UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
October 18-19, 1990


Pages 74-78

                         BOARD OF REGENTS


                       October 18-19, 1990

The Board of Regents met on the above date at Mt. Charleston Inn,

Nevada, for Fall Retreat.

Members present:  Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher, Chairman

                  Mrs. Shelley Berkley

                  Dr. Jill Derby

                  Mr. Joseph M. Foley

                  Dr. Lonnie Hammargren

                  Mr. Daniel Klaich

                  Mrs. Carolyn M. Sparks

                  Mrs. June Whitley

Members absent:   Dr. James Eardley

Others present:   Mark H Dawson, Chancellor

                  Dr. Warren Fox, Vice Chancellor

                  Mr. Ron Sparks, Vice Chancellor

                  Mr. Donald Klasic, General Counsel

                  President Anthony Calabro, WNCC

                  President Joseph N. Crowley, UNR

                  President John Gwaltney, TMCC

                  President Robert Maxson, UNLV

                  President Paul Meacham, CCCC

                  President Ron Remington, NNCC

                  President Jim Taranik, DRI

                  Ms. Mary Lou Moser, Secretary

Also present were Faculty Senate Chairmen Paula Funkhouser, TMCC;

Isabelle Emerson, UNLV; Mike Mc Farlane, NNCC; Don Carlson, WNCC;

Robert Brown, UNR; Steve Mizell, DRI; Alan Balboni, CCCC; and

Karen Steinberg, UNS; Sue Baker, UNS; and Pamela Galloway, UNS.

Chairman Dorothy Gallagher called the retreat to order at 10:40

A.M. on October 18, 1990, explaining the purpose of the retreat

was an exchange of ideas for the University of Nevada System.

Session I - Communications within UNS

    Mrs. Gallagher introduced Mr. George Janik, Association of

    Governing Board's Board Mentor Program.  Mr. Janik explained

    that he had served as a member of the Kent State Board of

    Trustees for over 13 years, and as a Professor of Business

    at that Institution.

    In reviewing the higher education movement, Mr. Janik stated

    that in the 1960's enrollment was high, hiring of faculty

    was at an all-time high, money was readily available, and

    tenure was the motivating factor of faculty.  The 1970's

    showed a drop of employment with less dollars available.

    In the 1980's the "baby boom" was gone, enrollments slowed,

    Campuses began to adjust to older students, and were faced

    with a growing senior faculty.  Currently, higher education

    is faced with higher tuition costs and students are asking

    for quality education.

    Discussion centered on:

        Policy making vs. Administration.

        The relationship between Regents and the CEO.  The

        Chancellor as a coordinator, or as the conduit from

        President to Chancelor to Board.  Presidents need to

        make the Chancellor aware of all situations, but should

        be able to contact Regents individually.

        Board relationships with other constituencies.

        Education is an industry that doesn't measure itself.

        There is no trouble grading students; but teaching

        quality is never assessed.

        Board committee structure.  A Board should work through

        its committees; should trust the actions of the commit-

        tee.  committees should not meet the day of the Board

        meeting, or, if they do, discuss information at one

        meeting to place on the agenda of the following Board

        meeting.  Chancellor and his staff should be the staff

        to committees, provide the information and background

        materials, and interpret those materials to the com-

        mittee and Board, and should be trusted for the input


        The Community College and University missions/philoso-

        phies are different, should be recognized as being

        different, and UNS might consider holding separate


        Opposed to students and faculty as members of a Board

        and having voting privileges.  Board must listen to

        their concerns, but only listen, and refer the matter

        to the President and/or the Chancellor.

        Planning is essential to good management of higher

        education.  Academic and facilities planning must be

        long range and must be updated constantly.  Long range

        planning is a joint responsibility of the Board and its


        Board responsibilities are the making of policy, hiring

        the CEO and Presidents, Board organization/job descrip-

        tions for Officers including the Vice Presidents/Chan-

        cellors (seond in command), and assessing the effective-

        ness of the Board.

        New Board members must be given a thorough orientation.

    The group divided into breakout sessions for Regents, Pres-

    idents and Faculty Senate Chairmen for discussions on ef-

    fective communications and reported in general session the


    Board of Regents:

        The committee structure needs to communicate more ef-

        fectively to Board members.  (If used effectively, the

        Board then is supposed to "rubber stamp" the actions of

        the committee.)

        The Board needs to get information for decision making

        in a more timely manner.  The staff should interpret

        the information in a succinct manner, and the informa-

        tion must be of quality.

        The Board needs to agree on the committees of the Board

        as the appropriate body for deliberation on issues vs.

        bringing issues to the full Board.

        The Board needs to schedule committee meetings at dif-

        ferent times to provide for communication (trustee to

        trustees) and ensure time for input from all constitu-

        encies prior to the full Board meeting.


        Standing committee meetings on different days than the

        Board meeting.

        One day Board meeting and fewer Board meetings.

        Audit Committee meeting once a year, combined with Budget


        Education/orientation for Regents on 1) University is-

        sues, 2) Community College issues, 3) DRI issues; possi-

        bly hold one day workshops on each.

        Consensus that there is a critical success factor in

        the informal line of communications between Chancellor

        and Presidents.  Mutual satisfaction with current


        The Chancellor's Office will distribute the results of

        each agenda item appearing on the Council of the Presi-

        dents' meeting agenda immediately following that meeting.


        Have social events on Thursday evening of Board meetings

        to provide a means for interaction/communication.

        Seek a diversity of opinions on academic issues; use

        informal workshops; discussions in an academic setting

        vs. a parliamentary setting.

        Increased Community College meetings; Regent meetings

        on Community College Campuses is appreciated.  There is

        a concern that understanding cannot be obtained only

        through items that appear on the agendas.

        Increase faculty presentations such as the presentations

        made by the NNCC faculty; presentations be issue orient-


        Review annually the recommendations from the Community

        College Faculty Relations Committee.

        Insure release time for Faculty Senate Chairmen, includ-

        ing the Unit Senate Chairman.

Session II

    The three groups, Regents, Presidents and Faculty Senate

    Chairmen, reviewed the goals set at the 1989 retreat and

    established goals for 1990-91.  These are on file in the

    Regents' Office.

Section III

    Discussions were held on the following:

    Prisoner Education

        Regent Foley expressed a need for UNS to be involved

        in educating prisoners confined in Nevada.  Presidents

        Calabro (WNCC) and Remington (NNCC) reported on their

        programs being conducted within the prisons.  It was

        agreed that this is very costly education, that new

        sources of revenue must be found for its support, and

        that a committee should be established to investigate

        the possibilities.

    Academic Planning

        Vice Chancellor Warren Fox reviewed academic planning

        in the System, stating that in 1981 the publication

        "Nevad 2000" was established and is updated every two

        years for presentation to the Nevada State Legislature.

        In 1983 all Campuses submitted plans.  In 1986 the Board

        adopted a policy for the regular submission of academic

        plans, which were due in July, 1990.  There is now un-

        derway a comprehensive academic Master Plan for UNS.

        Consultants were hired and have visited the State and

        Institutions.  The Campus plans will be reviewed by the

        consultants and when their comments become available,

        they will be sent to the Board.  Some Campuses are re-

        vising their recently adopted facilities plans to con-

        form to these new academic plans.

        A questionnaire had been sent to retreat participants

        on UNS goals and issues for 1990-95.  The results, dis-

        cussed by Dr. Fox and Ms. Karen Steinberg, showed re-

        sources such as funding budgets and for administration

        and communication, faculty, accountability/assessment,

        minority education, Community College concerns, mission

        and goals of the Institutions, articulation, economic

        development, access, quality/excellence, admissions re-

        quirements and developmental education.  UNS issues

        were tallied by groups as follows:

            Regents:  Resources - funding, budgets and facil-

                                  ities; planning; and growth.

            Presidents:  Resources - funding, budgets, and

                         faculty issues; accountability/assess-


            Faculty Senate Chairmen:  Resources - funding, bud-

                                      gets, and facilities;

                                      growth; faculty issues.

            Chancellor's Office Staff:  Planning; resources;

                                        funding, budgets and

                                        facilities; growth.

    Presidential Leave

        President Crowley was given a four-month Presidential

        leave in 1989, at which time he did research at Brasenose

        College at Oxford.  He discussed his report to the Board

        (see attached) and the recommendations of 1) adoption of

        a policy; 2) include eligibility criteria and obliga-

        tions upon return, 3) assignment of presidential respon-

        sibilities during leave, 4) assisting with replacement

        of President while on leave, and 5) informing the public

        of the leave.

        A Chancellor's Committee will draft a policy for Board


The retreat adjourned at 1:15 P.M.

                             Mary Lou Moser