwater hydrology and soil hydrology. He stated that this was truly a remarkable award and that DRI was proud of Dr. Chief.
 
Dr. Marc Johnson, Provost, UNR, related that he was standing in for President Glick who was observing a religious day. Provost Johnson introduced Dr. Cheryl Hug English, recently appointed as Interim Dean of the University of Nevada School of Medicine (UNSOM). He related that during Dr. Hug English’s tenure at the UNSOM, she has served in numerous roles including as assistant and associate dean of admission and student affairs, she has served on the integrated clinical services board related to the practice plan and has served on several curriculum committees. Provost Johnson introduced Dr. Ronald Pardini, Interim Dean of the College of Agriculture, Biotechnology and Natural Resources (CABNR). Dr. Pardini has a great deal of experience within CABNR as well as with the Nevada Agriculture Experiment Station. He has served as an acting dean and director of CABNR during the reorganization and has now been selected as Interim Dean beginning in the fall 2012. 
 
Provost Johnson reported that for fall of 2010, UNR experienced a 5% increase in its student body, including a 27% increase in the freshman class. He stated that UNR was excited that this was also the best qualified class with 38 national merit scholars in attendance this year. This is also the most diverse class with an 11% increase in enrollment of students of minority ethnic groups. Also, for the first time, UNR achieved 80% retention of freshman. With all of that activity on campus, UNR’s research and service grants have continued to increase slightly. He acknowledged the recruiters for their efforts in bringing this kind of class to the campus.
 
Chairman Leavitt asked what UNR’s intentions were for securing permanent leadership for the UNSOM. Provost Johnson replied that a search firm is being utilized to identify candidates for a meet and greet and then select candidates will be fully interviewed. Regent Alden stated that he would like to see Dr. Hug English considered for the permanent position. Provost Johnson replied that if Dr. Hug English could be talked into applying for the position, the School of Medicine would certainly be happy to have her.
 
President Smatresk related that UNLV had hosted a visit by United States President Barrack Obama. More recently UNLV hosted the National Clean Energy Conference for the third time. President Smatresk added that the conference is an excellent opportunity to network with experts from all over the country in areas of green and renewable energy. UNLV also hosted the Financial Crisis Commission which is akin to the 9-11 Commission that helped to highlight some of the financial issues facing Nevada.


1.         Information Only - Introductions and Campus Updates (Agenda Item #1) - (Cont’d.)
President Smatresk related that UNLV has survived the iNtegrate process. He stated that from his experience at other institutions, the installation of large student information systems has taken two to three years and brought the institution to its knees. However, at UNLV the project took only one year and little extra staffing. He publicly thanked all those that participated by performing two jobs during a successful project integration, which was all the more poignant due to the loss Ms. Robyn Render who had been critical to UNLV’s success.
 
President Smatresk related that Dr. Tim Porter had been appointed as Dean of the College of Science and Dr. Rama Venkat had been appointed as Dean of the College of Engineering. In addition, Mr. Donald Snyder was recently appointed as the Interim Dean of the College of Hotel Administration.
 
In terms of campus enrollment and atmosphere, President Smatresk reported that there had been a predictable drop in graduate enrollment, particularly in the College of Education due to the programs that were cut last year. That impact of that enrollment change resulted in neutral growth. President Smatresk related that this is the most engaged group of students that he has seen in a long time. The freshmen and lower division underclassmen have many more services available to them than ever before. There is more excitement and enthusiasm for campus life. More students are using UNLV’s Academic Success Center, and as a result freshmen retention is modestly up and continues to improve. 
 
On a final note, President Smatresk stated that there are significant discussions on the UNLV campus and throughout the state related to the PEBP changes to employee health benefits. He felt that, particularly for those in the lowest paid salary brackets who could ill afford the changes, there were health threats as a result of some of the changes. He encouraged everyone to consider that this is a stressful time in Nevada, and one in which we can make sure that we can take care of those that are particularly close to the edge.
 
Chancellor Klaich related that in addition to UNLV’s participation in the iNtegrate project, TMCC also participated as a pilot institution. Although the process was not without some pain, it went well and he thanked the TMCC staff for their herculean efforts. He also thanked staff from SCS and the other institutions for their hard work in support of this project. 
 
 
Chairman Leavitt related that Regent Schofield was unable to attend the Board meeting as he was at home caring for his wife.
 
The meeting recessed at 9:42 a.m. and reconvened at 2:20 p.m. on Thursday, September 9, 2010, with all members present except Regents Alden and Schofield.
 
 


2.                  Information Only - Institutional Student and Faculty Presentations (Agenda Item #2) - President Sheehan introduced Mr. James Blood, graduate of TMCC. Mr. Blood transferred to TMCC to pursue a degree in Culinary Arts after spending some time as a Music Education major at UNR. Interested more in restaurant operations, Mr. Blood submitted a business plan to the TMCC Business Plan competition and won first place, motivating him to go on and win Third Place in the Nevada Governors Cup Business Plan Competition.  After graduating from TMCC, Mr. Blood joined forces with the local business incubator, C4Cube, which helped him realize his goal of restaurant ownership by putting him in touch with financing sources and other resources critical for small business operation. His restaurant, MJ's Pizzeria, opened on June 30, 2010, and caters to special tastes with Classic, Vegetarian, Vegan, and Gluten-Free options on all of his items. He plans to grow the business into a national chain with sit-down facilities and delivery operations.
 
President Sheehan then introduced Dr. William J. Mehm, TMCC faculty member. Prior to joining the biology faculty at TMCC in the fall of 2005, Dr. Mehm served 26 years as a Biomedical Science Corps Officer in the United States Air Force. He is author of 31 scientific publications in the fields of cell biology, toxicology, aerospace physiology, hyperbaric medicine, wound healing and histotechnology. Prior to entering the military, Dr. Mehm taught secondary school in Los Angeles, was employed as a Reno City Fireman, and was a member of the Reno Philharmonic Orchestra, Opera Company and Chamber Orchestra. Dr. Mehm’s academic interests include incorporating critical thinking skills into the curriculum, developing an integrated multi-disciplinary educational approach, and developing state-of-the-art laboratory exercises. He also has a keen interest in K-12 outreach, academic administration and student leadership.
 
 
3.                  Information Only – Chairman’s Report (Agenda Item #3) - Chairman James Dean Leavitt expressed his gratitude and appreciation to the members of the Board and the staff throughout the System for doing more with less. He indicated that the System was looking toward the next legislative session, adding that there would be as much time spent discussing revenues as there is time spent discussing expenditures.
 
 
4.                  Information Only – Chancellor’s Report (Agenda Item #4) - Chancellor Daniel J. Klaich presented a legislative plan.  (Reference material on file in the Board office)
 
Chancellor Klaich thanked the presidents for their assistance in crafting the legislative plan being presented to the Regents. He also thanked the presidents, the faculty and the students in advance for their assistance in implementing the plan as it will require a team effort.
 
Chancellor Klaich stated that the NSHE and higher education are absolutely integral to the future of Nevada. Although he felt that was generally understood, what he has not seen is the coordination of goals between the state and the System. 


4.         Information Only – Chancellor’s Report (Agenda Item #4)(Cont’d.)
When considering the current or future economy, the Nevada System of Higher Education will have to rely more upon itself, its internal services and on its own entrepreneurial spirit in order to survive and prosper. To succeed, the System must have the flexibility to allow the presidents to work with their administrations, faculty and students to make decisions that will best serve the state of Nevada. That means that 100% of the fees, out-of-state tuition or differential fees generated by the campuses need to say on the campuses. He felt that would be a critical first step not only toward developing an entrepreneurial spirit but also to creating a transparency and pricing of education that currently does not exist. Many of the special fees reviewed by the Board each December are in response to the inflexible state budgeting procedures that the NSHE must adhere to. However, many of those fees may be reversed if the System is allowed to separate from the way in which the state supports it.
 
Chancellor Klaich related that Vice Chancellor Nichols provides a report from time to time on the future of the state of Nevada and how more graduates, Ph.D., baccalaureate and master’s degree earners are needed in this state. The System will have to do more but perhaps not with more resources. However, things can be done such as getting students to graduation faster in whatever way possible such as limiting credits, accelerated programs, better articulation and transfer or better partnerships with the K-12 schools primarily in the two main urban areas. 
 
Chairman Leavitt asked if more of certain types of graduates are needed in areas such as math and science and perhaps fewer in English and history. Chancellor Klaich replied there was a delicate balance between the different institutions within the System. The community colleges are the first in line for quick response and turnaround and meeting the community’s immediate needs. In regard to the two universities, he would not encourage that they become polytechnic institutes, nor would he speak against a broad liberal arts education that teaches young people critical thinking skills. However, he did feel that an alignment has been missing between the state’s goals and the ones that are reflective of the university systems, such as workforce development and research. The state of Nevada needs to partner more with the System on research. In response to the question of why the System is losing out on grants, the reply is that the state of Nevada needs to be the System’s partner to bring the best minds to those critical areas.
 
Chancellor Klaich related that the legislative plan will challenge the presidents to produce more graduates, research and workforce grants without having identified the resources to accomplish that. No one is underestimating the hard work and additional workloads over the last few years. Everyone appreciates that more is already being done with less. However, the reality is that more must be done.
 
Chancellor Klaich emphasized that the efficiency and effectiveness initiative is not a budget cutting exercise. The efficiency and effectiveness initiative is to understand that the System may be called upon to do more with less and that the critical functions are in the laboratories, classrooms and faculty. It is critical to look at every service offered and ask if it is being done in the best way possible. The System owes it to the students and


4.         Information Only – Chancellor’s Report (Agenda Item #4)(Cont’d.)
faculty to turn over every rock. Although he did not have a dream of manifest destiny, he did have a dream to get more students through school more quickly and help get the state out of the situation it is currently in so that there is a brighter future for its children and grandchildren.
 
Chancellor Klaich stated that as the System becomes more entrepreneurial, it needs to be cognizant of the state’s demographics and its disproportionate population of low-income and underrepresented minorities. He personally felt that there was an absolute moral obligation to ensure that everyone has an opportunity for a better future. He also personally felt that every child in the state has the innate ability to learn if given the chance. For the alternative, the state could decide to either educate its people or make them dependent upon the social services network or the corrections network which would doom Nevada to a downward spiral. Either way, it is imperative to make sure that as the System becomes more entrepreneurial, that it does not leave people behind due to the inability to pay.
 
Chancellor Klaich related that partnerships and accountability would also be important. There is an absolute responsibility of the Systems to assure that every tax dollar is spent once and wisely. For instance, President Richards is currently talking with the Clark County School District to potentially use their career training academy facilities after school hours to help students stay off the street and allow them to begin working on their college education. 
 
Finally, Chancellor Klaich related that he will be on a relentless pursuit of honest numbers. He felt that there was nothing more important than the credibility of what the System says to the public, legislators and the Governor. Ultimately, that credibility will spill down to the taxpayers. There is challenge in changing the culture of the state of Nevada to value higher education. He felt that the System was improving, although it was not where he wanted it to be. He related that the iNtegrate project was a step forward in that regard as it was a project that had been completed on time, under budget and without the use of state dollars.
 
Going forward, Chancellor Klaich related that with the faculty’s help, he envisions a more self reliant and streamlined system. The System can spend wisely and make choices and prioritize, but if it is to serve Nevada, it needs a long term commitment from Nevada to the importance of higher education. He again thanked the presidents for their efforts.
 
Regent Wixom felt that Chancellor Klaich had made the most eloquent and articulate statement on the purpose of higher education that he has heard during his six years on the Board and hardily endorsed the Chancellor’s comments. He hoped that the Board would have the opportunity to take action to endorse the legislative plan. He commended the Chancellor and presidents for a positive and hard effort. When thinking about what the System has been through over the last few years, a great deal of credit needs to be placed on the administrations of the institutions as well as the faculty and staff. Chancellor Klaich stated that it was important not to forget the students as they have been the foot soldiers in the legislature and the community.


4.         Information Only – Chancellor’s Report (Agenda Item #4)(Cont’d.)
Regent Cobb asked if Chancellor Klaich has had an opportunity to speak with either gubernatorial candidate about the content of the presented plan. Chancellor Klaich stated that he has provided the legislative plan to both candidates and that they have acknowledged its receipt although there has not been a formal discussion as yet.
 
Regent Gallagher was not only pleased with the Chancellor’s presentation, but also with his attitude. The System has the opportunity to come up with something that will become a partnership with the state and the students. Chancellor Klaich noted that President Lucey had made a comment that the faculty is excited about the opportunity to change the lives of the students.  He felt the challenge would be not to think about business as usual, but rather about how to conduct business better.
 
Regent Page concurred that the Chancellor had provided an excellent report.
 
 
5.                  Approved – Consent Agenda (Agenda Item #5) – The Board of Regents’ approved the Consent Agenda in its entirety (Consent Agenda on file in the Board office).
 
(1.)       Approved – Minute (Consent Agenda Item (1.))– The Board of Regents’ approved the minutes from the June 3-4, 2010, Board of Regents’ meeting (Ref. C-1 on file in the Board office).
 
(2.)       Approved - Annual Reports of Tenure Granted to Academic Faculty Upon Hire (Consent Agenda Item (2.)) – The Board of Regents approved the request of Mr. Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Executive Officer and Special Counsel for acceptance of the annual reports to the Board from the Presidents of each institution naming any individual to whom tenure upon hire was granted pursuant to the provisions of Title 2, Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1 (b2) (Ref. C-2 on file in the Board office).
 
(3.)       Approved - New Endowment, CSN (Consent Agenda Item (3.))– The Board of Regents approved the request of CSN President Michael D. Richards to accept a new endowment from CSN faculty, staff, private donors and local car dealerships such as Friendly Ford, and Henderson and Fairway Chevrolet, to establish an Automotive Scholarship endowment to benefit students of the College of Southern Nevada who are pursuing an Associate in Applied Science degree with a major in Automotive (Ref. C-3 on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Wixom moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Regent Gallagher seconded. Motion carried.  Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
 
6.                  Information Only – Public Comment (Agenda Item #6) – Mr. Sebring Frehner, NSSA Senator, NSC, presented additional personal stories of NSC students related to the last legislative session (on file in the Board office).
 


7.                  Approved - Handbook and Procedure & Guidelines Manual Revision, Differential Program Fees (Agenda Item #7) – The Board of Regents approved the proposed policies and procedures concerning differential program fees (Title 4, Chapter 10, new Section 16; and Procedures and Guidelines Manual, Chapter 7, new Section 6). The proposed policies outline the permissible use of revenue generated from approved differential program fees and further specify the information that must be included in all differential program fee proposals (Ref. BOR-7 on file in the Board office).
 
Ms. Crystal Abba, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs, expressed her gratitude to the business officers, the provosts and Interim Vice Chancellor Stevens for their critical roles in the development of this challenging policy over the last two years.  
 
Ms. Abba related that at the April 2010 special meeting, the Board of Regents adopted a policy authorizing institutions to implement differential program fees as recommended by the Tuition and Fees Committee. The Board’s approval of that policy included a mandate to the Chancellor and his staff to develop policies and procedures for the administration of differential program fees, including but not limited to guidelines for the expenditure of revenue generated from such fees.
 
Ms. Abba explained that the policy proposal before the Board comes in two parts. The first part outlines the permissible use of funds generated from approved differential programs fees. The second part relates to the parameters and guidelines to the institutions that must be included in proposals as they come forward. Ms. Abba indicated that policies related to graduate-level courses will be presented to the Board in December, as well as each institution’s individual proposals for differential program fees.
 
Ms. Abba referred to page 4 of the reference material that outlines use of fees, including a statement that the institutions shall retain all of the dollars generated and that those fees will not be included as part of the state supported operating budget; that the funds generated must be used for the direct benefit of the program; that a significant portion of the funds generated will be set aside for financial aid (15% for the community colleges and 10% for the universities); that any use of these funds outside of this policy must be approved by the Board. There is also the requirement that the institutions must annually report to the Chancellor’s office how the funds have been expended and how the programs have benefited.
 
Ms. Abba referred to page 5 of the reference material that outlines the parameters for the institutions’ proposals. Those parameters include requirements that the institutions disclose to the Board how students have been involved in the development of the fees, identification of all special course fees and elimination of those fees that are not directly related to consumables except as indicated, and justification of high-demand or high-cost programs. In addition, the institutions must estimate revenues generated from the proposed program fee based on projected program enrollments and how such funds would be extended to support the program.
 


7.        Approved - Handbook and Procedure & Guidelines Manual Revision, Differential Program Fees (Agenda Item #7)(Cont’d.)
Regent Wixom moved approval of the proposed policies and procedures concerning differential program fees (Title 4, Chapter 10, new Section 16; and Procedures and Guidelines Manual, Chapter 7, new Section 6). Regent Gallagher seconded. 
 
Regent Cobb referred to page 5, section 8, paragraph 3 and asked if the proposal precludes differential fees for remedial classes. Ms. Abba stated that was correct.
 
Regent Cobb asked if any thought had been given to assessing differential fees for remedial classes. Chancellor Klaich related that the Board will begin to see more action on remedial courses, including fees and hopefully revisions to the funding formula. He stated that President Sheehan was spearheading an effort to revitalize remedial education at TMCC through testing and hard data to determine where areas of difficulty exist and how best to provide remediation in those areas. There is not a way to account for that in the current formula. He felt that over the next year, staff would present to the Board an entirely different approach to remedial education, including a review of best practices throughout the United States. 
 
President Smatresk asked Ms. Abba to elaborate on the role of self supporting in terms of remedial education. Ms. Abba explained that since the fall of 2006, remedial courses at the universities have been self-funded, while those courses are state-supported at the community college level. She indicated that there will need to be future discussions on those funding mechanisms.
 
Motion carried. Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
 
8.                  Information Only - Update on the Regents’ Efficiency and Effectiveness Initiative for the Nevada System of Higher Education (Agenda Item #8) - Vice Chairman Jason Geddes and Chancellor Daniel J. Klaich presented a report on the progress of the Efficiency and Effectiveness (E&E) initiative (Reference material on file in the Board office).
 
Chancellor Klaich thanked Chairman Leavitt for appointing Regent Page as a liaison to this effort and to bring his private sector influence as well.
 
Chancellor Klaich presented a Memorandum to the Board that includes information on the mission of the Community College Task Force to bring forward substantive recommendations on how the colleges can be better utilized to fulfill their critical role within the System. He related that Vice Chancellor Nichols has brought the librarians from within the System together to determine if there are areas of commonality that can be shared and Vice Chancellor Patterson will assist in the controversial aspect of looking at the administrative functions throughout the System. Chancellor Klaich related that the System will be looking at how it conducts its business. He does not expect the process to


8.         Information Only - Update on the Regents’ Efficiency and Effectiveness Initiative for the Nevada System of Higher Education (Agenda Item #8) – (Cont’d.)
be easy or pleasant. He also indicated that he did not have any preconceived notions on the initiative’s outcome, but wanted to make sure that best practices were being incorporated every step of the way. The System will rely on the expertise of its business officers and from constituents outside of the System. Metrics will be developed for transparent reporting that will be posted on the System’s website and available to the public. He emphasized that no matter how modest or significant the savings, the results will be reported.
 
Chairman Leavitt related that fourteen months ago the Board took a leap of faith when it moved to quarterly meetings. The presidents have indicated to him that the quarterly meetings have been very helpful. He asked the Regents for their input, if the quarterly meetings have helped the Board focus more on policy.
 
Regent Cobb was pleased to see that the task force will be chaired and mainly comprised of individuals from outside of the System. He thanked Regents Wixom, Geddes and Page for their efforts on this initiative.
 
Regent Geddes stated that, although the initiative has experienced a delayed start, the Board as a whole has been moving in this direction through its decision to move to quarterly meetings, the consolidation of selected reports, the review of what should or should not be brought to the Board and moving to electronic class catalogs and schedules.
 
Regent Wixom questioned if the quarterly meeting occurred often enough to address ongoing issues. Although he felt that special meetings were less cumbersome, he questioned whether the number of special meetings offset the reduced number of regular meetings. 
 
Mr. Wasserman responded that he has considered that aspect and found that even when the Board was having six regular meeting per year, a number of special meetings were still necessary, particularly for budget issues. He was certain that regardless of the number of regular meetings, there would still be the need for just as many special meetings due to the nature of special meetings. He indicated that he would research the meeting statistics and provide a definite answer to the Board. 
 
Regent Geddes asked that costs of staff time and travel also be considered. Regent Wixom agreed that was a fair consideration.
 
Chancellor Klaich felt that the staff and presidents would unanimously agree that the System has been able to function effectively within the quarterly meeting schedule. He felt that the Board needed to take some credit in having reviewed its own functions and determined what burdens could be lessened in order for it to focus on policy. Chancellor Klaich related that Regents Geddes and Page will be relied upon heavily to review and consider items that come before the Board so that more serious items can be discussed. 
 


8.         Information Only - Update on the Regents’ Efficiency and Effectiveness Initiative for the Nevada System of Higher Education (Agenda Item #8) – (Cont’d.)
Regent Anderson stated that although she only had experience with the quarterly meeting schedule, she felt that the System functioned well, and, given the current economy, she noted more frequent meetings would result in additional costs of staff time and travel.
 
Regent Gallagher cautioned that a strong governance system has been created with the current Chancellor and presidents. However, going forward, it would be important for the Regents to be kept informed. The only criticism she has found is when she is contacted by the public regarding something that she has not been made aware of. She felt that made the Board look ineffective. She was not suggesting that the Board had to be involved in everything, just informed. Chairman Leavitt agreed and stated that a greater faith and trust has been placed on the Chancellor and the presidents.  
 
Regent Knecht noted the Chancellor’s use of two important keywords, quality and excellence, and asked if those terms would remain two important guideposts in pursuing the System’s new direction. Chancellor Klaich indicated that those would by necessity need to be the System’s guideposts or he was not doing his job.
 
Regent Knecht related that at a previous Investment and Facilities Committee meeting, an item had come up that required immediate Board action or it could not be addressed again for another year. He felt that could be a real problem and would happen more often when meeting four times per year.  He indicated his support of the quarterly meeting schedule but felt that it was premature to come to a final conclusion and suggested that a full two year cycle was needed before a final judgment could be made. 
 
President Richards stated that from an institution perspective, the quarterly meeting schedule works well, particularly with the flexibility of adding items to special meeting agendas as necessary.
 
President Sheehan agreed. She expressed her appreciation of Regent Anderson’s comments in terms of the cost of staff time and travel.
 
Regent Crear felt that four meetings per year came around just as quickly as six meetings per year. He felt that the Regents were engaged throughout the course of the meeting. He stated that Regent Gallagher had made an important statement that the institutions need to communicate well with the Board. There were some institutions that he never hears from and there are some instances where northern and southern Regents also never speak with each other. He said that trusting the presidents and Chancellor to provide honest and accurate information was helpful in mitigating the need for fewer meetings.
 
Regent Blakely expressed his support of the quarterly meeting schedule feeling that it reflected the Board’s commitment to the efficiency and effectiveness initiative. He also agreed with the Chancellor’s report that indicated that although this initiative would challenge the presidents, they all need to be on board.
 


8.         Information Only - Update on the Regents’ Efficiency and Effectiveness Initiative for the Nevada System of Higher Education (Agenda Item #8) – (Cont’d.)
Chairman Leavitt thanked Chancellor Klaich and Regents Geddes and Page for their work on this initiative.
 
Regent Alden stated that he would like the Board to move to a two meetings per year schedule.
 
 
The meeting recessed at 3:47 p.m. and reconvened at 3:56 p.m. on Thursday, September 9, 2010, with all members present except for Regents Alden and Schofield. 
 
 
9.                  Approved - 2010-2017 Strategic Plan, CSN (Agenda Item #9) – The Board of Regents’ accepted CSN President Michael D. Richards’ report on the CSN 2010-2017 Strategic Plan (Ref. BOR-9a and BOR-9b on file in the Board office).
 
President Richards introduced Dr. Joan McGee, Co-Chair of CSN’s Strategic Planning Committee as well as one of the Committee’s members, Dr. Hyla Winters. President Richards emphasized that many people had been involved in this plan over the course of several years. The following outline of the report was presented and discussed:
 
Ø The Process: Grassroots - Fall 2008, Stage I:
      Committee of 23.
      Purpose: Create mission, vision, and values statements.
      Needs assessments, environmental scan, etc.
      Three town hall meetings.
      Board of Regents approval of mission, vision, values statements April 2, 2009.
 
Ø Fall 2009 and Spring 2010 - Stage II:
      Committee of 21.
      Purpose: Develop goals and objectives.
      Integration with new NWCCU standards for regional accreditation.
      Three town hall meetings.
      Sub-committees: Themes of quality, access and diversity.
 
Dr. Chemene Crawford, Interim Vice President of Administration, CSN, continued the presentation:
 
Ø CSN Mission:
      The College of Southern Nevada creates opportunities and changes lives through access to quality teaching, services, and experiences that enrich our diverse community. 
      Core Themes: Quality, Access, Diversity


9.        Approved - 2010-2017 Strategic Plan, CSN (Agenda Item #9)(Cont’d.)
Ø Core Theme 1: Quality:
Definition: Shape the CSN culture by making quality a chief value and design principle in every college policy, procedure, plan, and initiative. 
Ø Goal 1:  Enhance CSN’s Reputation.
Ø Goal 2: Maintain a quality workforce within the institution.
 
Ø Core Theme 2: Access:
Definition: Create guided pathways for students via access to quality educational opportunities and services that inspire and encourage goal achievement.
Ø Goal 1: Every person seeking an education from CSN will have access to a wide variety of educational opportunities.
Ø Goal 2: Every person seeking an education from CSN will have access to services that support his or her educational endeavors.
Ø Goal 3: Enhance partnerships with the community and local businesses.
 
Ø Core Theme 3: Diversity:
Definition: Shape the CSN culture by making diversity a chief value and design principle in every College policy, procedure, plan, and initiative.
Ø Goal 1: CSN is a model of diversity and inclusion for our students, our service area, and all individuals within our sphere of influence.
Ø Goal 2: CSN is a supportive and open community predicated on mutual trust, respect, and support.
Ø Goal 3: CSN provides underrepresented students the skill sets necessary to be successful.
 
President Richards continued the presentation:
 
Ø Beyond Goals and Objectives:
Implementation Plan:
      Strategies
      Key Performance Indicators
      Offices of Responsibility
      Assessment
      Timelines
 
Retrenchment plan:
      Processes
      Principles
      Priorities
      Beyond Goals and Objectives
 
Annual Updates and Reporting:
      Baseline Data
      Continual Improvement Process
      Assessment
      Revising


9.        Approved - 2010-2017 Strategic Plan, CSN (Agenda Item #9)(Cont’d.)
Regent Anderson asked what the current ratio of full-time faculty versus part-time was in relation to CSN’s goal. President Richards replied that the ratio is currently 50 to 50 with the goal being 60 to 40. He added that a number of the objectives in the strategic plan correlate with the Chancellor’s legislative plan. Regent Anderson felt that it was critical to increase the part-time faculty support.
 
Regent Rawson felt that the Chancellor had to be excited to see that some of the institutions were already moving in the direction of his strategic plan, such as increasing graduation rates. He felt that accountability was also important and asked President Richards to keep the Regents updated as the plan moves forward. He stated that it was important to decrease the time required to earn a degree but felt that the efficiency and effectiveness initiative would help. It was also important to increase aggressiveness with grant funding. Overall he was impressed with the direction that the System was heading.
 
Regent Wixom also felt it had been an impressive presentation and echoed Regent Rawson’s observations for the general direction that the System is heading. However, his general concern was that the institution strategic plans were missing some performance indicators such as the going to college rate issue. He asked to start seeing some specific indicators on those rates. He related that he had spoken at a high school level counselor convention a few years ago where they had expressed anxiousness on their part to find out more information from colleges. He noted that there were not any specific numbers or numerical objectives in the strategic plans for graduation rates and retention rates.  Overall, he stated that he would much like to see the System take it to another level and include measurable indicators in the strategic plans of each institution.
 
Regent Anderson moved acceptance of the report. Regent Gallagher seconded.
 
Regent Wixom asked the presidents for their thoughts on the inclusion of measurable benchmarks within the strategic plans.
 
Mr. Bill Kerney, Faculty Senate Chair, CSN, related that CSN’s faculty senate had been fully involved and invested in the development of the strategic plan from the beginning. He referred back to the presentation and noted that the strategic plan sits upon the academic, facilities and OTS plan which in turn is dependent upon adequate funding. From a faculty standpoint it was disheartening to hire adequate faculty just to have them walk out due to inadequate funding. He emphasized that CSN was the second largest educational institution west of the Rocky Mountains and the fifth largest institution west of the Mississippi River. Everything hinged upon an adequate financial plan. 
 
Mr. J.T. Creedon, ASCSN President, CSN, related that the student body was in full support of the strategic plan and had been included in the process. Mr. Creedon related that CSN’s student body was diverse and every student wanted access to a quality education. He asked the Board for their support.


9.        Approved - 2010-2017 Strategic Plan, CSN (Agenda Item #9)(Cont’d.)
President Richards addressed Regent Wixom’s question and related that the plan presented had been developed from the grass roots. The unit reports and assessment data were all quantifiable and developed at the department and individual school levels and then effervesced up to the strategic plan. Institutional baseline data will be compiled which will be necessary for the institution to demonstrate a culture of evidence that he felt the NWCCU was looking for in the accreditation process.
 
Regent Wixom asked if CSN’s initial step in determining numerical goals was in the establishment of a generally assumed baseline. President Richards stated that was correct. 
 
Regent Wixom asked if the administration and faculty at CSN are in support of the concept of numerical goals. President Richards replied that the staff and faculty have heard the concept but more extensive dialogue was needed.
 
Motion carried.  Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
 
10.              Approved - Honorary Degree (Agenda Item #10) - The Board of Regents’ approved the 2010 Honorary Degree recipients as presented (Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 14, and Procedures & Guidelines Manual, Chapter 8, Section 1.2) (Ref. BOR-10a on file in the Board office).
 
Ø    Governor Kenny Guinn, UNLV (Ref. BOR-10b on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Page stated that Governor Guinn had been a wonderful advocate for higher education.
 
Regent Page moved approval of the posthumous nomination of Governor Kenny Guinn for an Honorary Degree from UNLV. Regent Crear seconded. 
 
President Smatresk stated that Governor Kenny Guinn had been an icon as well as a great leader of the state of Nevada, and echoed Regent Page’s statement that he was particularly a great advocate for higher education.
 
Motion carried.  Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
 
Ø    Honorable Procter R. Hug, UNR (Ref. BOR-10c on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Cobb moved approval of the nomination of the Honorable Procter R. Hug for an Honorary Degree from UNR.


10.      Approved - Honorary Degree (Agenda Item #10)(Cont’d.)
Ø    Honorable Procter R. Hug, UNR - (Cont’d.)
Regent Cobb stated that he was honored to make the motion for the Honorable Procter R. Hug to receive an Honorary Degree from UNR. He related that throughout the years, his family had been close to the Hug family and that Judge Hug’s nomination was very personal for him. He stated that Judge Hug is a scholar, public servant, loving father and grandfather, a gentleman and a great Nevadan.
 
Regent Wixom seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
Provost Johnson related that President Glick was unhappy not to be able to present for this agenda item that day.
 
 
11.              Withdrawn - Information Only - Report on Renewable Energy and Potential Collaborations (Agenda Item #11) – This agenda item was withdrawn until the December Board meeting.
 
 
12.              Approved – Employment Contract, Executive Vice President for Research, DRI (Agenda Item #12) – The Board of Regents’ approved DRI President Stephen G. Wells’ request of a three-year employment contract for Dr. Terrence Surles as Executive Vice President for Research of DRI with a base salary of $235,000 annually plus benefits (Ref. BOR-12 on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Gallagher moved approval of the employment contract for Dr. Terrence Surles. Regent Blakely seconded. Motion carried.  Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
 
13.              Approved - Employment Contact, Head Baseball Coach, UNLV (Agenda Item #13) – The Board of Regents approved UNLV President Neal J. Smatresk’s request of a three-year contract for the new UNLV Head Baseball Coach, Mr. Tim Chambers (Ref. BOR-13 on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Page moved approval of the employment contract for Mr. Tim Chambers. Regent Blakely seconded.
 
Regent Crear asked how the annual salary of $110,000 compared with other baseball coaches in the region. President Smatresk replied that it was par for the course for the region. However, it was a slight increase over the past coach’s salary, which he felt was an increase that was deserved.
 
Regent Crear indicated that although this was Coach Chambers’ first appointment at a four year institution, he brings much to the table. President Smatresk related that he understood


13.       Approved - Employment Contact, Head Baseball Coach, UNLV (Agenda Item #13)(Cont’d.)
Coach Chambers to have been happy with the contract offered. He added that given the current economic situation, it had not been the most generous offer, but a fair offer.
 
Regent Page noted the lack of signatures on the contract presented as well as a hand-written revision and requested that more attention be given to the documents presented in the future.
 
Motion carried.  Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
 
14.              Approved - Employment Contract, Head Women’s Track & Field / Cross Country Coach, UNLV (Agenda Item #14) – The Board of Regents’ approved UNLV President Neal J. Smatresk’s request of a new three-year contract for current UNLV Head Women’s Track & Field / Cross Country Coach, Ms. Yvonne Scott (Ref. BOR-14 on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Knecht moved approval of the employment contract for Ms. Yvonne Scott. Regent Blakely seconded. Motion carried.  Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
 
15.              Approved; Action Rescinded - Request For Designation of Critical Labor Shortage, CSN (Agenda Item #15) – The Board of Regents’ considered CSN President Michael D. Richards’ request for the approval of written findings to designate the Emergency Services Academy Executive Director position as one for which there is a critical labor shortage (Ref. BOR-15 on file in the Board office).
 
President Richards related that this request involved both a programmatic and legal aspect. Programmatically, CSN is seeking the Board’s approval of findings and designation of a critical labor shortage for a chief-level position specifically in Fire Science within the newly established Emergency Services Academy. To provide the leadership and credibility of this new Academy, CSN seeks to pull from the ranks of retired chief-level administrators in the various cities and counties, preferably in southern Nevada. CSN felt that having chief-level experience was an essential criterion to ensure the program’s quality. However, since the individuals with that level of experience are also typically retired and therefore unable to apply, CSN was hindered from conducting a search until the finding of a critical labor shortage designation has been established. Once that designation has been established, an appropriate search process will be conducted.
 
Mr. Richard Hinckley, General Counsel, CSN, related that through its statutory authority as well as Board policy, the Board of Regents must make certain findings based on specific criteria, including special circumstances. As President Richards had explained, the special circumstance is that CSN believes that this program will need an Executive Director who has recent experience as a chief in southern Nevada, that the minimum qualifications for that position will only be met by a PERS retiree, and that in order to recruit for that position CSN must seek the Board’s findings for a critical labor shortage designation under Nevada state law. CSN also recognizes that designation is limited to two years before reauthorization by the Board must be sought.


15.       Approved; Action Rescinded - Request For Designation of Critical Labor Shortage, CSN (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
Regent Page expressed doubt that the position could only be filled by an individual with chief-level experience, and that the individual could only be from southern Nevada, although he understood the preference for those qualifications. In addition, he expressed concern that it appeared this request was written for a particular person. He stated that firefighting was done throughout the world and candidates for this position should not be limited in that manner.
 
Regent Crear asked Mr. Hinckley to elaborate on what CSN has identified as the determining circumstance for this request. Mr. Hinckley explained that the bases for CSN’s finding this position as eligible for designation as a critical labor shortage is the importance of seeking an individual with recent chief-level experience in southern Nevada. However, it was believed that an individual with that level of experience would be a PERS retiree. Mr. Hinckley felt that state statute requires or suggests that PERS retirees not be rehired into state service unless there was a critique and reflection on whether that was appropriate. The critical labor shortage determination would be the conclusion that this Board needs to make based on the criteria that CSN is putting forward. 
 
Regent Crear expressed concern that the proposed criteria was written in order to meet the demands of a critical labor shortage designation versus it actually being a critical labor shortage.
 
Mr. Hinckley indicated that he understood Regent Crear’s concern but related that because of the necessary level of experience only PERS retirees would meet the minimum qualifications. However, a PERS retiree could not be hired until that critical labor shortage designation was established.
 
Regent Crear asked if CSN’s Emergency Services Academy was similar to UNR’s Fire Science Academy. Mr. Hinckley replied that it was not.
 
Regent Crear asked if there was a similar position at UNR’s Fire Science Academy, and questioned if the same criteria should then be used at CSN.
 
Vice Chancellor Patterson explained that the statute requires a favorable finding on at least one of the specified criterion. Therefore it was felt that one criterion was sufficient to meet the statutory requirement. CSN has brought this request to the Board with the explanation that, in essence, it would be futile to conduct a search before establishing the critical labor shortage designation because finding a person who was not a PERS retiree, with chief-level experience, particularly from southern Nevada and for a salary within the pay restrictions involved would be difficult. He understood the Board’s concerns and felt it was appropriate for the Board to question the proposed qualifications.
 
Regent Geddes questioned why CSN did not first conduct a search. He noted that the reference material indicates that the Academy will include training for fire sciences, law enforcement, emergency medical technology, emergency preparedness, homeland


15.       Approved; Action Rescinded - Request For Designation of Critical Labor Shortage, CSN (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
security and emergency management, yet CSN is saying it must be a fire chief from southern Nevada. He felt there were a number of retirees in southern Nevada who have come from other jurisdictions or from one of those other fields that would be appropriate for such a position. He questioned why a search was not being conducted before going this route and limiting the position description.
 
President Richards related that CSN currently does not have faculty with chief-level experience in fire science and to bring fire science under this umbrella without that kind of expertise would limit its ability to offer a credible program. He indicated that the Board’s permission was being sought to conduct a search with requirements that will provide the opportunity to hire an individual who could add to the quality of the ESA program.
 
Regent Geddes asked if CSN currently had faculty in other training areas such as law enforcement, EMT, homeland security, and so forth. President Richards indicated that faculty for those areas were already in that department.
 
Regent Blakely indicated that the Nevada Test Site has similar job descriptions and he felt that there may be a qualified person that would fit the ESA Executive Director’s job description.  He expressed concern that there may be legitimate candidates, other than a PERS retiree, in southern Nevada.
 
Regent Wixom felt there may be a general misunderstanding of the situation. He felt that President Richards was indicating that the needs of the ESA program were unique and required a fire chief with experience in southern Nevada. He noted Regent Page’s concern and asked President Richards if the description was not so much tailored to meet a certain individual as it was to meet a certain type of individual. President Richards confirmed it was to meet a certain skill set.
 
Regent Wixom asked if the skill set including being a fire chief in southern Nevada because of the unique nature of the relationships of the fire chiefs in southern Nevada. President Richards indicated that to some extent that was correct.
 
Regent Wixom asked President Richards if experience as a fire chief in Montana, Oregon, or elsewhere else would not be as valuable because of the relationships that are present in southern Nevada. President Richards stated that was correct.
 
Regent Wixom asked President Richards if to some extent Regent Page was right, but that CSN acknowledges that while the position is not tailored to meet an individual, it is tailored to meet a type of individual in southern Nevada because of what it views the needs of the program to be. President Richards stated that was correct.
 


15.      Approved; Action Rescinded - Request For Designation of Critical Labor Shortage, CSN (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
Regent Rawson felt that the Board was second guessing what CSN was really asking for. He stated that CSN has built specialized programs on its campus and recently dedicated a new building for this program and that the Board has been involved in approving much of what is happening on that campus. He related that many of the other types of emergency services adopted incident command practices from fire sciences. He felt it would be a coup to find somebody with that experience and that level of understanding of a program that has been fundamentally built from the ground up.  He understood that some of the Regents may think there is something improper about the request, but he did not see that. He felt that there was an excellent program developing that needed a specific skill set in order to start off on the right foot. He indicated his support of the request and stated that he was happy to make a motion at the appropriate time.
 
Regent Cobb asked what the proposed salary was for the ESA Executive Director position. President Richards indicated that $75,000 had been budgeted.
 
Regent Cobb asked President Richards if he felt that in order to adequately staff this position, the person would have to be a former chief of a fire department in southern Nevada and as such that person would be a PERS retiree. He also asked why that limitation was being imposed. President Richards felt that the program required the skill set of a chief with department managerial experience as well as incident commander experience. In addition, it was felt that the individual needed to be able to work with the municipalities in southern Nevada. He noted that CSN has a relationship within the law enforcement community and would like to build the same within the fire services community.
 
Regent Cobb felt that if CSN carried that rationale to its logical conclusion, every future employee of CSN would have to come from southern Nevada. President Richards did not feel that was the case, adding that in this particular position it was important to develop relationships with the various municipalities.
 
Regent Cobb indicated that although he still held concerns that the position seemed to be pre-tailored for a specific person, he would provide great deference to President Richards’ rationale and support the request.
 
Regent Anderson asked if the Board were to declare this position as a critical labor shortage designation, would that preclude individuals from elsewhere, such as Nellis Air Force Base or the Nevada Test Site, from applying for it. Mr. Hinckley replied that it would not preclude them as CSN goes forward with a search.
 
Regent Anderson requested clarification that the Board’s approval of this request does not mean that a particular person will be hired, and that there will be the opportunity for others to apply. Mr. Hinckley stated that was correct and clarified that although CSN recognizes that the field is narrowed to a small set of qualifications, they do not have a particular person in mind.
 


15.       Approved; Action Rescinded - Request For Designation of Critical Labor Shortage, CSN (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
Regent Knecht related that many of the “mountain mega’s,” such as Tucson, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Albuquerque and Reno presumably have characteristics in common with Las Vegas and he questioned whether the cart was being placed before the horse. He understood that there may be credibility problems with some local institutions that CSN has to deal with and, just as Regent Cobb, he was inclined to defer to President Richards’ judgment. However, he questioned whether it was premature to require someone from southern Nevada before a search is conducted, particularly since Mr. Hinckley has pointed out that the search will be open to people from other areas.
 
President Richards indicated that CSN’s purpose for requesting a declaration of a critical labor shortage was to attract what they felt to be the necessary skill set. He felt that it was still the correct approach to take to first seek approval from the Board and then conduct the search. Although this process may have been done differently in the past, and although there may be multiple ways to address this part of the Code, the advice that CSN had received when developing this agenda request was to pursue it in this sequence.
 
Regent Knecht expressed his appreciation for that sequence of events and was not arguing the skill set requested by CSN. It was much less the skill set and more a question of it was premature in circumscribing it to southern Nevada given that people from those other regions will be able to apply.
 
Regent Anderson related that in her previous experience as a Boulder City council member, she witnessed a special camaraderie among the southern Nevada fire chiefs, adding that they plan and coordinate their emergency management teams together. She could appreciate that having someone from the valley and that already has those relationships could prove important for the academy.
 
Mr. Hinckley felt that this request involved three priorities including management level experience from within the local community that will allow a potential candidate to “hit the ground running,” the ability for PERS retirees to apply for the position unfettered without compromising their retirement benefits, and for CSN to move forward with that search.
 
Chancellor Klaich clarified that the “relationships” being sought were in terms of networking and someone who could reach out immediately and bring the people into the classes that will grow the program and make it successful.. It was not a matter of who has coffee with whom. It was more in regard to attracting the students to the classroom in a meaningful way and immediately. He asked President Richards if that was correct. President Richards confirmed that the Chancellor was correct.
 
Regent Geddes felt that firefighters, not just in the state of Nevada but throughout the country, share a special camaraderie. There could be a retired fire chief from New York or Albuquerque associated with a fire crew in Clark County that has those southern Nevada relationships. He was not sure it was worth restricting or limiting the


15.       Approved; Action Rescinded - Request For Designation of Critical Labor Shortage, CSN (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
requirements to a Clark County retiree. However, he was willing to also give deference to President Richards as long as a search would be conducted. 
 
Regent Gallagher moved for the approval of written findings to designate the Emergency Services Academy Executive Director position as one for which there is a critical labor shortage. Regent Cobb seconded. Upon a roll call vote, Regents Gallagher, Geddes, Knecht, Leavitt, Rawson, Wixom, Anderson, Blakely, Cobb and Crear voted yes. Regent Page voted no. Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
 
The meeting recessed at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 9, 2010, and reconvened at 10:45 a.m. on Friday, September 10, 2010, with all members present except for Regents Alden and Schofield.
 
President Smatresk stated that it was a privilege and pleasure to welcome UNR to the Mountain West Conference. Chairman Leavitt added that the rivalry between UNR and UNLV is looked forward to every year and related that the move fulfills a wish of the Board’s. 
 
Regent Page related that both the UNLV and UNR alumni associations will be working together to kick off the return of an annual football event beginning this year on October 1st.
 
 
16.              Information Only - Update on Redistricting and Reapportionment (Agenda Item #16) - Mr. Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Executive Officer and Special Counsel to the Board of Regents, provided an update on census information and redistricting as it pertains to the Board of Regents. 
 
Mr. Wasserman related that after he began working with the Nevada legislature in 1987, he assisted with redistricting beginning in 1988 and again in 2001. He was most proud of the fact that there had been no litigation challenging the redistricting plans that he advised the legislature on, and felt that resulted from following sound legal principles that resulted in a constitutional plan. 
 
Mr. Wasserman provided a presentation on a redistricting and reapportionment as follows (complete presentation on file in the Board office):
 
Ø Reapportionment v. Redistricting:
Apportionment is the division of a given number of elected members among established political subdivisions in accordance with an existing plan/formula.
Redistricting is the drawing of new boundaries for existing districts.


16.      Information Only - Update on Redistricting and Reapportionment (Agenda Item #16)(Cont’d.)
Ø Why We Redistrict:
Federal law: One person one vote principle –
§ In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled that state legislative districts had to be equal in population. Reynolds v. Sims
State law: Section 13 of Art. 1 of the Nevada Constitution provides that representation shall be apportioned according to population.
Population shifts require redistricting to bring districts into compliance with these principles.
 
Ø Equal Population:
The equal population requirement for the state legislative districts, and by analogy, the Board of Regents districts, results from the application of the Equal Protection Clause. (U.S. Const., Amend. 14)
 
Ø What Population Data Do We Use?:
US Supreme Court approves use of the U.S. Census (any alternative data used must yield substantively similar results).
Nevada Constitution requires use of the U.S. Census as the basis of representation.
Nevada Legislature’s Joint Rules will require use of the U.S. Census for all redistricting.
 
Ø What Constitutes Equal Population?:
Congressional Districts
§ Population of congressional districts must be “as nearly equal as practicable.”
§ Any population deviation, no matter how small, could render plan unconstitutional.
 
Ø Equal Population Board of Regents Districts:
The overriding objective must be substantial equality of population among the various districts.
Redistricting plan can withstand a constitutional challenge if it only has minor deviations in population among districts.
Redistricting plans with a maximum population deviation of under 10% falls within “minor deviations.”
 
Ø Equal Population Board of Regents Districts:
Redistricting plan with a maximum population deviation greater than 10% creates a prima facie case of discrimination and must be justified by a rational state policy.
Caveat: Court drawn plans held to higher standard. Any deviation must be significant state policy.


16.      Information Only - Update on Redistricting and Reapportionment (Agenda Item #16)(Cont’d.)
Ø Racial & Ethnic Discrimination:
14th Amendment: Guarantees to all people’s equal protection and due process under the law.
15th Amendment: Prohibits the abridgement or denial of the right to vote on the basis of race or color.
Discriminatory purpose and discriminatory results are necessary elements of a successful challenge under the 14th/15th Amendments.
 
Ø Racial & Ethnic Discrimination:
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Prohibits a state from imposing any voting qualification, standard, practice or procedure that results in the denial or abridgement of any citizen’s right to vote on account of race, color or status as a member of a language minority group.
 
Ø Section 2 Claims:
Section 2 claims often involve diluting the voting strength of a minority group by using:
§ Multimember districts
§ Packing
§ Fracturing
The United States Supreme Court established a three prong test to prove a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
 
Ø Thornburg V. Gingles (1986):
The minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district.
The minority group must be politically cohesive.
The majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority group’s preferred candidate.
 
Ø Racial & Ethnic Discrimination:
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
Covered states must preclear changes in voting laws and procedures, including redistricting, with either the Department of Justice or the US District Court.
Nevada is not a “preclearance state.”
 
Ø Racial & Ethnic Discrimination:
Racial Gerrymandering.
Racial Gerrymandering exists when:
§ Race is the dominant and controlling rationale in drawing district lines; and
§ The legislature subordinates traditional race-neutral districting principles to racial considerations.


16.      Information Only - Update on Redistricting and Reapportionment (Agenda Item #16)(Cont’d.)
Ø Traditional Districting Principles:
Compactness
Contiguity
Preservation of political subdivisions
Preservation of communities of interest
Preservation of cores of prior districts
Protection of incumbents
Compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
 
Ø Compactness:
Reapportionment is one area in which appearances do matter.
U.S. Supreme Court has used an “eyeball approach” to evaluate compactness.
Drastic departures from compactness are a signal something is amiss.
Racial gerrymandering cases often involve issues of districts failing to comply with the principle of compactness.
 
Ø Minority Districts Not Protected By Section 2:
No controlling law requiring the drawing of:
§ Minority influenced districts
§ Crossover districts
§ Coalition districts
 
Ø Partisan Gerrymandering:
Political gerrymandering cases are justiciable under the equal protection clause.
Plaintiff must show intentional discrimination and an actual discriminatory effect.
 
Ø Partisan Gerrymandering:
A standard that no case has yet satisfied:
§ Unconstitutional discrimination occurs only when the electoral system is arranged in a manner that will consistently degrade the influence of a group of voters on the political process as a whole.
 
Ø Summary of Legal Principles for Redistricting:
Population of districts can withstand a constitutional challenge only if there are minor deviations in population between districts. The general rule is that a redistricting plan must have a maximum population deviation among districts of under 10%.
A redistricting plan must not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That is, a redistricting plan must not be discriminatory against any person or group of persons on account of race, color or status as a member of a language minority group.


16.      Information Only - Update on Redistricting and Reapportionment (Agenda Item #16)(Cont’d.)
Ø Summary of Legal Principles for Redistricting: (Cont’d.)
A redistricting plan must avoid racial gerrymandering.
Racial gerrymandering exists when:
§ Race is the dominant and controlling rationale in drawing district lines; and
§ Traditional race-neutral districting principles become subordinate to racial considerations.
A redistricting plan must not be the result of political gerrymandering
 
Ø 2001 Joint Rules of the Nevada Legislature:
Required plans not to exceed overall range of population deviation of 10%; no district to exceed plus or minus 5% from the ideal district.
Equality of population in accordance with the standard for state legislative districts is the goal of redistricting for the Board of Regents.
Federal decennial census must be the exclusive database for redistricting.
All district boundaries created by a redistricting plan must follow the census geography.
The redistricting committees will not consider a plan that discernibly violates section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or is racially gerrymandered.
Public participation is encouraged in all aspects of redistricting and reapportionment.
 
Ø Redistricting Timeline:
Redistricting software has been purchased
§ Includes 2009 population estimates – review population estimates and general redistricting plans at the December 2010 Board meeting.
December 2-3, 2010, Board of Regents meeting – Board will look at potential redistricting themes based on 2009 population estimates.
December 31, 2010 - Statewide population totals reported to the President of the United States (congressional seats apportioned).
 
Ø Redistricting Timeline:
February 7, 2011 –Legislative Session begins - Legislature adopts Joint Rules addressing redistricting plans.
Late February – early March, 2011:
U.S. Census Bureau required to provide census block level data no later than April 1, 2011.
Census Bureau delivers block level data to states in phases based on redistricting deadlines - Nevada in second group to receive data.
 
Regent Knecht asked if the estimated population projections take into consideration the reversal of immigration to Clark County over the last two years. Mr. Wasserman replied that he did not know if specifically the software took that specific scenario into consideration. 


16.      Information Only - Update on Redistricting and Reapportionment (Agenda Item #16)(Cont’d.)
However, the software company used is one of the leading organizations in the country that conducts population estimates. He noted these were in fact population estimates and as such, the themes incorporated into the estimate calculations will not change although the numbers certainly may.
 
Chancellor Klaich noted that the timeline seemed compacted and asked if that meant that the preliminary information would be fairly good in order to begin the process. Mr. Wasserman replied that the estimated population data was very good and clear in indicating the areas of growth in the state to allow redistricting to begin now with adjustments made based on the actual census numbers when received.
 
Ø Redistricting Timeline: - (Cont’d.)
March 10 & 11, 2011, Board of Regents meeting
§ Board will review for approval potential redistricting plan.
March/April 2011 – Presentation of Board approved redistricting plan to the Nevada Legislature.
On or before June 6, 2011, Nevada Legislature enacts into law Board of Regents’ redistricting plan (or in special session).
 
Chairman Leavitt asked if it was correct that in 2001, the legislature approved the Board’s recommended redistricting plan. Mr. Wasserman related that in 1991 and 2001, the Board submitted a recommended plan to the Nevada legislature that was approved with minor changes.
 
Regent Wixom expressed his appreciation for the significance and importance of Mr. Wasserman’s background to this process. He asked for clarification on the mechanical process of creating redistricting recommendations. Mr. Wasserman replied that as he begins working with the software and can see how the state’s population has shifted, he will then begin working with the Regents. At the December Board meeting, he will present specific plans and themes from which the Board will be able to provide further direction.
 
Regent Wixom noted the difference between reapportionment and redistricting and asked if the Board, as part of the process, would suggest possibly adding seats to the Board in order to address population issues and with due consideration given to the maximum size of the Board and the effect that size has on operational functions. Mr. Wasserman replied that it was clearly within the realm of the Board to recommend increasing the number of seats. However, he needed to run the information through the software to get a better idea of what the population looks like because it could change the choices and the impact of those choices.  More information would be presented to the Board at its December meeting.
 
Regent Wixom asked, when the number of Regents seats had increased, was it at the suggestion of the Regents’ or at the suggestion of the legislature. Mr. Wasserman confirmed that increases had been suggested by the Board and approved by the legislature.


16.      Information Only - Update on Redistricting and Reapportionment (Agenda Item #16)(Cont’d.)
Chairman Leavitt thought that the Nevada constitution indicates the maximum size of the legislature can be 75 from both houses. However, there is no relevant number for the Board of Regents. Mr. Wasserman confirmed that was correct.
 
Regent Wixom noted that during past redistricting and reapportionment processes, the Board had discussed the functions and operations of the Board and the number of Regents and he felt that had been a helpful exercise. Mr. Wasserman stated that there are boards in other states that have hundreds of trustees.
 
Regent Gallagher stated that when the Board recommended going from nine to 11 Regents, the legislature was not happy about it. She could not imagine that there would be any appetite to increase the size of the Board again. Mr. Wasserman agreed that political support was an issue as concern had been expressed during the last two rounds of redistricting regarding those increases.
 
Chairman Leavitt requested that at the December Board meeting, in addition to an update on redistricting and reapportionment, there be a discussion on the current size of the Board and the possibility for increasing or decreasing its membership.
 
 
The meeting recessed at 11:36 a.m. and reconvened at 11:43 a.m. on Friday, September 10, 2010, with all members present except for Regents Alden and Schofield.
 
 
15.       Previous Action Rescinded - Request For Designation of Critical Labor Shortage, CSN (Agenda Item #15) – The Board of Regents rescinded its previous action to approve CSN President Michael D. Richards request for approval of the written findings to designate the Emergency Services Academy Executive Director position as one for which there is a critical labor shortage (Ref. BOR-15 on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Geddes moved to reconsider the Board’s previous action on this agenda item. Regent Cobb seconded the motion.
 
President Richards requested that the Board reconsider its action and rescind its previous approval of the findings.
 
Mr. Scott Wasserman, CEO and Special Counsel to the Board, asked if Regent Geddes would like to add rescinding of the Board’s previous action to the motion. The current motion only addressed reconsideration.
 
Regent Geddes restated the motion to reconsider and rescind the Board’s previous action on this agenda item. Regent Cobb seconded the restated motion.


15.       Previous Action Rescinded - Request For Designation of Critical Labor Shortage, CSN (Agenda Item #15) –   (Cont’d.)
Regent Crear requested that President Richards elaborate on his request. President Richards explained that he was requesting that the Board reconsider its action taken at the previous day’s meeting to approve the findings that would designate the ESA Executive Director as one for which there is a critical labor shortage. He added that CSN would rather conduct the search and then, if necessary, make the request to the Board.
 
Regent Cobb complimented CSN and President Richards for their integrity and for their willingness to eliminate any type of concerns about transparency.
 
Upon a roll call vote, motion carried unanimously.  Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
 
17.              Information Only - College Access Challenge Grant And Complete College America (Agenda Item #17) - Dr. Magdalena Martinez, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Student and Academic Affairs, and Ms. Sharon Wurm, Director of Financial Aid, presented information on two new statewide initiatives. The College Access Challenge Grant (CACG) is a federally funded grant with direct oversight by the NSHE. The purpose of the CACG is to increase college access and success for low-income and under-represented students. Complete College America (CCA) is a multi-state initiative intended to increase the number of citizens holding postsecondary degrees or certificates and to close attainment gaps for students from racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups that have historically low college completion rates. Nevada is one of the CCA pilot states and will receive valuable resources and assistance from CCA to increase the number of Nevadans with a credential or certificate in order to meet workforce needs by 2020 in accordance with the President’s goals (Ref. BOR-17a and BOR-17b on file in the Board office).
 
Dr. Magdalena Martinez, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Student and Academic Affairs, presented the following report on the College Access Challenge Grant Program:
 
Ø College Access Challenge Grant Program
The purpose of the CACGP is to foster partnerships among federal, state, and local governments and philanthropic organizations through matching challenge grants that are aimed at increasing the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education.
 
Ø NSHE CACG Advisory Board:
      NSHE College & University Representation
      Nevada DOE and School Districts
      P-16 Council Representation
      Nevada GEAR Up Representation
      Education Associations
     USA Funds
     WestEd


17.       Information Only - College Access Challenge Grant And Complete College America (Agenda Item #17) –(Cont’d.)
Ø Nevada’s Overall CACG Focus:
Nevada System of Higher Education will focus its CACG efforts on dramatically increasing the percent of new college entrants, particularly underrepresented students (low-income, first generation, students of color) in the state.
 
Ø Nevada System of Higher Education CACG Goals:
1.      Create a college-going culture in Nevada through a strategic statewide media campaign,
2.      Increase college knowledge to encourage students to enroll and complete a quality postsecondary certificate and/or degree,
3.      Increase college participation, financial literacy and career readiness at high schools with significant numbers of low-income or high need students, and
4.      Pilot accelerated associate degree programs (12-15 months) that target first-time college students who are low-income and underrepresented in postsecondary completion rates at two-year NSHE community colleges.
 
Ø Goal 1: Create a College-Going Culture in Nevada:
      To build Nevada’s college-going culture, the current GoToCollegeNevada.org media campaign will be continued. 
      Three areas will comprise the media campaign:
     Public Service Announcements,
     Enhance GoToCollegeNevada.org to include a “Choose Your Own Career” portal to prepare and guide students through their secondary schooling, and
     Incorporate additional social networking modalities such as Facebook, Twitter and others. Outcomes will be tracked based on student participation (i.e., web hits), community and school outreach efforts, and inquiries from educators, families and students.
 
Ø Goal 2: Increase College Knowledge:
      Sub-grants: Individual grants up to $60,000, and up to $150,000 for larger collaborative partnerships of organizations working with five or more schools and serving a large number of students.
      The NSHE System Sponsored Programs Office (SSPO) will administer the Nevada CACG sub-grants.
       Applicants: submit proposals and offer detailed methodology including measurable goals and outcomes. 
     Notices will be distributed Fall 2010 with a two-month deadline and proposals will be reviewed by the NSHE CACG Advisory Committee.
     Selection will be made based on the strength of the proposal in carrying out CACG goals and objectives, the availability of measurable goals and outcomes and associated data, the efficiency of the proposed budget, and commitment of cost share support on the part of the applying organization.


17.       Information Only - College Access Challenge Grant And Complete College America (Agenda Item #17) –(Cont’d.)
Ø Goal 3: Increase College and Career Readiness in Nevada High Schools:
      CACG will provide, to up to ten Nevada high schools, a grant to implement a comprehensive version of the Navigation101 program.
      Navigation101, by Envictus Corp.
     School improvement strategy to increase college and career readiness for students through a comprehensive discipline of study. 
     This resource will teach 9-12 grade students about high school course selection, career planning, post-secondary education options, and financial aid. 
     Schools identified as having 50% or lower college-going rate will be invited to apply.
     As part of the implementation and monitoring process, professional development for high school leadership and counselors will be included.
 
Ø Goal 4: Pilot or Expand Accelerated Associate Degree Programs:
      NSHE community colleges will be eligible to apply for a sub-grant to pilot or expand accelerated associate degree programs (12-15 months) to increase completion rates, particularly for first-time college students who are low-income and underrepresented in postsecondary completion rates at NSHE community colleges.
      NSHE community colleges will be eligible to apply for up to $158,000 depending on the scope of activities and the number of students to be served.
 
Ø Assessment:
To track the long- and short-term impact of the CACG grant activities, state data from the NSHE data warehouse, National Student Clearinghouse, and the Nevada Department of Education will be examined to determine the percentage increase in college going rates among students attending the targeted high schools.
 
Chairman Leavitt asked what the length and term of the grant was and if there were possibilities in the future to continue this project. Dr. Martinez replied that the grant runs from August 2010 to August 2011, with the possibility to reapply for up to five years.
 
Regent Wixom expressed his excitement in seeing this grant presented. He asked how the System was coordinating with the institutions for the utilization of the grants. Dr. Martinez related that the institutions were involved early on in the process as they are at the front line working with Nevada’s high schools. The advisory board and the sub-grants are targeted at Nevada post secondary institutions and community-based nonprofit organizations.
 
Chancellor Klaich commented that the Board saw metrics and assessment as a critical part of this project to establish baselines. This was consistent with the message from the Board and with the work that Vice Chancellor Nichols has been doing. He thanked Dr. Martinez for her leadership on this project.


17.       Information Only - College Access Challenge Grant And Complete College America (Agenda Item #17) – (Cont’d.)
Regent Anderson also was pleased to see this initiative progressing and asked if it addressed remedial classes for high school students. Dr. Martinez related that had been one of the issues raised within the advisory board. For instance with the Navigations 101, specifically targeting high schools, that incorporates some milestones and resources for students to determine where the students are in the core subjects and how best to provide remedial courses for college entrance.
 
Regent Crear noted that the individual grants were up to $60,000 and up to $150,000 for larger partnership organizations. He asked if that meant that an individual person could receive a grant up to $60,000. Dr. Martinez clarified that the entities identified as eligible to apply for these grants include any Nevada post-secondary institution or any community based nonprofit organizations that focuses its efforts on access opportunities.
 
Regent Crear asked if the grant included a component that focuses on the FAFSA application and ensuring that potential students understand that process. Dr. Martinez related that financial aid literacy was critical not only to the System but was also specifically identified by the Department of Education as an outcome they want to see reflected by an increase in the number of students that apply and that are eligible.
 
Regent Knecht observed how vitally important this initiative is, how easy it is to say that the System is going to create a college going culture in Nevada but how incredibly difficult and challenging it will be to accomplish that. He felt it will be a difficult thing for any institution to achieve.
 
Regent Crear asked if there was anything that the Board could do to enhance this program. Dr. Martinez reiterated that the goals of the access plan are closely aligned to the Chancellor’s strategic plan for recruitment and retention and moving the students through more quickly.
 
Ms. Sharon Wurm, Director of Financial Aid, presented the following report on the Complete College American grant:
 
Ø What is Complete College America?:
§ National non-profit established in 2009.
§ Purpose:
     significantly increase the number of Americans with a college degree or credential of value; and
     close attainment gaps for traditionally underrepresented populations.
§ Founded to focus solely on dramatically increasing the nation’s college completion rate through state policy change and to build consensus for change among state leaders, higher education, and the national education policy community.


17.       Information Only - College Access Challenge Grant And Complete College America (Agenda Item #17) –(Cont’d.)
Ø Purpose:
§ Complete College America provides in-depth technical support from America’s leading experts on improving college success.
§ The national goal is by 2020, six out of 10 young adults will have a college degree or credential of value.
§ Directly aligns with National Governor’s Association Chair’s Initiative for 2010-11, Complete to Compete.
 
Chairman Leavitt asked if either gubernatorial candidate has seen the recommendation by the National Governor’s Association Chair’s Initiative. Ms. Wurm replied that the Chancellor has been in contact with both candidates.
 
Ø Why Nevada?:
§ By 2020, more than 60% of jobs will require college education.  Current degree production will not meet the State’s economic and workforce needs by 2020.
§ Currently 30% of Nevadans ages 25-64 have a college degree.
§ 28% of young adults in Nevada ages 25-34 have a college degree.
§ In order to meet projected needs, Nevada’s goal is based upon all adults ages 25-64.
§ Nevada graduation rates consistently lag behind national averages.
§ Intersects well with other NSHE initiatives.
     Federal College Access Challenge Grant.
     WICHE Non-traditional No More.
     University of Southern California Center for Urban Education/WICHE project to identify race-based inequities and increase institutional effectiveness.
§ WHY NOT?
 
Ø Nevada’s Agreement:
§ Governor Jim Gibbons and Chancellor Dan Klaich jointly signed a commitment to make college completion a priority for Nevada.
§ All Alliance states (23 total) agreed to:
     Set state and campus-specific degree and credential completion goals;
     Develop and implement aggressive state and campus-level action plans for meeting the state’s completion goals; and
     Collect and report common measures of progress towards the State’s completion goals.
 


17.       Information Only - College Access Challenge Grant And Complete College America (Agenda Item #17) –(Cont’d.)
Ø State and Campus-Level Goals.
A strong state goal:
§ Has broad support – including public and private higher education entities.
§ Requires stretching – accomplished by greater student success, not simply enrollment increases.
§ Counts certificates (in addition to associate and bachelor degrees).
§ Preserves access.
§ Anticipates the State’s economic and demographic future and closes gaps
§ Has a firm deadline (2020) and is a single, easily explained number (1,064 additional degrees compounded annually).
 
Ø State and Campus-Level Goals.
Nevada degree production goals:
§ Award 1,064 additional degrees and high-quality certificates annually by 2020.
§ This number is based on all adults ages 25-64 and includes goals for minority graduates.
§ NSHE can’t do it alone – private institutions will also play a role in meeting the annual increase of 1,064 completions. 
§ NSHE will assume 84 percent of the goal or 890 additional completions per year, with the remainder assumed by private institutions.
 
Ø Next Steps:
§ Communicate state-level completion goal and obtain pledges of support.
§ Institutions set campus-level completion goals.
§ Begin analyzing data according to common data metrics established by Complete College America and recommended by the National Governor’s Association.
§ Participate in Complete College America Completion Academy to establish framework.
 
Ms. Wurm shared that Nevada was selected as one of eight states (Arkansas, Hawaii, Texas, Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee and Utah) to participate in a fall completion academy which will bring in experts to work individually with each state’s team. Nevada has a strong team attending that academy including Chancellor Klaich, Ms. Wurm, Dr. Martinez, Bill Cathey, Vice Provost of Instruction and Undergraduate Programs, UNR, Sondra Horsford, Assistant Professor of Education Leadership at UNLV, Ann Johnson, Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, CSN, Lee Young, Associate Vice Provost for Enrollment Management, NSC, Jess Carreon, Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs, TMCC, Assemblywoman Debbie Smith, and Valerie Webber, Las Vegas Campus Community Relations and External Affairs Coordinator for the University of Phoenix.
 
Chairman Leavitt observed that the two initiatives were exciting and complimentary to each other.


17.       Information Only - College Access Challenge Grant And Complete College America (Agenda Item #17) –(Cont’d.)
Regent Anderson stated that she was pleased to see that the program goals included an increase of certificate programs. She felt that a real effort should be made to inform high school counselors and make sure that they understand the numbers involved with that goal and to make sure that certificate programs are offered as an option to two- and four-year degrees.
 
President DiMare asked if this initiative relates to first time degree earners. Ms. Wurm replied that this would apply to each degree earned per student.
 
Chancellor Klaich related that he and Vice Chancellor Nichols were proud of these two competitive grants and the staff that worked hard to achieve them.
 
Chairman Leavitt thanked President Sheehan for TMCC’s hospitality and for the reception for Regent Gallagher the previous evening. He also thanked TMCC’s facilities, technology, public safety and police staff, and the System Computing Services staff and UNR’s Chartwell Catering. 
 
Regent Knecht extended his personal gratitude to the Board staff, Ms. Keri Nikolajewski, Ms. Nancy Stone, Ms. Angela Palmer and Ms. Jessica McMullen, as well as the TMCC staff that were helpful with his infirmity and crutches.
 
Chairman Leavitt also added his special thanks to Ms. Stone, Ms. Nikolajewski, Ms. Palmer, Ms. McMullen and to Mr. Wasserman. 
 
Regent Gallagher thanked TMCC for the lovely reception held the previous evening in her honor.
 
 
18.           Approved - Audit Committee (Agenda Item #18)  - Chair Mark Alden reported that the Audit Committee met on September 9, 2010, and received follow-up responses for four internal audit reports that were presented to the Audit Committee at its March 2010 meeting. 
 
The Committee requested reports on the following items for the December meeting:
Ø Procedures in place regarding the oversight of operating expenditures by presidents.
Ø Server hosting by external companies.
Ø Equipment inventory procedures at CSN.
Ø Billing, collection, receivables, bad debt and lock box procedures at the UNSOM Practice Plans.
Ø Possible update to the Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 10, Section 9, B1, waiver of audit requirements for Foundations.
 


18.      Approved - Audit Committee (Agenda Item #18) - (Cont’d.)
Action items
Board action was requested to approve the following recommendations of the Audit Committee:
Ø Minutes – The Committee recommended approval of the minutes from the June 3, 2010, meeting.
Ø Internal Audit Department Quality Assurance Review – The Committee recommended approval of the report from Grant Thornton LLP for the period ended December 31, 2009.
Ø Internal Audit Reports – The Committee recommended approval of the following internal audit reports:
ü Risk Management/Worker’s Compensation, UNR
ü Admissions and Records Department, UNR
ü Joe Crowley Student Union, UNR
ü Center for Academic Enrichment and Outreach, UNLV
ü Office of Sponsored Programs, UNLV
ü Presidential Exit Follow-up Audit, UNLV
ü Office of E-Learning, CSN
ü College of Library Services, CSN
ü Network Security Audit, WNC
Ø Audit Exception Report - The Committee recommended approval of the Audit Exception Report for the six months ended June 30, 2010.
Ø Internal Audit Department Work Plan, NSHE - The Committee recommended approval of the Internal Audit Department Work Plan for the year ending June 30, 2011.
Ø Foundation Audit Exemptions, UNLV - The Committee recommended approval of requests from the UNLV Golf Foundation and UNLV Alumni Association for an exemption from the audit requirements stated in the Board of Regents Handbook (Title 4, Chapter 10, Section 9, B1).
 
Regent Wixom moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations. Regent Crear seconded. Motion carried.  Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
Regent Page pointed out that Grant Thornton LLP is a Nevada based company and had conducted an excellent review.
 
 
19.           Approved - Investment & Facilities Committee (Agenda Item #19) - Chair Michael B. Wixom reported that the Investment & Facilities Committee met on September 9, 2010, and heard the following reports:
 
Ø David Breiner from Cambridge Associates outlined the management fees for the pooled endowment and pooled operating funds. The report included a risk/return analysis of the pooled endowment fund and pooled operating fund.
Ø Ruby Camposano reported that the account balance of the operating pool’s reserve account was $10.6 million as of September 8, 2010.


19.      Approved - Investment & Facilities Committee (Agenda Item #19)(Cont’d.)
Action Items:
Board action was requested to approve the following recommendations of the Investment and Facilities Committee:
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the minutes from the June 3, 2010, meeting.
Ø Cambridge Associates presented a report on asset allocation and investment returns for the pooled endowment and pooled operating funds for the quarter ended June 30, 2010. Based on Cambridge Associates’ presentation, the Committee recommended the termination of Hoover Management fund and to invest the proceeds in Vanguard Small Cap Index fund.
Ø The Committee recommended approval for the following actions related to the pooled operating fund:
§ Approved the complete liquidation of the Farallon funds in the Operating Pool and to liquidate other funds in this asset class within the Operating Pool based on available redemption dates.
§ Directed Cambridge and staff to present a proposal at the December 2010 Investment Committee meeting on options available to reinvest the proceeds from the Farallon funds.
§ Directed Cambridge and staff to provide an updated asset allocation for the operating pool at the December 2010 meeting of the Investment Committee.
§ Directed the Business Officers and staff to present at the December 2010 meeting a proposal for creating a rainy day fund in the operating pool; to include disbursements guidelines and parameters.
Ø The Committee approved an amendment to Board policy allowing the Chancellor to negotiate acquisition or sale of real property upon consulting with the Chair of the Board and the Chair of the Investment and Facilities Committee.
Ø The Committee recommended approval of a request for the Chancellor to identify and negotiate the purchase or lease with an option to purchase, real property and/or a building for use as a cost efficient replacement of the existing Las Vegas System Administration office, subject to Board approval of the final contract.
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the University of Nevada, Reno’s purchase of real property, a single family residence located at 1115 Evans Avenue in Reno, Nevada for $145,000.
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the final report of the Space Study Working Group tasked with developing recommendations for space utilization and inventory metrics.
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the updates to the real property reports for Truckee Meadows Community College and Great Basin College.
 
Regent Wixom moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendation. Regent Gallagher seconded. Motion carried.  Regents Alden and Schofield were absent. Regent Page abstained.


20.           Approved – Business & Finance Committee (Agenda Item #20) - Chair Ron Knecht reported that the Business & Finance Committee met on September 9, 2010, and heard the following reports:
 
Ø Fiscal Exceptions of NSHE self-supporting budgets for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009-2010.
Ø Self-supporting budget revenue and expenditure revisions of the NSHE for fiscal year 2009-2010.
Ø Transfers of State Supported Operating Budget funds between functions for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009-2010.
Ø Transfers of expenses from non-state budgets to state funds after May 1, 2010 for fiscal year 2009-2010.
 
Action Items:
Board action was requested to approve the following recommendations of the Business and Finance Committee:
ØRequest was made for approval of the minutes from the June 3, 2010, Business & Finance Committee meeting.
ØThe Committee recommended approval of the fiscal year 2010-2011 NSHE Self-Supporting Budget.
ØThe Committee recommended approval of the fiscal year 2010-2011 NSHE State Supported Operating Budget.
ØThe Committee recommended approval of the fiscal year 2010-2011 Accountability Report reconciling the NSHE Legislative approved operating budget to the Board of Regents approved operating budget.
ØThe Committee recommended approval to amend the Board of Regents Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 10, Section 8 concerning the approval, acknowledgement and administration of gifts, contracts and sponsored programs for NSHE institutions so that such provisions are also applicable to System Administration and the special units of the Chancellor’s office.
 
Regent Knecht moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations. Regent Wixom seconded. Motion carried.  Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
 
21.           Approved - Academic, Research & Student Affairs Committee (Agenda Item #21) - Chair William G. Cobb reported that the Academic, Research & Student Affairs Committee met on September 9, 2010, and heard the following:
 
Community college representatives reported on the various workforce development programs at their respective institutions that included information on how these programs meet the needs of the community and contribute to the state’s economy. Dr. Terry Norris, Chair of the Distance Education Directors, presented the 2009-10 Distance Education Report that documents the growth of distance education across the NSHE.


21.      Approved - Academic, Research & Student Affairs Committee (Agenda Item #21)(Cont’d.)
In addition, the Committee discussed potential ways that NSHE institutions could more effectively publicize information on academic programs and research through newspaper inserts, direct mail or other media sources and by acting collaboratively. The Committee requested Vice Chancellor Jane Nichols to follow up with the Chancellor, receive suggestions from regents and institutions, and work with John Kuhlman and institutional public information officers to provide more and better general information about NSHE, particularly as we approach the legislative session.
 
Dr. Carol Lucey, President, Western Nevada College, reviewed the results of WNC’s recent accreditation review by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. WNC was reaffirmed for accreditation at the associate degree level and granted accreditation at the baccalaureate level.  Finally, Linda Heiss, Director of Institutional Research and Data Partnerships, presented the third and fifth year new academic program reviews for those academic programs less than ten years old and the summary report on the review of existing academic programs that have been established for at least ten years. She noted the obvious impact of budget cuts in slowing or stopping the inception of new academic programs.
 
Action Items
Board action was requested to approve the following recommendation of the Academic, Research, and Student Affairs Committee:
Ø Approval of the minutes of the June 3, 2010, meeting of the Academic, Research, and Student Affairs Committee.
 
Regent Cobb moved acceptance of the report and approval of the committee recommendation. Regent Gallagher seconded. Motion carried.  Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
 
22.           Approved - Cultural Diversity Committee (Agenda Item #22) - Chair Cedric Crear reported that the Cultural Diversity Committee met on September 10, 2010, and heard the following:
 
Institutional representatives, including presidents and faculty senate chairs, presented each institution’s Faculty Diversity Plan that has been developed over the past year at the direction of the Cultural Diversity Committee.  The reports included information on the new efforts that will be put in place to recruit, hire, retain and promote faculty members from diverse backgrounds and the unique challenges that institutions face in meeting diversity goals for faculty. In addition, the reports included various current statistics such as the number of tenure and non-tenure track faculty by sex and race and ethnicity in order to define the problem and set goals. Due to time constraints WNC, DRI and System Administration will present their plans at the December meeting. Committee members commended institutional presidents and faculty senate chairs on the plans and indicated that there will be opportunities for follow up accountability on the implementation of the plans.


22.    Approved - Cultural Diversity Committee (Agenda Item #22)(Cont’d.)
Action Items:
Board action was requested to approve the following recommendation of the Cultural Diversity Committee:
Ø Approval of the minutes of the June 4, 2010, meeting of the Cultural Diversity Committee.
 
Regent Crear moved acceptance of the report and approval of the committee recommendation. Regent Page seconded. Motion carried.  Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
 
23.           Approved - Health Sciences System Committee (Agenda Item #23) - Chair Raymond D. Rawson reported that the Health Sciences System Committee met on September 10, 2010, and heard the following:
 
Chairman Rawson provided the Chairs Report and discussed the past Regents discussions regarding the Health Sciences System mission. He read into the record the mission and goals of the HSS as supported by the Regents during its August 2009 Regents meeting (see below). He reiterated the Regents support for the HSS and reminded the NSHE partners how important it was for all to participate fully in this effort. Regents Gallagher, Wixom and Cobb provided additional comments to support the importance of a system’s approach to health sciences, and to support the efforts of the HSS. 
 
Ø Aug. 2009 BOR meeting in Elko, HSS Overview Presentation excerpts quoted:
§ Mission: The Health Sciences System Committee shall promote quality education, research, patient care and community health across health care disciplines, driven by access, quality, value and the needs of the people of the State of Nevada.
§ Goals:
-          Promoting a System’s Approach: Work to promote a system’s view/approach to enhancing NSHE’s ability to meet Nevada’s health care needs through education, research and training
-          Promoting Efficiency & Effectiveness: Work to increase effectiveness and efficiency of NSHE health sciences programs
-          Promoting Program Development: Work to foster further development of NSHE health sciences programs
-          Promoting Collaborative Opportunities: Work to foster enhanced internal and external collaboration
§ One specific goal relating to the development in the Shadow Lane Campus area Regent Rawson quoted was:
-          Goal: Develop programmatic and facilities plan for the development of an inter-institutional, inter-disciplinary health center for the Shadow Lane campus area to promote programmatic synergy across NSHE programs and provide much-needed educational, research, administrative and clinical space.


23.      Approved - Health Sciences System Committee (Agenda Item #23)(Cont’d.)
Ø Executive Vice Chancellor Trevisan provided an overview of the recent efforts between NSHE and Clark County and University Medical Center of Southern Nevada to identify ways in with to strengthen the partnerships between the entities and to strengthen UMC’s academic mission. He provided an update on UMC’s efforts to restructure its governing board and the recent hiring of FTI Healthcare to conduct a two-part study: 1. Focusing on UMC’s operations; and 2. To study the academic relationship development opportunities related to transitioning UMC into a more robust teaching hospital. Provost Johnson spoke and outlined the UNSOM/UNR involvement in working with UMC to enhance its relationship, and their commitment to the current efforts to develop the relationship between NSHE and UMC in general and the current analysis in particular.
Ø Ms. O’Mara provided an overview of the efforts conducted by the Governor’s Health Information Technology Blue Ribbon Task Force. She outlined the ways in which Dr. Trevisan as a member of this Task Force and other NSHE health science and other programs are participating in this important endeavor to promote the development of health information technology in Nevada.
 
Action items:
Board action was requested to approve the following recommendation of the Health Sciences System Committee:
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the minutes of the June 4, 2010, meeting.
 
Regent Rawson moved acceptance of the report and approval of the committee recommendation. Regent Knecht seconded. Motion carried.  Regents Alden and Schofield were absent.
 
 
24.           Information Only – New Business (Agenda Item #24) - None.
 
 
25.           Information Only - Public Comment (Agenda Item #6)(Cont’d.)
Chairman Leavitt stated that this would be the last time the Board would meet before the general election and urged everyone to vote.
 
 
The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m.
 
Prepared by:                            Jessica C. McMullen
Administrative Assistant IV
 
Submitted for approval by:                                                        Scott G. Wasserman
Chief Executive Officer and Special Counsel
to the Board of Regents
 
Approved by the Board of Regents at the December 2-3, 2010, meeting.