UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
November 5-6, 1981


Pages 95-139



November 5-6, 1981

The Board of Regents met on the above dates in the Carlson Educa-

tion building, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Members present: Mr. Robert A. Cashell, Presiding

Mr. James L. Buchanan, II

Ms. Frankie Sue Del Papa

Mrs. Lilly Fong

Mrs. Dorothy Gallagher

Mr. Chris Karamanos

Mr. John R. Mc Bride

Mr. John Tom Ross

Mrs. June Whitley

Others present: Chancellor Robert M. Bersi

President William Berg, NNCC

President Joseph N. Crowley, UNR

President Jack Davis, WNCC

President James Eardley, TMCC

President Judith Eaton, CCCC

President Leonard P. Goodall, UNLV

President Clifford Murino, DRI

Secretary Bonnie Smotony

General Counsel Donald Klasic

Also present were Faculty Senate and Student Association repre-


The meeting was called to order on Thursday, November 5, 1981,

by Chairman Cashell at 4:00 P.M.

1. Presentation of Study of School of Medicine

Mr. Cashell recalled that at the October meeting, the Chan-

cellor had reported that the firm of Cresap, Mc Cormick and

Paget was retained to conduct the study of the School of

Medicine which the Board had requested be done. As noted

in the agenda, the report has been completed and the con-

sultants were prepared to present it. Mr. Cashell intro-

duced Mr. George Roen, Vice President of CMP, who in turn

introduced Dr. Eugene R. Smoley, Jr., and Mrs. Carol

Penskar, who had been chiefly responsible for the study.

Following some brief comments by Mr. Roen, Dr. Smoley pre-

sented a comprehensive review of the report, copies of

which were distributed to the Board. For purposes of the

minute record, Dr. Smoley's remarks are included.

I would like to take you through the salient features

of our report. We believe it is critical to do this

because our major objective was to lay out for you the

features of these issues to aid in decision making.

First, in terms of the situation, controversy has

surrounded the Medical School since its inception.

It has intensified in recent months, focusing on the

organizational placement of the School of Medicine,

its service relationship between the School and UNR,

and the extent to which the School serves southern

Nevada. Our objectives and the scope of our study

were to focus on facts and insights regarding the

organizational placement and the identification of

the School of Medicine. The report discusses alter-

natives for increased School of Medicine impact in

southern Nevada and particulary Las Vegas, and makes

an assessment of UNR's services to the School.

Our approach was to interview extensively -- conduct-

ing more than 60 interviews with Regents, University

Administrators, Medical School staff, School of Medi-

cine Advisory Board members, representatives of medical

societies and physicians - and to collect and analyze a

variety of information.

The report contains 88 pages with 22 exhibits, and is

organized in 4 chapters: (1) Introduction; (2) Summary

of Current Situation; (3) Discussion of Organizational

Issues; and (4) Discussion of Southern Nevada Program

Alternatives, and our presentation will follow that


In terms of the current situation, we want to talk

briefly about the organization of UNS, the reporting

relationship and the Chancellor's responsibility. The

organization chart (contained in the report) shows the

Board of Regents, the Chancellor reporting to the Board,

and 13 organizational units reporting to the Chancellor.

7 of these are the educational institutions of the State

including UNR and UNLV; 2 support service units - the

University Press and the Computing Center; and 4 units

that support the Chancellor in his major responsibili-

ties which are Systemwide oversight and executive of-

ficer responsibilities for the Board of Regents. The

important points of the chart are the Systemwide respon-

sibilities that the Chancellor has and the broad span

of control with 13 different units reporting to him, 7

of which are large operational educational institutions.

Look next at the profile of the School of Medicine it-

self. Its mission, as we confirmed through interviews

is, first, to give Nevadans an opportunity for medical

education, and secondly, to train doctors for the State

of Nevada and particularly for rural Nevada. It is the

consensus among those interviewed that the first ob-

jective has in fact been met to a degree. That is il-

lustrated by the increase in the number of Nevadans

accepted into Medical School.

The School of Medicine is one of 9 schools reporting to

the President of UNR, through the Vice President for

Academic Affairs. Medical faculty, including the Las

Vegas-based faculty, report through the Dean of the

School of Medicine.

A review of the sources of revenue shows that revenue

for the School of Medicine has grown from $5.5 million

to $7.6 million in the last two years, a 38% increase,

with State appropriations moving from 47% to 58% of the

total budget, and Veterans' Administration funds have

moved from 9% of the total budget to 16%.

The School of Medicine program consists of the 2-year

basic science program in Reno, a 3rd year clinical

clerkship with 7 weeks in obstetrics and gynecology at

Las Vegas, with the rest of the clinical clerkships at

Reno. 4th year elective clerkships can be taken any-

where. The first 2 years, the basic science is inte-

grated with the clinical problems with 10% taught by

the clinical faculty and 20% taught by psychiatric

faculty. 3rd year clerkships are taken in community

hospitals and physician's offices and require the co-

operation of these people and hospitals. There are 6

rotations - family medicine, internal medicine, obstet-

rics and gynecology, pediatrics, psychiatry and surgery.

Currently, there are 6 full-time equivalent clerkships

in Las Vegas and 42 full-time equivalent clerkships in

Reno. Projections of the School suggest that the number

of clerkships will remain as it is now.

In terms of residencies, the program following the 4th

year of Medical School, there are residencies estab-

lished in 5 of the 6 areas, that is, all except psychi-

atry. Residency becomes important because there is a

tendency for students who have their residency in a

particular location to stay in that location to prac-

tice medicine. Currently there are 23 residents in Las

Vegas and 44 in Reno for a total of 67. School of

Medicine projections are for 36 in Las Vegas and for

62 in Reno for a total of 98. The residents support

the Medical School program by teaching and staffing

the Family Practice Center in Reno, where 10,000 patient

visits occur annually.

We want to look next at the geographic sources of issue.

In looking at the admissions by geographic area, it

shows that the number of applicants had been about the

same with a slightly larger number for Washoe County

as opposed to Clark County, smaller for the rural areas

of the State, and very large for out-of-state appli-

cants. The number of admittances has been similar for

Clark and Washoe Counties, slightly larger for Washoe,

smaller for the rural areas, and quite small for out-


The next exhibit shows the admissions as a percent of

applicants by geographic area, and shows the percentage

of admissions from rural areas of the State has been

high, fairly much the same for Clark and Washoe, and

much smaller for out-of-state. Admissions by under-

graduate institution shows in 1980 that approximately

30% of the applicants who attended UNR were accepted

to the School of Medicine, 26.7% for UNLV; in 1981, the

percentages were 34.9% and 11.5%.

In looking at admissions by high school attended for

a 5-year period, 71 students who attended high school

in Clark County were admitted to the School of Medicine,

79 in Washoe County and 30 in the rural areas, with 108

from out-of-state.

The summary of those data are that the Washoe and Clark

County admissions statistics are relatively similar al-

though there have been more admittances from the Washoe

County area, much higher in the rural areas and much

lower from out-of-state. In terms of School of Medicine

graduates, of the 289 graduates from the School of Medi-

cine, 62 are currently practicing in Nevada, 9 are prac-

ticing in the rural areas. With respect to the 2nd

mission of the School of Medicine, that mission has

been fulfilled to a much lesser degree, with only 9 of

the 289 graduates currently practicing in the rural

areas of Nevada.

With respect to accreditation, summarizing some of the

salient features of accreditation that relate to the

Medical School. First of all, it is essential in that

a doctor in order to get a license to practice in the

United States must be graduated from an accredited

medical school. The process of accreditation is han-

dled by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education

which is a committee including 6 representatives from

the American Medical Association, 6 from the Associa-

tion of American Medical Colleges, 2 from the public

at large and 1 from the Canadian accrediting agency.

This committee sets the criteria and supervises the

review of accreditation for each medical school. There

is, as a part of the accreditation process, a site

visit which is conducted by a team of medical edu-

cators, including basic scientists, clinicians and

administrators. The school prepares the information,

the team reviews that information, makes its site visit,

and then writes its report. Since 1977 the LCME has

written comments about the School of Medicine. Some

of these comments are particulary important to the

discussion of the issues at hand. For example, it

cites the students as being bright, enthusiastic,

mature, competent and loyal. With respect to admis-

sions, it praises the School of Medicine for the State-

wide representation on its admissions committee; for

its accuracy in identifying motivated and dedicated


It emphasizes in its critique the importance of a close

tie between the basic and clinical programs. It rec-

ommends Reno as the site for clerkships and makes a

point of the fact that the hospitals are a more than

adequate resource. It cites the benefits that have

accrued to the VA Hospital by having the School of

Medicine participate in that hospital. It cites the

need for strong State financial support. In a more

recent comment, the LCME has recommended the expansion

of the Las Vegas programs. It recommends retaining a

major portion of the clerkships in Reno, but expanding

the teaching program at Sunrise and at Southern Nevada

Memorial Hospital.

Next, the service relationship that the School of Medi-

cine has with UNR. There are 3 ways in which this

service relationship exists. First, there is the

Business Center-North, which contains the Controller's

Office, the Purchasing and Personnel Departments,

servicing the School of Medicine. Second, reimbursed

services, and third, nonreimbursed services. There

is in the report an exhaustive list of those services.

I would just briefly read some of them so that you get

a sense of how long the list is: The Controller's Of-

fice handles all accounting functions, pays all bills

and does all encumbrances, prepares monthly financial

status reports, invests gift funds, maintains a cash-

ier's office, draws down student financial aid funds

from a central depository, assists in the management of

projects supported by outside contracts and grants. The

Purchasing Department issues all purchase orders, con-

ducts public bidding, traces and expedites the delivery

of goods and services, and serves as liaison with ven-

dors. The Personnel Department provides all types of

personnel services for all positions with the exception

of recruiting for academic and other professional posi-

tions, classifies and determines salaries, maintains

lists of qualified candidates, arranges interviews,

prepares recruitment paperwork, etc.

In terms of services for which the School of Medicine

reimburses UNR, the Physical Plant Department, jani-

torial services, maintenance of grounds, repairs and

improvements by plumbers, electricians, etc. The

Library orders and processes catalog acquisitions,

maintains the School's periodical subscriptions, pro-

vides the School of Medicine faculty and students with

access to other University libraries, assists in the

hiring of new librarians.

UNR allows the School of Medicine students to use all

recreational facilities and gives them discounts on

athletic and cultural events.

Services for which the School of Medicine does not

directly reimburse UNR, or does not fully reimburse

for, include the use of UNR buildings shared by the

School of Medicine; services of the Office of Vice

President for Academic Affairs, including review of

tenure and promotion recommendations, faculty employ-

ment, review of curriculum; services of UNR's person-

nel committee in reviewing SOM's recommendations on

tenure and promotion, and a whole list of other items

which I won't read to you, but which have been cata-

loged in the report.

Cost of these services have been estimated and are dis-

played in the report. Actual costs for those reim-

bursements to UNR are approximately $491,000. Other

services have been estimated very conservatively.

You can use any variety of indicators to do that. What

we have used is the percentage of students at the School

of Medicine of the total student population at UNR -

2.2%. Another indicator that can be used and we have

used in the case of the Personnel Department, is 9% for

the faculty, as a percentage of the total faculty of

UNR. If that 9% were used throughout, then the grand

total would be $1.2 million, as opposed to a $681,000

estimate included in the report.

I would like to look next at the medical services

Statewide. The significance of this topic is its re-

lation to the placement of the School of Medicine pro-

grams and their location. The first 3 exhibits in the

report talk about physicians and future medical re-

quirements - framing the future need for physicians.

The first, physicians by location and practice area.

That says essentially that the 3 areas in which there

are the most physicians are family and general, inter-

nal medicine and obstetrics and gynecology. The geo-

graphic-location is mostly in Clark and Washoe Counties

with 599 in Clark and 439 in Washoe, some in Carson City

and 60 in rural areas.

The next exhibit looks at the physicians in comparison

with the population. The national average is for there

to be 1.5 physicians in actual practice for every 1000

persons. In Washoe County, that ratio is 2.3 to 1000;

in Clark, it is 1.3 - slightly below the national aver-

age - and in Carson City, it is 1.7. There are clearly

more physicians per 1000 population in Washoe County

than there are nationally and than there are in Clark


Finally, using population projects from the State Plan-

ning Coordinator's Office, we have projected both the

current county ratio and the national average to the

year 2000, to indicate the number of physicians that

would be needed to meet the national averge and the

number of physicians that would be needed to maintain

the current ratio. For Clark County: to maintain the

current 1.3 county average, 558 would be needed; to

reach the national average, 736 would be needed. For

Washoe County, 292 needed to reach the county average

of 2.3 and 38 to reach the national average. It is

clear that the actual need for physicians to the extent

that it exists in Nevada is in the area of Clark County.

Further, the hospital capacity is currently 1551 beds

in Las Vegas and 1110 beds in Reno, and that is a

measure of the access to hospitals that is available

in the two communities. As a measure of the opportuni-

ties for clinical and residencies which is viewed in

some instances, although somewhat controversial, by the

number of indigent patients measured by the monthly

average of Medicaid patients. In Las Vegas that is

8518 which represents 69.6% of the State monthly aver-

age Medicaid patients, Reno is 2026 which represents

16.6% of the State total, so the opportunity as meas-

ured by indigent patients exists in Las Vegas. Hos-

pital capacity is greater in Las Vegas and the medical

requirements are greater in the Las Vegas area.

I want to move next, still within our description of the

current situation, to what we have titled informed in-

sights, and this really represents a critical part of

our report because we spent a considerable amount of

time in intensive interviews with 62 people from the

Nevada community and the intent of that was to under-

stand more fully how people felt about the issues and

their perceptions of the issues that we were asked to

examine. So, in reporting here, it is important to em-

phasize that these are perceptions rather than our con-


General comments on the University of Nevada System -

the University's mission was to provide quality educa-

tion for Nevadans, research was secondary. Secondly,

that it should, the UNS and its Campuses, concentrate

on a few chosen programs, focus its resources within

each Campus developing particular strengths for State-

wide service. Then, with respect to general comments

on the School of Medicine, there were a number of them

and we focused on them particularly. Many people felt

that the continued debate about the SOM had hurt the

School; their perception was that the faculty and stu-

dents were dispirited and felt the lack of support. The

perception was that there was difficulty in filling

faculty positions and that there was at least the po-

tential of some loss of federal grants as a consequence.

Many people felt that the SOM was poorly managed with

respect to Las Vegas. There were instances cited where

students were assigned to inappropriate physicians;

where there was a failure to notify hospitals regarding

the arrival time or assignment of students; where there

was a lack of communication with the hospital staff;

where there was mishandling of paperwork for adjunct

faculty appointments; where there was failure to ac-

knowledge volunteer time of physicians; where there

was little communication between the School and the Las

Vegas faculty. This was not a limited but rather a

widespread perception on the part of those we talked

to, so it becomes a significant insight by the inter-

viewees. Several people also spoke about the School

of Medicine being underfunded. Some cited the turnover

of the Dean and the staff as having hurt the School of

Medicine in that it delayed or made it more difficult

to build community relationship and to conduct the

planning that is necessary.

In terms of viewpoints on the organization issue, there

was split opinion and strong feeling. Some people,

particularly those focused on Las Vegas, believe that

the School of Medicine should report directly to the

Chancellor as a way of addressing the deficiencies in

the Las Vegas programs. They emphasize that it is a

Statewide program and administration, in their per-

ception, would be easier under the Chancellor. A number

of other people believe that the School of Medicine

should report to UNR as it currently does. They be-

lieve that the current relationship between the School

of Medicine and UNR is building and that there is a

growing acceptance of the relationship, as ties and

programs and services are developing, and that this

relationship to UNR is necessary in order to build the

kind of faculty cooperation between the School and the

University that is needed. Without exception, all agree

that the name of the SOM should be changed.

With respect to viewpoints on the SOM's program, in

terms of admissions, only 2 thought the admissions proc-

ess was biased. Most who commented on admissions ac-

knowledged that the reasons for the greater number of

acceptances in Washoe County is that students have a

perception that being a UNR student or a Reno resident

gives them a better chance at acceptance at the School

of Medicine and they cite that there is greater visi-

bility of the School in Reno. They believe that those

are the reasons for the greater admissions there.

In terms of community relations, several physicians

spoke about the evolution of the School of Medicine in

the medical community in Reno, believing that is now

improving and that if the School of Medicine is moved

to Las Vegas the same evolutionary process would have

to take place. In terms of planning, many, including

all of the Las Vegas physicians, believe that SOM's

goals, plans and programs are not adequately defined.

A large number and cross section believe that the SOM's

presence in Las Vegas is not effective. Many feel that

the Las Vegas community is alienated as a direct result

of the SOM's actions. Many believe that the Las Vegas

faculty is isolated from the School of Medicine. And

nearly all of those interviewed feel that the School

of Medicine needs to increase its visibility and in-

volvement in Las Vegas. They cite as the best method,

increasing the number of clerkships and residencies

there and most of them also cite the possibility of the

construction of a building there are being particulary

helpful. None of those interviewed believe that the

School of Medicine should move entirely to Las Vegas.

Less than 4% believe that the entire clinical program

should move to Las Vegas and they cite the cost, the

impact on quality, the hardships on students, the dif-

ficulty to administer, the likely loss of clinical

faculty, the likely loss of $1 million VA hospital sup-

port, as reasons for not supporting a move of the entire

clinical program. The Nevada State Medical Association

opposes the move of the entire clinical program. A

letter to the Board expressing their position on that

point is included in the report.

Moving to Chapter 3, I would like to discuss what we

see as the organizational issues and our position on

these organizational issues, because as you recall we

were asked to make recommendations in this area. A

point which needs to be emphasized is that the Regents'

concern for the School of Medicine is justified. The

perception is that there is a critical problem in lack

of planning for community relations, for management,

and alienated Las Vegas physicians with respect to the

presence of the Medical School in Las Vegas. However,

the overwhelming evidence is that despite this, the

School should continue to report organizationally to

UNR, for a number of reasons. First and most important

has to do with Campus accountability. There is a

particularly important passage in our report that I

would like to call your attention to: "If the Univer-

sity of Nevada System is to function as an integrated

system under which each Campus develops its own

strengths for the benefit of the entire State, then

the overall University of Nevada System must support

accountability by each Campus for its own Statewide

programs. Because the State and the UNS are too small

to duplicate specialized programs on each Campus, most

UNS personnel agree that each Campus should develop its

own strengths, but should serve the entire State in

these strengths. The organizational structure of the

UNS should support this concept by enforcing the ac-

countability of each Campus for its unique programs.

An arrangement under which a specific program reports

to the Chancellor negates such accountability. Because

the location of the School of Medicine under the Chan-

cellor would create the unfortunate implication that

to be truly Statewide the program must report to the

Chancellor and that below the Chancellor the UNS is

not capable of administering a Statewide program. As

the UNS grows and strengthens, such programs reporting

to the Chancellor would be unwieldly."

That is the first point on Campus accountability, but

there are really a number of others as well. In terms

of the role of the Chancellor's Office, with his span

of control and with his overall functioning as the

chief executive officer for the Regents, and with broad

policy oversight over these many educational institu-

tions, such a move would change his role to that of line

administrative officer and it would divert attention

from these broader concerns of the UNS and focus them

on the School of Medicine and its particular concerns.

Furthermore, the organizational change does not address

the real concern which has caused the problem of the

lack of management of the Las Vegas programs. The cause

of the shortcomings in the SOM's Las Vegas programs are

management problems as opposed to structural problems.

In terms of administrative costs, there would be some

additional administrative personnel required if it were

changed to the Chancellor's Office. The benefits of

University affiliation could be lost by such a change.

Currently, the governing structure with the appointment

and standards for tenure and promotion are University-

wide concerns with the School of Medicine being part

of the broader committee structure of the University

which provides quality control. In terms of facilities,

recreational facilities and the other facilities, li-

brary particularly, that are available to the SOM might

be lost or in any case the access would be more diffi-


With respect to the SOM recruitment for faculty and

students, I would suggest that this lack of access to

University facilities would, in our view, make it more

difficult to attract appropriate personnel. In terms

of relationship with the University, it has been improv-

ing and this distance could detract from its further

improvement. In terms of the School of Medicine and

undergraduate programs -- medical technology, speech

pathology - they might be transferred and in any case

their relationship would be difficult. With respect

to the interdisciplinary programs, there is the issue

of tenure existing at only one institution and collab-

oration would be more difficult. With respect to the

School's accreditation, the Committee on Medical Edu-

cation guidelines indicate that wherever possible, the

School of Medicine should be part of the University.

Financial aid to SOM students would possibly be reduced

because they would be ineligible for UNR funds, and a

new financial aid coordinator and new relationship would

need to be established. Approval of the School's in-

direct cost rate would have to have new federal approv-

al. There might be a necessity to pay more directly for

services from the University - in any case, there would

be a negotiation required to determine service costs.

Finally, it is unprecedented in the community-based

medical schools in the country for a School of Medicine

not to be part of a University Campus. There are medi-

cal schools that are separate, but where they are sep-

arate, they are part of hospitals or medical centers,

and furthermore, they are often also a part of an over-

all health sciences center.

With respect to the organizational placement, what is

it that the Chancellor's Office and the Board of Regents

can do? We believe that the Chancellor of the UNS

should provide strong policy and administrative review,

particularly in the short term, as a part of his over-

all overview functions. If there are issues or problems

with the University System, in any of the institutions,

his attention needs to be directed there. It also is a

part of his function to strengthen the role of Las Vegas

as a part of the UNS. This means that his role is moni-

toring the development of a more supportive relation-

ship, requiring well defined plans from the School, re-

quiring that the plans agree with the Regents' policy

and direction; requiring that there is evidence of ef-

fective conception and direction of the Las Vegas pro-


Furthermore, UNLV should review and comment on the

School's plans and budgets for Las Vegas. The purpose

of this review should be to insure their sensitivity

to Las Vegas needs and also to insure that they are

consistent with UNLV's medically related programs. In

terms of the School's formal identification, the name

should be changed and the recommendation is that the

name be the University of Nevada School of Medicine.

It is important symbolically. It will strengthen the

perception of the School as a Statewide School and it

is clear that there is widespread support for that


With respect to the School's service relationship with

UNR, there are some strengths. It is inexpensive by

and large through the pooling of services. Furthermore,

the School of Medicine's share in some instances ex-

ceeds its proportionate share because its facilities are

more expensive to maintain. Joint appointments expand

the faculty of the School at reduced costs. It expands

the breadth and depth of resources available to the

School. It gives administrative supervision and, by and

large, the perceptions are that the quality of services

is good, prompt, professional, competent, helpful, re-

liable. There are, however, some specific issues that

need to be addressed. One is registration, where there

is a perception that the Medical School's registration

should be separate from the rest of the University.

This is an issue being worked on currently, there ap-

pears that there will be a resolution of it, and it

appears to be a sound idea. With respect to the Person-

nel Committee, there has been a concern regarding pro-

motion and tenure criteria. This is not an unusual

problem for relationships between Universities and

medical schools. It is definitely a problem that needs

to be addressed and the Vice President for Academic

Affairs should focus attention on this and his findings

should be reviewed by the President and the Chancellor.

Indirect cost is another issue. The perception on the

part of SOM is that the indirect costs from the outside

projects in which the SOM is the major contributor are

not accruing back to the SOM to the extent that they

should and this should be reexamined and the University

President should be directly involved in that examina-


With respect to the Controller's handling of financial

status reports for outside funds, there is a need to

change that process so that the manager of the funds

receives and reviews the financial status report before

it goes to the funding agency, which is not currently

the case. With respect to the Personnel Office, its

relationship with the School of Medicine, there are a

number of issues regarding personnel rules. It is not

clear whether those are a consequence of State rules

or Personnel Office rules, but there is clearly a need

for attention and discussion.

Finally, there is some duplication of efforts in the

Alumni Office and that needs to be addressed and dupli-

cation eliminated.

I would like to turn now to the final chapter and a dis-

cussion of the program alternatives for southern Nevada.

First, to emphasize - our purpose in this chapter is not

to make a recommendation but rather to document the

characteristics of the alternatives. Our approach has

been to describe, in order of magnitude, capital costs

and to discuss other facets with respect to each alter-

native, but not including other costs which include

relocation which may exceed $1 million, and by and

large not operating costs, although in a few cases we

have mentioned certain of these. And then, finally,

to indicate the implications for implementation of

alternatives. The alternatives we have identified are:

the total relocation to Las Vegas; the relocation of

the clinical program in Las Vegas; and then a series

of specific enhancements to the current program in Las

Vegas, of which 6 are discussed.

With respect to the first alternative which is reloca-

tion of the School of Medicine to Las Vegas. No one

favored this, and the reason for including it and dis-

cussing it in some detail is that it provided an im-

portant framework for the discussion of the other al-

ternatives, because major considerations here in the

extreme are mitigated by the various alternatives which

include some presence in Reno and some presence in Las

Vegas. Certainly, the discussion in the extreme is

mitigated by retaining some presence in Reno. As far

as the capital costs estimates, a look at the exhibit

contained in the report shows a total capital cost esti-

mate at possibly $17.4 million to move the entire School

of Medicine. This is based on construction costs for

the current buildings. With respect to other consider-

ations, a total move of the program would require a

review of accreditation, there would be concern because

accreditation is closely linked with the strength of the

graduate programs in biomedical sciences.

Public relations - some people would perceive of such an

expenditure as a misuse of scarce resources. Faculty

relocation - some wouldn't move, the relocation costs

would be high, the recruitment costs would be high. Re-

cruitment of adjunct faculty - there would be a need to

to recruit replacements for the 246 adjunct or part-time

faculty currently in Reno. Loss of VA hospital funds of

$1 million. Effect on the VA hospital - it would influ-

ence the quality of the hospital program and would in-

fluence the funding that the hospital receives. Com-

munity relations - it would negate gains in community

relations which have been made in Reno. With respect

to new residencies, there would be a need for residen-

cies which are precursors of clerkships in pediatrics

and family practice in Las Vegas. The Family Practice

Center would be most likely lost to Reno or reduced, and

it currently has 10,000 patient vists per year. The

Animal Research Facility - if that were moved, it would

reduce some savings from the Job Corps support.

Finally, interdisciplinary programs - there is more op-

portunity in Reno since there are 20 doctoral programs

in Reno and only one in Las Vegas, and there would be

the loss of those joint appointments; for example, 8 or

9 in biochemistry between SOM and College of Agricul-


Second alternative - to relocate the School of Medicine

Clinical Program. Again, this could be mitigated by

some presence in Reno so that it could mean basically

moving the Administration and the bulk of the programs

to Las Vegas. Capital costs are estimated at $3.8 mil-

lion. Other specific considerations: administrative

costs would include at least a second Chief of Medicine

and 6 Department Chairmen; library costs, estimated at

$71,000 minimally, and staff salaries. Coordination

and communication - a separation between the 2nd and 3rd

year programs, need to deal with separate business cen-

ters, need to integrate basic sciences with clinical,

relocation of students since it would be necessary for

students to move between the 2nd and 3rd year, hard

when spouses work and there are families - 25% of the

medical students are married. And then finally, the

same list, accreditation, public relations - same argu-

ments that were listed for the first alternative.

And then, finally, the specific enhancements to the

Las Vegas program. Some of these are already planned

and our objective here is to present the facts that are

associated with these, not to make recommendations that

any particular one should be adopted but rather to lay

out the factors for the Regents' discussion.

First, construction of a School of Medicine building in

Las Vegas. We have estimated the cost of that, at 3

levels. For a minimum size, which would include offices

for the Associate Dean, classroom, library, one faculty

office, $343,000. For a larger building that would in-

clude 2 additional classrooms and 5 additional faculty

offices, with additional staff space, resulting in a

cost of $509,000. A possible addition of the UNLV

Radiological Technology programs to be housed in the

same building, bringing the total cost to $1.5 million.

Secondly, in terms of construction of a School of Medi-

cine building in Las Vegas, there is a major benefactor

of long standing who has expressed his intention to

contribute a deed of trust to the School, with proceeds

to be used for a building or clinic in Las Vegas. In-

terviewees expressed strong support for the tangible

visibility of such a move; however, there is a need to

define the purpose to which a building would be placed

before the decision to go ahead with such a building

is made.

The second alternative would be the expansion of clerk-

ship and residency programs in Las Vegas. Recently,

there have been established residencies in surgery and

internal medicine at Southern Nevada Memorial. Southern

Nevada would support an expansion. Sunrise would be

willing to be involved if the School of Medicine defines

its contribution. Clinical programs in Las Vegas offer

convenience for southern Nevada students, service to

the southern Nevada community, exposure on the part of

the students to a wide variety of medical cases. It

should be noted that an expansion of residencies is al-

ready planned, an expansion of clinical programs cur-

rently is not. With respect to other programs and

operating changes, one plan is to institute a School

of Medicine Library. Another to expand the Advisory

Board to strengthen the ties to southern Nevada and

tap the valuable perspective of additional resource

people in Las Vegas and southern Nevada communities.

Also, establish a Las Vegas clinic. Because of the

large indigent population, such a clinic may be needed,

although Southern Nevada Memorial believes that their

clinic can do this job, so careful planning would be

needed. Establish compatible functioning if the School

of Medicine faculty could hold joint appointments and

teach undergraduates as they do at UNR. SOM faculty

could participate in interdisciplinary programs as they

do at UNR. There are currently UNLV programs in radio-

logical technology, exercise physiology and nursing that

might provide initial opportunity for cooperative ef-


That constitutes a summary of the factors related to the

alternatives. There is one more point to be made and

that is consideration for implementation. In our view,

the School of Medicine should pursue whatever course of

action is chosen with resolution and vigor. Serious

shortcomings in the SOM's Las Vegas programs justifies

such action. That is clearly evident in the interviews

as we have discussed them in several instances in this


With respect to planning and direction of community re-

lations, no formal change will be effective without the

commitment to improve the School's Las Vegas program.

In order to insure that commitment, there is a need for

the Dean of SOM, the Chancellor and the Board of Regents

to take resolute and vigorous action appropriate to

their respective roles, and that means that the Dean

needs to take those actions required for implementation,

the Chancellor to monitor those actions, and the Board

of Regents to review progress periodically.

At the conclusion of his presentation, Dr. Smoley, together

with Mr. Roen and Ms. Penskar, responded to questions from

the Board, following which the Chairman announced that the

consultant would be present the following morning when dis-

cussion on this matter would be resumed.

The meeting adjourned at 5:30 P.M. and reconvened at 10:20 A.M.,

Friday, November 6, 1981.

2. Approval of Consent Agenda

Adoption of the Consent Agenda containing the following

items was recommended (Agenda identified as Ref. A and

filed with permanent minutes):

(1) Approval of minutes of the regular meeting of October

9, 1981.

(2) Acceptance of gifts and grants.

(3) Reappointment of the following to the UNR College of

Arts and Science Advisory Board for 3-year terms:

Barbara Feltner

William Fox

George Hardaway

Ellen Thompson

Margery Cavanaugh

(4) Approval of the following new estimative budget within

Statewide Programs - UNR for the Summer Session London

Theater Experience:


Opening Balance $ 1,000

Student Fees 49,500

Total Revenue $50,500


Professional Salaries $ 2,250

Fringe Benefits 100

Out-of-State Travel 1,000

Operating 45,150

Ending Fund Balance 2,000

Total Expenditures $50,500

(5) Approval of the following fund transfers:

TMCC - $12,000 from Student Services operating to

Professional Salaries for part-time counselors.

This transfer is to correct an error in the operat-

ing budget.

UNR - $76,500 from Contingency Reserve to Residency

Program, Internal Medicine. An offsetting transfer

has been made from professional salary savings.

(6) Appointment of Mr. Earl Johnson to the Advisory Com-

mittee for the UNLV Center for Business and Economic

Research, replacing Mr. William Johnson.

(7) Approval of amendments to the 1981-82 Financial Plan

for DRI for: Weather Modification Project; Social

Sciences Center - Unrestricted; and Administration

and General Expense.

(8) Approval of a $5 per student special laboratory fee

for Data Processing classes offered by TMCC.

(9) Authorization for travel by Chancellor Bersi to Taiwan

as a guest of the Ministry of Education of the Repub-

lic of China, commencing November 8 and returning on

November 24, 1981, also visting Korea and Japan at no

expense to the University.

(10) Approval of new easement for Tropicana Wash Flood

Channel to correct an error in the legal description

of an earlier easement granted to Clark County for

flood control purposes.

Mr. Mc Bride moved approval of the Consent Agenda as sub-

mitted. Motion seconded by Mrs. Gallagher, carried without


3. Naming of College of Hotel and Business Building, UNLV

President Goodall announced receipt of a major gift to UNLV

from Mr. Thomas T. Beam, to be used 1/3 in support of the

College of Business and Economics, 1/3 in support of the

College of Hotel Administration, and 1/3 in support of the

development and expansion of architectural programs at UNLV.

Also involved in this offer of a gift is the naming of the

UNLV Business and Hotel building after Mr. Beam's parents.

In announcing the gift, President Goodall recognized the

efforts of the UNLV Development Office and Mr. Lyle Rivera,

and Mr. Bill Ireland, Vice President Dixon, Regent Lilly

Fong and Mr. Wing Fong.

Mrs. Fong moved that the gift be accepted subject to the

conditions cited by President Goodall as to the use of the

funds, and that the College of Hotel and Business be named

in honor of Frank and Estella Beam. Motion seconded by

Mr. Buchanan, carried without dissent.

4. Additional Gift from Mr. Claude I Howard

Chairman Cashell reported an additional gift from Mr. Claude

I. Howard, as described in a letter to Chancellor Bersi and

which Chairman Cashell read for the record:

When we last talked at the School of Medicine Advisory

Board meeting on October 8, I told you that it was my

intention to give to the Medical School a deed of trust

for about $950,000 on a shopping center in North Las

Vegas which I have recently constructed and sold. This

deed of trust will pay approximately $4,000,000 over the

next 20 years in principal and interest. I want to

confide to you that it is still my intent to convey

this deed of trust to the Medical School for its use

in developing its programs and its visibility in

southern Nevada. I have already expressed my feeling

to you about keeping the Medical School in Reno. How-

ever, I do feel there is a need in Las Vegas for de-

veloping additional School of Medicine clinical pro-

grams. In light of these needs, I would like to dedi-

cate the above mentioned gift to the construction of

a clinical education and research center for the School

of Medicine on the Las Vegas Campus. I believe this

building would give the School a much needed opportunity

to tie its growing programs together, to give the School

a focus, and to give it visibility in the community. It

would at the same time make for the most efficient use

of Medical School faculty and personnel in the southern

part of the State.

I believe such a building would be a real asset to the

Medical School and to the Las Vegas community. I would

like to dedicate as much of my gift as is necessary to

pay for 1/2 of the construction costs of such a build-

ing. I would like to request that the Board of Regents

arrange for matching funds to pay for the remainder of

the costs necessary to construct a building that would

meet the School's needs.

I will appreciate your help in this matter, and look

forward to hearing from you.

Mr. Cashell recalled that in October he had visited with Mr.

Howard concerning his proposed gift, following which some

preliminary plans for a facility in Las Vegas were develop-

ed and were available for Regents to review if interested.

Mr. Cashell expressed his appreciation to Mr. Howard, and

pledged that efforts would begin immediately to secure the

matching funds in order that this building could become a

reality on the Las Vegas Campus.

Mr. Howard announced that following discussions with his

accountants, he was pleased to increase his offer to $2

million, and would also pick up the cost of the library,

estimated at $71,600.

Mr. Mc Bride moved that the gifts offered by Mr. Howard be

accepted, and that the building for which the gift funds

are provided be named in honor of Mr. Howard. Motion sec-

onded by Mrs. Whitley, carried without dissent.

Discussion resumed on Item 1., Study of School of Medicine

Mrs. Gallagher moved that the name of the Medical School

be changed to the University of Nevada School of Medicine.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Whitley, carried without dissent.

Mr. Buchanan moved that in light of the donation by Mr.

Howard, the Board of Regents direct that the 3rd and 4th

years of the School of Medicine be moved to Las Vegas, to

the UNLV Campus, that the clinical programs be maintained

under UNR supervision, and that the transition take place

as materials and facilities become available. Motion sec-

onded by Mr. Karamanos.

Mr. Ross spoke in opposition to the motion, suggested that

it violated every recommendation contained in the report.

He expressed special concern for the disruption such a move

would cause to the 3rd year medical students, many of whom

he pointed out are married and have families.

In response to a question from Mrs. Whitley as to what would

be involved in moving all of the clinical programs to Las

Vegas, Dean Daugherty pointed out that the 3rd year only is

involved since the 4th year is an elective year where stu-

dents go all over the country. Dean Daugherty commented

that it was his understanding that Mr. Howard's gift does

not anticipate the 3rd year in Las Vegas, rather the plan

was that the building for which he is providing funds would

serve to provide more visibility for the program in Las

Vegas and would allow the School to continue to develop

and enlarge on the Las Vegas program.

Dean Daugherty also pointed out that the School started back

in the Spring with the process to identify the needs of Las

Vegas and to develop additional 3rd year programs for that

community. There is currently an obstetrics program there,

and he suggested that it would be entirely feasible to de-

velop additional programs, particularly in internal medicine

and surgery. There would, he stated, be a great deal of

difficulty in developing programs in family medicine and in

pediatrics because of problems related to accreditation and


Dr. Daugherty also stated that it was the commitment of the

School of Medicine, and would be as long as he remained

Dean, to continue to develop the programs in Las Vegas. At

the present time, there are 260+ doctors in Reno involved

in teaching, and 100 doctors in Las Vegas. Any changes in

the programs, particularly such a move as suggested by the

motion, would interfere with the process of planning to

identify the needed resources.

Mr. Howard spoke concerning the motion, stating that it was

his understanding that this matter was all settled and the

3rd and 4th years would remain in Reno. He expressed con-

cern that this was still under discussion, adding that if

this action is taken, he did not feel that his contribution

would be needed. He urged that the School remain in Reno,

that it be recognized as a Medical School for the State

and that the South and North start working together to

support it.

Mr. Karamanos stated that he had a better understanding of

the matter now and wished to withdraw his second.

Mr. Buchanan explained the reason for his motion, stating

that he felt that it was necessary to have a medical facili-

ty and the degree of care which the CMP report states is

not available in Las Vegas. He suggested that if the 3rd

and 4th years of the Medical School were committed to Las

Vegas, the community would be provided better medical care

in the future. Mr. Buchanan stated that the doctors in

Las Vegas have felt slighted because of the treatment they

have been getting from the administration in Reno; by split-

ting the School and placing the clinical program at UNLV,

support of the Las Vegas community would be gained. He

asked Mr. Howard to reconsider and support the movement of

the clinical program to Las Vegas as materials, facilities

and personnel become available.

Mr. Ross objected again to the motion, stating that he be-

lieved it inappropriate to subject Mr. Howard to this dis-

cussion. He pointed out that the report proposes the ex-

pansion of clinical programs in Las Vegas but does not

recommend a transfer of the total program.

Mr. Buchanan offered to withdraw his motion in view of Mr.

Howard's objections.

Mr. Howard expressed a desire for the North and South to

work together, suggesting that there be one common goal,

a Medical School for the entire State and for its people,

and suggested that the Regents get together in supporting

that goal.

Ms. Del Papa moved, in the interest of the University of

Nevada School of Medicine, that the report by Cresap, Mc

Cormick and Paget be accepted, that the Dean and the staff

of the School of Medicine be directed to prepre a plan for

implementation of specific enhancement of programs for Las

Vegas within a reasonable amount of time and to report back

to the Board, and that the Board of Regents go on record

with a vote of confidence for the Dean and the staff of the

School. Motion seconded by Mr. Ross.

It was agreed that the motion to accept the report did not

imply approval, in that several of the Regents had reserva-

tions of varying degrees with some of the assumptions of

the report. Mrs. Fong specifically requested that the

record reflect her concern that the projected growth in the

number of residencies for Las Vegas was unbalanced in pro-

portion to the total projected population growth for the


Mrs. Gallagher endorsed Mr. Howard's suggestion that the

School of Medicine be regarded as a program for the entire

State, and stated that she hoped the Board's action today

would serve to settle the issue of the School's location and

that everyone would move on to make it the very best Medical

School of its size. She thanked Mr. Howard for his gener-

osity to the School and for his support.

Dean Daugherty suggested that the report prepared by Cresap,

Mc Cormick and Paget could serve as the first phase of a

long range plan, a process which many describe as dynamic

and ever changing, depending on new information and new

data. He said that he would welcome the opportunity to work

this through, to come back through the President and the

Chancellor, to discuss various programs in Las Vegas. He

expressed his appreciation for the commitment and support

of the Board which had been demonstrated by the Regents,

and stated that the facility and students in the School

will also appreciate it greatly.

Mr. Ralph Denton, a Las Vegas member of the School of Medi-

cine Advisory Board, stated that he wished to compliment the

firm that prepared the study. He suggested that it pointed

out many of the problems that the Advisory Board has recog-

nized existed in the past and that they were trying to cor-

rect. As a member of the community, he said, he was looking

forward to a growing presence of the School in the South.

At the request of Mrs. Fong, Dr. Ted Jacobs, also a Las

Vegas member of the Advisory Board, commented on the Medical

School programs, agreed that there should be more visibil-

ity in Las Vegas, and suggested that the end result of the

study and the meeting underway should produce that. How-

ever, he stated, he did not believe that one could transfer

half of the Medical School to Las Vegas without serious

consequences. He urged that the programs in Las Vegas be

improved and enhanced and expressed agreement with the

conclusions of the report.

Chairman Cashell asked that the motion be expanded to in-

clude the Chancellor and Presidents Goodall and Crowley in

the vote of confidence.

President Goodall noted that one of the specific options

mentioned in the report is the integration of all of the

medical programs in Las Vegas, including the allied health

programs at UNLV, into a single facility. He stated that

he believed this was an important recommendation and he

hoped that the Board and others involved in the planning

would give that very serious consideration.

Ms. Del Papa expanded her motion to direct that this option

be studied. Mr. Ross accepted the amendment.

Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

5. Report of Investment Advisory Committee

Mr. Karamanos presented the following report and recom-

mendations arising from the meeting of the Investment Ad-

visory Committee on Thursday, November 5, 1981:

1. Bob Lee of First Interstate Bank reviewed the assets

held in the account managed by FIB and recommended the

following purchases:

From the Engel Unitrust

200 Manufacturers Hanover 38 7,600 544 7.1

200 Continental Illinois 38 7,600 400 4.9

300 CBT Corp. 24 7,200 450 6.3

200 Crum & Forster 36 7,200 328 4.6

200 Federated Dept. Stores 37 7,400 380 5.1

100 Eli Lilly Co. 54 5,400 280 5.2

100 American Tel & Tel 60 6,000 540 9.0

100 General Electric 57 5,700 320 5.6

Total Stocks 54,100 3,242 6.0

100K Par U. S. Treasury Notes

10 3/4% due 8/15/90 84 84,000 10,750 12.8

Total Purchases 138,100 13,992 10.1

From the Mac Millan Endowment

300 Manufacturers Hanover 38 11,400 896 7.2

200 Bay Banks, Inc. 56 11,200 640 5.7

200 St. Paul Co.s 53 10,600 464 4.5

300 Federated Dept. Stores 37 11,100 570 5.1

200 Macy's 59 11,800 350 3.0

300 Merrill Lynch 37 11,100 374 3.4

400 Mc Donnell Douglas 33 13,200 424 3.2

200 Eli Lilly Co. 54 10,800 560 5.2

200 General Electric 57 11,400 640 5.6

Total Purchases 102,600 4,918 4.7

From the Main Endowment Fund

5000 Mellon National Corp. 40 200,000 5,100 2.6

5200 Manufacturers Hanover 38 197,600 14,144 7.1

5200 Continental Ill. Corp. 38 197,600 10,400 5.3

3500 Bay Banks Inc. 56 196,000 11,200 5.7

8000 CBT Corp. 24 192,000 17,000 5.7

4500 Aetna Life & Cas. Co. 44 198,000 10,440 5.3

5500 Crum & Forster Co. 36 198,000 9,020 4.6

3700 St. Paul Co's 53 196,100 8,504 4.4

3400 Connecticut General Corp.57 193,800 5,984 3.1

9500 Cart House Inc. 21 199,500 4,940 2.5

6600 Denny's Inc. 30 198,000 5,808 2.9

5300 Federated Dept. Stores 37 196,100 10,070 5.1

3400 Macy's Inc. 59 200,600 5,950 3.0

4300 E. F. Hutton & Co. 46 197,800 3,526 1.8

5300 Merrill Lynch 37 196,100 6,784 3.5

3100 Litton Ind. 63 195,300 4,340 2.2

6000 Mc Donnell Douglas 33 198,000 6,360 3.2

3600 Eli Lilly Co. 54 194,400 10,080 5.2

3500 Bristol Meyers 58 203,000 6,440 3.2

3300 American Tel & Tel 60 198,000 17,820 9.0

3100 General Electric 57 176,700 11,520 5.6

Total Purchases 4,122,700 185,430 4.4

2. Tom Josephsen of Security National Bank reviewed the

assets held in accounts managed by SNB and recommended

the following purchases from the University of Nevada

Atmospherium/Planetarium account:

300 First Insterstate Bancp. 38 11,400 537 4.7

600 Bank of America 23 13,800 912 6.6

3. Monte Miller of Valley Bank reviewed the assets in the

accounts managed by VB but made no recommendations for

change at this time.

4. In addition to the transactions detailed above, the Com-

mittee requested that guidelines, under which investment

decisions could be made between Board meetings, be de-

veloped. It was agreed that the bank representatives

would submit proposed guidelines to the Chancellor's

Office, following which Counsel will develop policy

for consideration by the Board which will specify the

parameters of the authority delegated to the Chancellor

and the Chairman of the Board.

Mr. Buchanan moved approval of the report and recommenda-

tions of the Investment Advisory Committee. Motion seconded

by Mrs. Fong.

Mr. Mc Bride expressed some reservations with the recommen-

dations for investment in the stock market, and asked for

reassurance that there is a mechanism in place for a quick

decision to sell should the conditions of the market sug-

gest that action. Mr. Karamanos acknowledged that the

ability to respond quickly to recommendations by the bank

representatives was critical and suggested that the guide-

lines which the Committee was requesting would serve that


Motion carried without dissent.

6. Review of Business Centers

Chancellor Bersi recalled that the Board had requested the

Chancellor "to conduct an objective analysis, with assist-

ance from the institutional Presidents, of the functions

and structure of the two Business Centers." He reported

that a meeting of the Officers had been held and submitted

the following statement of policy as a general recommenda-

tion from the Chancellor and the Presidents for adoption

by the Board of Regents:

The Chancellor is the Chief Executive Officer and

Treasurer of the University of Nevada System - responsi-

ble for the general and financial management of the


The Presidents of the UNS are accountable to the Chan-

cellor for the administration of their respective

institutions and report through the Chancellor to the

Board of Regents.

To guarantee equitable and consistent business service

to all units of the UNS:

(1) The Chancellor shall be empowered to establish the

policies and practices under which the financial

administration of the UNS will be conducted.

(2) The Chancellor shall establish a Business Affairs

Council, composed of the chief financial officer

of each System unit, to review and recommend

Systemwide financial policies and procedures to

the Chancellor.

(3) Additionally, the Chancellor shall, in consultation

with the Presidents, develop a model for effective

utilization of business services by the Community

Colleges and the Desert Research Institute.

Chancellor Bersi noted inclusion of an organization chart

depicting this new relationship and recommended approval by

the Board of Regents.

Ms. Del Papa moved approval of the statement of policy.

Motion seconded by Mrs. Fong, carried without dissent.

7. Consideration of Budget Committee Matters

The Chair was assumed by Budget Committee Chairman Del Papa

for a meeting of the Board as a Committee of the Whole for

consideration and action on the following Budget Committee


(1) Report of Outstanding Loans - In response to a request

from the Budget Committee at its meeting of October 9,

1981, a report of all outstanding loans from the Board

of Regents Special Projects Account was submitted.

Ms. Del Papa stated that it was her intention to meet

with the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance

to discuss the status of these loans further and have

another report and recommendation at a subsequent meet-


(2) Report Concerning Schedule of Review of Graduate Pro-

grams, UNR - Ms. Del Papa recalled that at the October

meeting the Budget Committee had recommended and the

Board had subsequently approved a request for $15,000

to initiate an anticipated 3-year review and evalua-

tion of UNR graduate programs, but had requested Pres-

ident Crowley to submit at this meeting a report on

the feasibility of an accelerated schedule for this


Dr. Crowley reported that he had discussed with the

Dean of the Graduate School and the Graduate Council

the possibility of increasing the number of programs

to be reviewed during the first year of the 3-year

project. It was the opinion of the Council and the

Dean that the number scheduled for review in the 1st

year should not be changed, but consideration given to

an increase in the number to be reviewed during the

succeeding years, following an evaluation of the 1st

year's work.

(3) Requests for Funding from Board of Regents Special

Projects Account - The following requests for funding

were submitted:

A. Proposal for Staff Development Funds, TMCC -


B. Proposal for Staff Development Funds, WNCC -


C. Proposal for Relocation of Chemistry Lab from

Headquarters Building to Sage Building, DRI -


D. Request for Special Travel Funds, NNCC - $5,000

E. Request for Funding for Graduate Program Review,

UNLV - $14,800

F. Request for Funding for NSACC Leadership Conference

- $20,000

G. Request for Funding for Lighting Control System,

Church Fine Arts, UNR - $26,300

H. Request for Funding for Radio Production Facili-

ties, UNR - $37,500

Ms. Del Papa reported that the request contained in

Item F had been withdrawn.

Mr. Cashell expressed strong reservations with respect

to the request contained in Item C, pointing out that

funding for this project has been requested and denied

by two successive Legislative Sessions. He suggested

that if the Board provides financing for projects which

the Legislature has turned down, the Legislature might

reasonably expect the Board to continue to fund such

projects without legislative assistance.

Dr. Murino suggested as an alternative that instead of

a grant from the Special Projects Account, the Board

approve a loan which would then be repaid by the Insti-


Ms. Del Papa recalled that in 1975, a loan of $100,000

was made for DRI to front fund grants and contracts for

which DRI was certain they would be receiving funds


She suggested the Regents authorize the use of this

fund. President Murino agreed that this fund was still

intact, but recalled that the Board has authorized at

the October meeting a loan of $95,000 from the account

for a 30-day period, and suggested that this fund was

still required for the purposes for which it was es-


Mr. Cashell moved that the request contained in Item C

be denied. Motion seconded by Mr. Buchanan, carried

without dissent.

Mrs. Whitley moved approval of the requests contained

in Items A, B, D, E and H. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Fong, carried without dissent.

(4) Proposal for Endowment Account - President Goodall re-

called that in October he had requested authorization

to place $200,000 which has accumulated through service

fees, research contracts and overhead for the Lake Mead

Limnological Research Center into an endowment account.

The Budget Committee had tabled this request. Subse-

quently, Chancellor Bersi and President Goodall had

discussed this in an attempt to resolve some of the

concerns expressed at the earlier meeting. For example

a concern that a University unit might be moving ap-

propriated money or other University funds into an

endowment, which would be an inappropriate use of State

funds and would perhaps set a precedent which would

begin to erode the Regents' Special Projects Account.

Dr. Goodall stated that, at the Chancellor's request,

he had prepared a report on the source of these funds.

The report shows that the Center is totally self-sup-

porting, existing totally on grants and contracts.

They now have $217,000 which they wish to invest to

further insure their ability to remain self-supporting.

Chancellor Bersi added that this is not inconsistent

with the development of the Special Projects Account

and recommended approval.

Mrs. Fong moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Gallagher, carried without dissent.

Mr. Mc Bride suggested that the action taken by the Board

with respect to Item C also had implications insofar as the

requests contained in Items G and H, and moved for recon-

sideration of that action. Motion seconded by Mr. Cashell,

carried without dissent.

Mr. Mc Bride moved that the requests contained in Items G

and H be deleted from the approving action by the Board.

Seconded by Mr. Cashell.

President Crowley suggested that perhaps there needed to be

some clarification concerning the criteria which was to be

applied for projects qualifying for grants from the Special

Projects Account, noting that it was his understanding that

the rule regarding not funding projects that might be funded

by the Legislature was general in nature and not to be ap-

plied rigidly, and if one could make the case that the proj-

ects involved were of an emergency nature then the Board

would consider them. He proposed that rather than voting

down the projects, he be allowed to withdraw them pending

clarification of the criteria. Mr. Mc Bride and Mr. Cashell

agreed to the withdrawal and, in turn, withdrew their motion

to deny approval of the requests.

Mr. Mc Bride then moved that Items G and H be withdrawn

without prejudice from the agenda. Motion seconded by Mrs.


Mrs. Fong commented on the request contained in Item H for

funds to construct a radio production facility at UNR, stat-

ing that UNLV also has a radio facility which is cramped and

crowded and suggested that if funds are approved for one

Campus, a request could be expected from every other Campus.

President Crowley commented on this assumption, noting that

frequently when one of the institutions brings a request for

funding to the Board, there is a propensity to regard that

as having Systemwide application. He pointed out that what

he expresses in his requests to the Board of Regents are in-

tended as priorities for UNR, and are not intended and

should not disrupt or affect in any way the priorities of

any other institution.

Motion to withdraw without prejudice the requests contained

in Items G and H carried without dissent.

Mr. Cashell resumed the Chair.

8. Proposed Meeting Calendar for Board of Regents

In order that Regents and Officers may plan their personal

and professional calendars in advance, it was proposed that

the Board consider adopting a meeting calendar providing

for 10 regular (special or emergency meetings not included)

meetings each year, to be held on the 3rd Friday of each

month. It was further proposed that in even-numbered years

(e. g., 1981, which is a budget-preparation year), no meet-

ings be held in the months of May and December. In odd-

numbered years (e. g., 1982, which is a legislative year),

no meetings be held in August and December. This would

produce the following calendar of regular meetings in 1982:

Friday, January 22* Las Vegas

Friday, February 19 Reno

Friday, March 19 Las Vegas

Friday, April 16 Reno

No meeting in May

Friday, June 18 Las Vegas

Friday, July 16 Reno

Friday, August 20 Las Vegas

Friday, September 17 Reno

Friday, October 15 Las Vegas

Friday, November 19 Reno

No meeting in December

*Date previously established

Mrs. Gallagher moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Mc


Ms. Del Papa requested that consideration be given to Satur-

day meetings as an alternative to Friday, suggested that

when 2-day meetings are required, they be scheduled for

Friday and Saturday, rather than Thursday and Friday, there-

by requiring Regents to be away from their places of work

only one work-day instead of two. Mrs. Whitley also ex-

pressed an interest in Friday/Saturday scheduling on occa-


Mrs. Gallagher urged that whatever calendar is adopted, it

be adhered to, noting that many Regents have to schedule

many weeks ahead around a Board meeting calendar and changes

in the schedule cause a great deal of inconvenience in meet-

ing other obligations.

Motion to adopt the proposed calendar carried without dis-


Chairman Cashell announced that the next meeting is schedul-

ed for December 11, and originally slated to meet in Reno;

however, to accommodate a scheduled basketball game in Las

Vegas on Thursday, December 10, between UNR and UNLV, it is

moved to Las Vegas.

9. Proposed Constitution, Nevada Student Association of

Community Colleges

Chancellor Bersi noted inclusion with the agenda of a pro-

posed constitution for the Nevada Student Association of

Community Colleges (identified as Ref. C and filed with

permanent minutes), and recommended approval by the Board.

Ms. Del Papa moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Gallagher, carried without dissent.

10. Report of Bid Opening, UNLV Pavilion

President Goodall reported that, acting under the delegated

authority extended by the Board previously, the State Public

Works Board, with the concurrence of the UNLV Administra-

tion, awarded the following contracts for the UNLV Pavilion:

Mardian Construction Co. $25,531,248

for building and site


Irwin Seating Co. 710,083

for fixed seating

American Seating 299,300

for retractable seating

President Goodall requested confirmation by the Board.

Mr. Buchanan moved approval. Motion seconded by Ms. Del

Papa, carried without dissent.

11. Salary for Part-Time Faculty

President Goodall commented on the status of part-time

faculty compensation, recalled that the 1981 Legislature

had provided $55,000 for this purpose, no increase in the

level of funding available in 1980. By using salary sav-

ings, some very careful adjustment from vacant positions,

approximately $130,000 is actually being spent by UNLV on

part-time faculty salaries. Dr. Goodall pointed out that

although there has not been a salary increase for part-

time faculty for several years, there is a faculty/adminis-

trator committee currently looking not only at the salary

question, but a number of issues that impinge on this group,

that will hopefully reach a conclusion for implementation

next Fall and certainly for discussion with the Legislature

during the 1983 Session. As a partial attempt at resolution

President Goodall recommended that part-time faculty sala-

ries at UNLV be increased from $900 to $1200 per course (i.

e., $400 per credit hour), effective with the Spring semes-


Ms. Del Papa moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr.


Ms. Carol Severns, speaking on behalf of the part-time

faculty, spoke about the relative position the recommended

increase would bring part-time faculty to, suggesting that

$1200 is not equitable when cost-of-living increases pro-

vided to other State employees are considered.

Chairman Cashell agreed that salaries for part-time faculty

must be reviewed and suggested that it be included in the

1983 Legislative Program. President Crowley pointed out

that this has been of concern to the institutions for some-

time, and he did not wish it to appear that the Adminis-

tration was unaware of the problem. He recalled that a sub-

stantial increase was included in the 1981-83 budget request

but was deleted by the Budget Office. He agreed with a

suggestion by the Chair that once the base is where it

should be for part-time faculty, annual cost-of-living

increases be proposed.

Motion carried without dissent.

12. Bid Opening, Central Management Information and Control

System, UNR

President Crowley recalled that this project is the last

component of a larger project for which funds were provided

by the 1977 Legislature. The low bid was slightly over

budget; however, since there are unobligated funds in other

projects that can be used, the State Public Works Board has

recommended a contract be awarded to the low bidder,

Johnson Controls, Inc., in the amount of $47,340. Presi-

dent Crowley requested the Board concur. Chancellor Bersi

recommended approval.

Mr. Mc Bride moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Gallagher, carried without dissent.

13. Bid Opening, Morrill Hall Elevator, UNR

President Crowley reported that bids to install an elevator

in Morrill Hall were opened November 5, 1981 with a single

bid in the amount of $9,685 submitted by Silver State Ele-

vator. He recommended acceptance of the bid, with the proj-

ect to be financed from a gift given to the Alumni Associ-

ation specifically for that purpose.

Ms. Del Papa moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Whitley, carried without dissent.

14. Bid Opening, Irrigation System, UNR

Dr. Crowley reported that bids to install an irrigation sys-

tem and to level a portion of the dairy property were opened

October 23, 1981, with the following bids submitted:

Base Alternate Total

A & K Earth Movers $199,507 $91,140 $290,647

Gopher Construction Co. 208,928 86,025 294,953

President Crowley noted that the bids exceed the available

funds and requested authorization to negotiate with the low

bidder, A & K Earth Movers.

Ms. Del Papa moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Gallagher, carried without dissent.

15. Appointment to Board of Directors, Far West Laboratory for

Educational Research and Development

The University of Nevada Board of Regents, along with the

Nevada State Board of Education, the Regents of the Uni-

versity of California, the California State Board of Educa-

tion, the Trustees of the California State Universities and

Colleges, the Board of Education of the San Francisco Uni-

fied School District, the Board of Regents of the University

of Utah, and the Utah State Board of Education, is a party

to a Joint Powers Agreement, which established the Far West

Laboratory for Educational Research and Development in 1966.

Under the Joint Powers Agreement, the Board of Regents ap-

points two voting members to the Board of Directors.

Chancellor Bersi reported that Mr. Albert Seeliger, former

Regent and member of the Board of Directors for 16 years,

has asked that he be replaced as a representative of the

University of Nevada. Dr. Bersi recommended that Mrs.

Lilly Fong be appointed to a 3-year term as a replacement

for Mr. Seeliger.

Ms. Del Papa moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Gallagher, carried without dissent.

16. Status Report on Ed. D. Program, UNLV

In response to a request for an update on the review of the

Ed. D. program, President Goodall reported that he could

now provide answers to two questions raised earlier; i. e.,

whether a moratorium on admissions would be necessary, and

whether the Board would be requested to provide funding for

two or three major positions, the answer to both being no.

The evaluation of the program is proceeding, the program

continues and admission is open. A Campus committee is

currently doing an extensive review and, although a request

for modest funding for one or two consultants may be sub-

mitted through the Budget Committee later, no further action

is required of the Board at this point.

In response to a question by Mr. Buchanan, President Goodall

acknowledged that the distribution of overload teaching

assignments is one of the two or three major issues involved

in the review that will be resolved before the final report

is brought to the Board.

17. Doctoral Program in Exercise Physiology, UNLV

Vice President Nitzschke recalled that the Board had re-

quested the College of Education and the Department of

Physical Education to proceed with development and submis-

sion of a Phase I program for a doctoral program in Exer-

cise Physiology. Dr. Nitzschke reported that the proposal

has been prepared and will shortly be under review in the

School of Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance,

and will probably be ready for Board consideration in

December or January.

18. Phase I Proposal, Master's Degree in Nursing, UNLV

At President Goodall's request, a Phase I proposal to ini-

tiate a Master's Degree in Nursing at UNLV was withdrawn

from the agenda.

19. Proposed Increases in University Rentals, UNR

President Crowley recalled that at the October 9, 1981 meet-

ing, the Board had approved increases in rental rates at UNR

for University-owned apartments and houses. In continua-

tion of the study of rental rates, he requested the follow-

ing increases be adopted to allow the University to keep

pace with increased utility and maintenance costs and to

provide some major and much needed improvements in the mar-

ried student housing units.

--- Monthly Rate --

Current Proposed

Married Student Housing $ 85 $125

Stead Apartments

1 - Bedroom, Married Students 125 150

1 - Bedroom, Staff 165 190

2 - Bedroom, Married Students 150 175

2 - Bedroom, Staff 190 215

President Crowley proposed that these increases be phased

in 4 monthly increments, beginning on January 1, 1982.

Mrs. Fong moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Buchanan,

carried without dissent.

20. Change in Name of College of Agriculture Major, UNR

President Crowley requests authorization to change the name

of the 2-year Parks and Turf Management major in the College

of Agriculture to Ornamental Horticulture.

Ms. Del Papa moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Gallagher, carried without dissent.

21. Reinstitution of Majors in College of Business Administra-

tion, UNR

President Crowley recommended that 3 majors formerly of-

fered in the College of Business Administration - Finance,

Management and Marketing - be reinstated. He noted that

there are no costs for additional courses or staffing at-

tached to this request.

Ms. Del Papa moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Gallagher, carried without dissent.

22. Proposed Amendment, UNS Code

President Murino submitted a proposed revision to the DRI

section of the UNS Code (identified as Ref. E, filed with

permanent minutes). By inclusion on the agenda, the pro-

posed revision was referred to each of the institutional

Senates and to the Code Revision Committee for considera-


23. Recommendation for Appointment of Vice President for Finance

and Administration, DRI

President Murino recommended the appointment of Dr. Albert

Gold as Vice President for Finance and Administration for

the Desert Research Institute, at an annual salary of

$54,000, with an automobile allowance of $250 per month

to be paid from nonappropriated funds available to the

Institute. (Copy of Dr. Gold's vita filed with permanent


Mr. Buchanan moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs. Fong,

carried without dissent.

24. Recommendation for Appointment of Dean of College Services,


President Eaton recommended the appointment of Dr. Richard

E. Behrendt as Dean of College Services at CCCC, effective

January 11, 1982, at a salary of $37,000. (Copy of Dr.

Behrendt's vita filed with permanent minutes.)

Mrs. Gallagher moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Fong, carried without dissent.

25. Naming of NNCC Buildings

President Berg submitted a resolution by the NNCC faculty,

which he reported had been endorsed by the NNCC Advisory

Board and which he also endorsed, that the two NNCC build-

ings be named in honor of two former members of the Advisory


Vocational-Technical building named in honor of

Mel Lundberg

Learning Resources building named in honor of

Hugh Mc Mullen

Mrs. Gallagher moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Fong, carried without dissent.

26. Proposed Bylaws and Articles of Incorporation for NNCC


President Berg requested approval of the proposed Bylaws

and Articles of Incorporation for the NNCC Foundation as

included in the agenda, and requested approval of the fol-

lowing initial appointments to the Board of Trustees:

Name Address Term

Ballew, Charles Elko, Nevada 4 years

Blackham, Max Ely, Nevada 4 years

Chilton, Mark Elko, Nevada 2 years

Copley, Al Elko, Nevada 2 years

Evans, Marguerite Elko, Nevada 4 years

Eyre, E. E. Eureka, Nevada 6 years

Gallagher, Dorothy Elko, Nevada 4 years

Harmer, Burgess Jackpot, Nevada 2 years

Huber, Al Jackpot, Nevada 6 years

Ithuralde, Jim Eureka, Nevada 2 years

Knight, Charles Elko, Nevada 6 years

Lane, Mike Winnemucca, Nevada 6 years

Marfisi, Michael Elko, Nevada 4 years

Mc Mullen, Sam Elko, Nevada 4 years

Mc Phee, Ted Elko, Nevada 2 years

Post, Ruth Spring Creek, Nevada 2 years

Pullman, Fredrick Lamoille, Nevada 6 years

Read, Barbara Lamoille, Nevada 6 years

Satterthwaite, Connie Elko, Nevada 4 years

Sawyer, Paul Elko, Nevada 6 years

Scott, Warren Winnemucca, Nevada 2 years

Shuck, Carl Elko, Nevada 2 years

Taylor, Lyle Ely, Nevada 6 years

Vaughan, Robert Elko, Nevada 6 years

Wilson, Orville Elko, Nevada 4 years

Wright, Jim Tuscarora, Nevada 4 years

Mrs. Gallagher moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr.

Mc Bride, carried without dissent.

27. Recommended Policy Statement for Inclusion in Handbook

President Davis requested approval of a policy statement for

inclusion in the Handbook which would set forth the policy

concerning admission, registration, grades and examination

for WNCC. (Proposed statement identified as Ref. G and

filed with permanent minutes.)

Ms. Del Papa moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Whitley, carried without dissent.

28. School of Medicine Advisory Board

President Crowley recommended appointment of Mr. Rollan

Melton to the School of Medicine Advisory Board.

Ms. Del Papa moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Gallagher, carried without dissent.

29. Main Station/Jones Ranch Irrigation Ditch

President Crowley reported that the College of Agriculture

wishes to construct an irrigation ditch along the west side

of the Jones Ranch component of the Main Station Field Labo-

ratory. To make this possible, it would be necessary to

utilize a narrow strip of land, 25 feet wide, extending from

Kimlick Lane to Pembroke Drive, owned by the cities of Reno

and Sparks (map of area identified as Ref. H and filed with

permanent minutes).

Dr. Crowley requested authorization to apply to the two City

Councils when they meet on November 9 for permission to

construct the ditch, in return for which the University

would agree to compensate the cities in one of the follow-

ing ways:

(1) Trade an equal acreage (approximately 3 acres) either

immediately west of the cities' property, or adjacent

to property lines associated with the sewer plant.

(2) Purchase the land at a fair and mutually agreed value.

(3) Negotiate a lease.

If negotiations with the cities can be successfully con-

cluded, Dr. Crowley suggested that construction can begin

in mid-November. He requested authorization to negotiate

with the cities of Reno and Sparks along the lines indicated

by the above alternatives, with a report on the results to

be submitted to the Board at a subsequent meeting. Chan-

cellor Bersi recommended approval.

Mrs. Gallagher moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Mc

Bride, carried without dissent.

30. Phase I Proposal, Certificate Program in Gerontology, UNLV

This proposal was withdrawn from the agenda at the request

of Chancellor Bersi.

31. Affirmative Action Report, UNLV

President Goodall recalled that the Board had requested a

response to a recent report of the Nevada Advisory Committee

to the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights. He noted that a

written response had been distributed to each of the Regents

and he asked Mr. Jim Kitchen, UNLV's Affirmative Action Of-

ficer, to comment generally on the progress at UNLV.

Mr. Kitchen reviewed the progress in the areas of hiring,

promotion, tenure and salary advancement for women and

minorities which he could document had been made by UNLV

since 1977. He citied specific instances where a woman

and/or minority person had been promoted to or appointed to

positions held previously by a white male; e. g., Director

of Institutional Research and Analysis, Assistant to the

President, Assistant Director of Admissions, Coordinator

of Women's Athletics, Director of Publications, Ticket

Manager, Dean of Student Services, Associate Dean of Col-

lege of Education.

Out of 23 promotions in rank in 1981, 6 were women and 1

was a minority; out of a total of 125 administrative and

support positions, 52 are filled by women (26%) and minori-

ties (15%), as opposed to figures cited to the Commission

of 6% and 8%.

Current information shows 42% of women and 67% of minority

males and 38% of minority females earn $25,000 or more, as

compared with the report to the Commission quoting only 6%

of minorities and 12% of women in that salary category.

In the area of tenure, out of 100 women on Campus, 49 are

tenured, whereas in 1977 only 20 were tenured. Of minority

females, 39% are tenured, and 41% of male minorities are


Since 1977, almost half of all new hires at UNLV were women.

13 blacks have been hired, of which 5 are currently still on


With respect to compliance with the provisions of Title IV,

sufficient improvement has been realized that UNLV is now

practically barrier-free. Similar progress has been made in

Title IX compliance.

Mr. Kitchen concluded his report by expressing a concept

that equal opportunity is a condition, with affirmative

action, the means by which the condition can best be achiev-

ed. He suggested that one further step - that of commitment

- needs to be made to insure that the process works.

In response to a question from Mrs. Whitley concerning the

recruiting money spent, Mr. Kitchen explained that a total

of $37,200 was spent for recruiting at UNLV, for such things

as advertisement of vacant positions, air fare, lodging and

meals for candidates, and host expenses.

Mr. Kitchen spoke about current efforts underway to prepare

new goals and timetables for affirmative action, estimating

that these would be complete by the first of the year. He

also agreed to prepare, at the request of Mrs. Whitley, a

budget in support of the Affirmative Action Plan for UNLV

and would submit such a budget to the Board in January.

Mrs. Fong moved that the Board reaffirm its efforts to en-

courage affirmative action and equal opportunity at all

levels. Motion seconded by Mrs. Whitley, carried without


32. New Business

(1) Ms. Del Papa recalled that over the past year, requests

have been made by various Regents for reports on dif-

ferent subjects, only some of which have been complet-

ed. She requested a status report on all such requests

be included on the December agenda.

(2) Mrs. Fong spoke of a tour she had recently made of

Tonopah Hall, at which time she had observed various

problems. For example, she had observed on the 5th and

6th floors that the washing machines are not hooked up,

and it was explained that the plumbing needs to be

changed to correct a code violation; broken glass on

the fire hose window; an unpleasant cockroach problem

requiring the services of an exterminator; and the

emergency telephone in the elevator is inaccessible to

anyone in a wheel chair. Finally, Mrs. Fong asked

about the Repair and Replacement Fund and its availa-

bility for correction of these problems.

Vice President Dixon stated that in anticipation of her

request, Dean Daniels had prepared a report; however,

he was not able to be present at the meeting and had

asked that his report be read for him. Dr. Dixon noted

that not all of Mrs. Fong's questions had been antici-

pated and the report, therefore, did not deal with some

of them. Dean Daniel's report follows:


In mid-September, 1981 the CSUN President, Mr.

Ravenholt, took me on a floor-by-floor inspection

tour of Tonopah Hall. The students were most co-

operative and pointed out areas of concern. I

then contacted Vice President Westfall to ascertain

the status of any residence hall improvement fund.

Realizing that there is an amount of approximately

$50,000 for immediate use, I contacted Physical

Plant Director Moody requesting that he and Jerry

Dove of the Physical Plant organization join me on

an inspection tour. The inspection was held in

October. It was generally agreed that the entire

structure was in need of major repairs and renova-

tion and pest extermination. Unfortunately, during

this time a repairman on a routine repair call ac-

cidently caused considerable damage due to improper

treatment of a water problem.


1. The water damage has been repaired.

2. Bids have been invited for the extermination of


3. Mr. Dove has completed plans for some renova-

tion on the 3rd and 6th floors. Specifically,

on the 3rd floor, indoor-outdoor carpeting in

the hallway will be replaced with washable and

durable vinyl fabric. The 6th floor will be

converted into a quiet corridor for those stu-

dents who prefer less than normal noise at

interaction levels. The indoor-outdoor carpet-

ing in the hallway will be replaced with wash-

able vinyl.

The walls will be panelled with fireproof

treated material. The study lounge will be

recarpeted and furnished with appropriate

furniture. Formal permission to implement

this project will be requested within the next

two weeks.

In addition to previously citied efforts, I wrote

a proposal to the City of Las Vegas for $5000 of

its revenue sharing funds to purchase venetian

blinds for all of the residence hall windows.

Perhaps we will receive a favorable response be-

fore Thanksgiving. Yearly renovations will con-

tinue on a priority basis; the 1st floor lounge is

scheduled for improvement during the 1982-83 aca-

demic year.

Dr. Dixon stated that he would transmit to Dean Daniels

Mrs. Fong's additional remarks which were not antici-

pated in his report and would further pass along to him

her suggestion that the students assume some responsi-

bility for keeping the hallways clear of litter.

(3) Mr. Buchanan spoke about the counseling which is man-

datory under the new DUI Law and the concerns on the

part of some Clark County judges with the quality of

the counseling programs now available. He suggested

that the Community Colleges could provide a valuable

service to the community and improved counseling pro-

grams, at the same time expanding their own counsel-

ing staff. He recalled that he had spoken about this

with President Eaton and was aware that she had ini-

tiated some planning. He suggested that the other

Community Colleges may wish to look into the possi-

bility of providing this counseling service.

President Eaton explained that at the present time in

southern Nevada, only private operators are available

to the driving awareness program, and she believed that

the Community Colleges were able to provide that kind

of service at a lower cost but nonetheless at a favor-

able financial arrangement to the institutions. She

offered to share CCCC's planning with other Colleges.

(4) Mr. Buchanan asked for a report on how the seating

allocations in the new Pavilion at UNLV would be

handled and whether advance reservations were possible.

President Goodall agreed to report back on this matter

in December.

The meeting adjourned at 1:00 P.M.

Bonnie M. Smotony

Secretary of the Board