UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
November 6-7, 1980


Pages 62-87



November 6, 1980

The Board of Regents met on the above date in the Pine

Auditorium, University Of Nevada, Reno.

Members present: Mr. Robert A. Cashell, Chairman

Mr. James L. Buchanan, II

Mrs. Lilly Fong

Mr. Chris Karamanos

Mrs. Molly F. Knudtsen

Dr. Louis E. Lombardi

Mr. John R. Mc Bride

Mr. John Tom Ross

Mrs. June F. Whitley

Others present: Chancellor Donald H. Baepler

President William Berg, NNCC

President Joseph Crowley, UNR

President James Eardley, TMCC

Dean Marcia Beresain, WNCC

President Judith Eaton, CCCC

President Leonard Goodall, UNLV

President Clifford Murino, DRI

Vice Chancellor Larry Lessly

Secretary Bonnie Smotony

Also present was Regent-elect Frankie Sue Del Papa.

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Cashell at 10:10 A.M.

1. Adoption of Consent Agenda

Adoption of Consent Agenda (identified as Ref. A and filed

with permanent minutes) containing the following items, was


(1) Approval of the minutes of the special meeting of

October 3, the regular meeting of October 14, and the

special meeting of October 24, 1980.

(2) Acceptance of gifts and grants.

(3) Approval of transfer of $138,740 from the UNLV Contin-

gency Reserve to provide funding for part-time instruc-

tors for the Spring semester.

(4) Approval of the appointment of Mr. Newell Jackson,

Partner in Charge, Fox and Company, to the Advisory

Board of the UNR College of Business Administration,

to fill the unexpired term of Mr. George Vargas.

(5) Augmentation of the WNCC Interview and Recruiting

Account by allocation of $5,000 from the Board of

Regents Special Projects Account.

(6) Approval of the expenditure of up to $15,000 from the

WNCC Capital Improvement Fee Account to replace worn

carpet in the student lounge and mezzanine area of the

Carson Campus.

(7) Approval of a request for Sierra Pacific Power Company

and Nevada Bell for a right-of-way to permit the in-

stallation of utilities to service the addition to the

Nevada Historical Society building on the UNR Campus.

The requested easement is ten feet wide and is aligned

with the service lines provided for the original


(8) Augmentation of the Board of Regents Host Account by

allocation of $5,000 from the Board of Regents Special

Projects Account.

Dr. Lombardi moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr.

Buchanan, carried without dissent.

2. Appeal of Mandatory Retirement

Mr. Clinton E. Wooster, Attorney for Mrs. Helen Mulder, re-

quested the Board to either rescind its policy, contained in

Section 3.6.7(e) of the University Code, which requires re-

tirement of tenured faculty at age 65, or that Mrs. Mulder

be granted an exception and her employment be continued.

Mr. Wooster reviewed Mrs. Mulder's professional experience,

noting that she is presently a tenured faculty member of

TMCC. Mrs. Mulder reached the age of 65 in July, 1980. In

June, 1980, Mrs. Mulder received notification from President

Eardley that pursuant to the Board's policy on mandatory re-

tirement at age 65, she would not be rehired for the 1981-82

fiscal year. Mr. Wooster stated that, in his opinion, this

action and the above cited policy as applied to Helen Mulder

is prohibited by NRS 281.370, which prohibits age discrim-

ination by all public agencies in the State of Nevada.

Mr. Wooster suggested that Mrs. Mulder's case differs from

the Chauncy Oakley case, which is now being appealed to the

Nevada Supreme Court by the University, in that Mrs. Mulder

is a tenured faculty member whereas Mr. Oakley is nontenur-

ed. However, he believed the principle of law to be the

same; that is, if you are not rehired solely because of age,

that is a prohibited practice in Nevada for all State and

public agencies pursuant to the Nevada statute.

Mr. Lessly advised that it would be inappropriate for the

Board of Regents to make an exception to its policy in that

it would place the Regents in a position of arbitrary and

capricious action. The only appropriate action for the

Board to take, he suggested, would be to either maintain the

current policy or change the policy as it applies to all

tenured faculty members who are currently required to retire

at age 65.

Mr. Mc Bride suggested that no action should be taken until

the Supreme Court rules on the Oakley case which is now

before it.

Mr. Karamanos suggested that the Board immediately adopt the

Federal guideline of age 70 for all faculty, rather than to

retain age 65 for tenured faculty until 1982.

President Crowley recalled that this issue had been before

the Board on a number of occasions. He stated that philo-

sophically he agreed with Mr. Karamanos' concern; however,

he pointed out that the purpose of the Federal exemption was

to give institutions time to phase into the new system --

those institutions, like UNR, which have large numbers of

faculty in the sixty and above age bracket, at the same time

as they have very slow growth or no growth in new positions.

President Crowley also pointed out that subsequent to the

adoption in 1979 of the policy of mandatory retirement at

age 65 for tenured faculty, UNR has proceeded with searches

to replace eight or nine faculty who have reached that re-

tirement age, and those searches are nearing completion.

Any change in the Board's policy at this point would throw

this process into a severe state of dislocation. He urged

that the Board retain its current policy.

Mr. Karamanos again expressed concern that this policy dis-

criminates against faculty members who reach age 65 prior

to 1982, pointing out that those who will reach age 65 after

that year may continue to be employed until age 70.

Mrs. Fong moved that the current policy of the Board with

respect to retirement be retained. Motion seconded by Mr.

Mc Bride, carried with Mr. Karamanos opposing.

3. Presentation Concerning Desert Research Institute

President Murino presented an analysis of the DRI as a fis-

cal enterprise, with his presentation illustrated by a se-

ries of slides. A printed brochure containing a condensed

version of his presentation was also presented and for pur-

poses of the minutes the text of that brochure follows:

The Desert Research Institute's funding comes from three

sources: the State of Nevada, the Federal government

and private industry. While the last two sources are

expected to account for most of DRI's estimated $7.5

million budget for 1980-81, State support of certain

administrative and clerical positions, amounting to 8.5%

of the DRI budget, is the most important funding the

Institute receives. The State also funds several re-

search projects of special importance and timeliness

to the State. All on-going institutional expenses --

plant maintenance, utilities, libraries, etc. -- are

covered out of research grant and contract funds from

Federal and private sponsors.

The Federal government has been DRI's single largest

source of funds and, since DRI is an academic institu-

tion, this funding is regulated by the provisions of

Circular A-21 of the Federal Office of Management and

Budget. Federal research grants typically fund two

components: Direct Costs -- scientist's salaries,

materials and supplies, travel, instrumentation and

computer time, and are restricted to the purposes

specified in the grant; Indirect Costs -- or overhead,

the general administrative costs and institutional

expenses such as plant maintenance and utilities.

Academic institutions must annually negotiate their in-

direct cost or "overhead" rate with the Federal govern-

ment. This rate represents the ratio of the sum of the

research-related indirect expenses to the sum of all the

salaries and benefits paid to the research staff. (Cur-

rently, the DRI overhead rate is 56%.)

For a given research grant, the dollars expended for

salaries and benefits is multiplied by the overhead rate

to yield the overhead dollars recovered on that grant.

When the sum of the dollars expended for salaries and

benefits on all the institution's grants and contracts

is multiplied by the overhead rate, this should return

to the institution all of its indirect expenses. This

is what the overhead rate is designed to do.

The total overhead recovered by DRI can never exceed

DRI's annual indirect expenses. Added grants and

contracts will not lead to added overhead recovery

(unless, of course, they cause added indirect expenses).

Rather, as the amount of grants increases, i. e., as the

research salary base increases, the overhead rate will

decrease proportionately so that the amount of overhead

recovery remains constant and equal to DRI's overhead

expenses, except for any overhead recovery that is


There are special circumstances in which it is appro-

priate or necessary that DRI waive the overhead normal-

ly charged on Federal grants. Once waived, these over-

head dollars are lost forever and cannot be made up

through overhead charged on additional grants and con-

tracts. DRI will waive overhead only in special cases

where it is unavoidable.

Size and fiscal stability are two concepts describing

the DRI financial condition. Size, or volume of re-

search, is the amount of money DRI has to work with.

Fiscal stability is the Institute's ability to ensure

full funding of staff salaries, weather fluctuations in

the volume of research without dramatic staffing changes

and the ability to meet unexpected cash emergencies.

Size and fiscal stability are separate and distinct con-

cepts; at DRI they can work at odds with each other.

Ideally, each researcher's salary would be funded by a

single grant and that grant would be renewed each year

with no time lag between renewals. In actual practice,

a researcher's salary normally is made up of a mix of

contributions from a number of different grants that

begin and end at different times and which may or may

not be renewed or replaced. Often, salaries are less

than 100% funded, especially when one part of the grant

terminates before another takes its place. Since the

institute is prohibited from charging more than the full

salaries of some individuals to make up for the short-

falls of others, a gap in the funding of salaries must

always occur. Increasing the number of grants received

will help this problem only if the mix of additional

technical expertise required is the same as the exper-

tise available from those persons whose salaries are not

fully funded. What often is the case is that an in-

crease in grant activity may result in the hiring of

additional partially-funded persons and actually in-

crease the shortfall in salary funding. This reduces

the Institute's fiscal stability. On average, the per-

centage of the research salaries funded at DRI is about

85%, and this is considered good. Then if this percent-

age increases substantially, growth of DRI must result

in increased shortfall.

DRI's recovered overhead dollars are used first to cover

the institutional expenses mentioned above. They are

also applied to cover shortfalls and unexpected emer-

gencies that inevitably arise. One may ask; since

overhead dollar recovery is justified entirely on the

basis of overhead expenses, how can there be anything

left to cover shortfalls and emergencies? It was stated

before that funding from the State of Nevada to cover a

limited few administrative and clerical positions was

the most important funding the Institute receives. This

is because these salary costs qualify for inclusion in

the DRI overhead rate and are fully recovered as over-

head dollars on grants and contracts. (A similar situ-

ation occurs on the University of Nevada Campuses.)

Since the salaries already have been covered by State

funds, there is no need to pay them from overhead recov-

ery. These overhead dollars are freed up to meet the

serious shortfall problem. Together with the dollar-

equivalence of certain System-contributed services

(bookkeeping, purchasing, etc.) also included in the

overhead rate, these funds constitute the sole source

of DRI's fiscal stability. Since the shortfall problem

increases as DRI grows, the State funding is indispen-

sable not because it is there if all else fails; rather,

because it becomes increasingly crucial as all else


DRI's projected expenditures of $7.5 million for 1980-81

will be matched by revenues of an equal amount -- a bal-

anced condition. Its total overhead expenses of about

$1.6 million will include some $638,000 of State-funded

administrative and clerical positions and an estimated

$200,000 in System-contributed services. Overhead re-

covery is expected to return $1,330,000, about $260,000

less than expenses due to the amount of overhead recov-

ery waived. After institutional expenses are deducted,

$525,000 must be committed to salary shortfalls allow-

ing a reserve of only $53,000 to meet emergencies.

Since the above amounts of dollars available from over-

head would remain constant as DRI received more grants

and contracts, without further infusions from the State,

DRI would quickly outgrow its ability to cover short-

fall. In fact, DRI could grow no more than the $53,000

reserve would allow. To maintain a proper balance be-

tween growth and fiscal stability it is essential that

modest amounts of new State dollars be infused into the

financial underpinnings of the DRI growth structure.

Viewed from the perspective of the State, this is an

attractive and highly leveraged investment opportunity.

Every administrative dollar that the State invests in

DRI is immediately matched by two Federal overhead dol-

lars. Nevada is guaranteed to triple its money. Added

to this are the eight additional Federal (and private)

dollars for direct research expenses -- primarily sala-

ries -- that provide the State both an economic benefit

and the benefit of research for the State.

Dr. Murino concluded his remarks by citing three steps which

he believed important to the future growth of DRI and which

he has begun to implement:

(1) To continue to get the message across of the vital im-

portance to the Institute of State funding;

(2) To implement a well organized fund raising program

which would produce for the Institute over the next

ten years a perpetual endowment fund; and

(3) To establish some kind of mechanism that would put the

DRI in a position where it would qualify for more

favorable Federal treatment.

Dr. Murino noted that the last step involves assistance from

Counsel in finding a way in which an adjunct research foun-

dation can be created, which will preserve the authority

of the Board of Regents over the Institute, but at the same

time will enable DRI to qualify for a fee which would elim-

inate the shortfall problems alluded to in his presentation.

4. Proposed Funding for Solar Laboratory

President Murino recalled that at the October meeting Regent

Buchanan had requested that the Board consider a proposal

that $150,000 be made available to the Solar Laboratory to

establish a revolving fund to be used as "seed money" for

the development of grant proposals, with monies advanced

from this fund to be repaid from proceeds of grants and


Dr. Murino stated that he was not prepared to ask for such

money at the present time; however, he did wish to request

authorization to reprogram $25,000 which the Board had made

available to the Energy Systems Center two years ago in

connection with construction of a building in collaboration

with Butler Manufacturing Company. He reported that the

Center had not used that money, and in fact, Butler Manu-

facturing Company has decided not to proceed with the con-

struction. He requested that the funds be redirected into

a venture capital reserve for the Energy Systems Center,

suggesting that one possible use of the funds would be the

design of a solar efficient residential structure.

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

Lombardi, carried without dissent.

Chairman Cashell asked that the Board be informed as to the

ultimate disposition of these funds.

In response to a question concerning the property owned by

DRI fronting on Maryland Parkway, Dr. Murino stated that he

would have a full report and a proposal on the December


5. Foundation Fund Boards

Chairman Cashell referred to a subsequent item on the agenda

noting that Mr. William Thornton, Chairman of the UNR

Foundation Fund Board, was present and wished to make some

comments with reference to the matter for the Board's con-

sideration when that agenda item was reached.

The agenda item under discussion recalled that as part of

the Board's action in November, 1979, establishing founda-

tion funds for the several institutions, the following pro-

vision was approved:

To provide for review by the Board of Regents of the

performance of the University of Nevada System Endowment

one year from the date hereof to determine whether it

would be in the best interests of the System or any of

its entities having a foundation fund to seek Regents'

approval to secure legislative authority for the forma-

tion of statutory foundations.

It was further recalled that at the October meeting, Regent

Fong had requested a follow-up report on the foundation

funds, and at the time the agenda was finalized, those re-

ports were in preparation and were to be distributed prior

to the meeting.

The proposal before the Board offered by Presidents Crowley,

Goodall and Eaton was that the Board now agree to seek

legislative authority for the formation of statutory


Mr. Thornton stated that his purpose for being at the meet-

ing was to present the report which was requested by the

Board concerning the activities of the Foundation Fund

Board since its establishment, and noted that material had

been forwarded to the Chancellor for distribution to the

Board of Regents.

Mr. Thornton requested that the Board proceed with the

necessary authorization for drafting of legislation which

would allow for the eventual establishment of statutory


Mr. Lessly suggested that there is a philosophical question

that the Board has to address; that is, whether or not it

wants foundations to conduct fund raising for them in any

different format and organization than now exists.

Chancellor Baepler stated that a statutory change could be

made rather simply but agreed that the philosophical ques-

tion is, does the Board want to have fund raising out from

under its control and does it want the subsequent in-

vestments of the fund raising out from under its control.

Mr. Buchanan stated that the Board has previously stated

that they do not wish this to occur, and suggested that the

philosophical question has already been addressed a number

of times and the Regents have stated that they want to have

control over these efforts and the funds generated from

these efforts.

Mr. Lessly noted that there is a precedent for a foundation

established by the Legislature, recalling that the two land

foundations were authorized by statute to secure lands for

the two Universities. He again advised that the only way

he believed the Board should create a foundation is to do

so through legislation, agreeing that such establishment

would make them separate from the University, adding that

it was for that reason he had suggested that question be

addressed first.

In response to a question concerning the way in which such

foundations are provided in other Universities, Chancellor

Baepler explained that in some States the governing boards

would not be permitted to handle private money and invest

it and for those institutions, the only way in which they

can raise money is to have separate and private foundations.

In a State like Nevada, where the Board has constitutional

authority, there is no problem with raising, investing, and

spending private money.

Mr. Buchanan expressed strong objection to fund raising be-

ing conducted outside the control of the University and the

Board of Regents, adding that the Board has reaffirmed a

number of times that it opposes the establishment of private


Chancellor Baepler pointed out that there is no way in which

the Board can prevent any group from starting a private

foundation whose goal is to raise money for the University.

He suggested that the problem arises when that private

foundation wants to use University employees to assist them.

Mr. Lessly explained that if Mr. Thornton's approach is

followed, and legislation is enacted to create a statutory

foundation, in order for it to have the appropriate tax

status it would have to be declared a political subdivision

of the State and it would need an appropriation.

Mr. Thornton expressed regret that the material that had

been provided had not been distributed, suggesting that

after the Board had an opportunity to review it, further

discussion would be productive. He pointed out the whole

purpose of such a foundation as is being proposed is not to

go at cross purposes with the University, but to provide

outside support and outside expertise and to channel the

funds into whatever the University wishes to use them for.

Mr. Ross suggested that some compromise could be reached

which would give the foundation a certain latitude but still

give the University and the Board of Regents a final say.

Mr. Mc Bride agreed with the concerns expressed by Mr.

Buchanan adding that he was reluctant to see the responsi-

bility for fund raising removed from the control of the

Board of Regents. He suggested that further discussion and

action on this matter be delayed until there was an oppor-

tunity to review the material provided by Mr. Thornton.

President Crowley commented on the concerns expressed by Mr.

Buchanan and Mr. Mc Bride, stating that he did not believe

that the suggestion that establishment of a statutory foun-

dation would remove the Board of Regents from control of

the fund raising activity was correct. However, the estab-

lishment of a private foundation would do just that, and

suggested that if the Board did not move to establish statu-

tory foundations that would work in cooperation with the

Board of Regents, establishment of such private foundations

would most assuredly proceed. Dr. Crowley urged that the

Board authorize the drafting of legislation which would per-

mit the development of a single University foundation that

would work in cooperation with the Board. In response to

the fears expressed that the Board would not have control of

the way in which funds raised by a foundation would be ex-

pended, President Crowley pointed out that such a foundation

cannot set priorities for the University, funding that it

supplies would have to be accepted by the Board of Regents,

and the purposes for which those funds are to be expended

would therefore also have to be acceptable to the Board.

Mr. Lessly commented on the level of control that the Board

of Regents would have, stating that there is a serious legal

problem as a result of an Attorney General's opinion of sev-

eral years ago when a foundation was proposed. That opinion

indicated that it was difficult to have members of the Board

of Regents serve on a foundation because of the King deci-

sion. The only way, Mr. Lessly suggested, to get around

this is to have a statutory foundation, thus precluding the

the Board of Regents serving as trustees. The problem would

be to structure it so that the Board would have the control

it wants, after the extent of the control and directness

of the control desired is determined.

Mr. Cashell urged that the Board remain open-minded about

this matter, and that some attention be given to how this

could be established to retain to the Board the necessary

authority and control over the receipt of the funds and the

designation of their purpose.

Mr. Buchanan stated that in his opinion that is already pro-

vided through the Foundation Funds and he was not aware of

any problems with the current organization.

President Crowley commented on foundations around the coun-

try, noting that there is not a major State University that

doesn't have one. He suggested that the advantage these

foundations have yielded is in their Board of Directors and

in the capability of that Board of Directors to raise pri-

vate funds; that is, the experience has been a marked and

dramatic increase in the private fund raising capability of

the University through the vehicle of the foundation. Dr.

Crowley suggested that with Nevada looking at a projection

over the course of the next two decades of no growth in

State funding to its institutions, there is no alternative

other than to turn to private funding, and the foundation

approach is intended to significantly increase the Univer-

sity's capability to raise those private funds.

Dr. Crowley stated that he was assured that if the Board of

Regents moves in the direction proposed; that is, to seek

authorization for the establishment of a statutory founda-

tion, those groups who are now pushing for private founda-

tions for individual Colleges or special interest programs

will put their efforts into the single foundation; however,

if that does not occur, those same people and groups will

proceed on their individual routes by way of private founda-

tions without the critical inter-tie with the University.

Dr. Goodall agreed, stating that he did not believe the

Board of Regents would be giving up very much by the estab-

lishment of a statutory foundation because the ultimate ex-

penditure authority rests with the Board. He also pointed

out that the majority of the money coming to the University

now is already designated when it is received; that is, most

donors will specify a purpose when they provide the funds;

the Board must accept that purpose when it accepts the


Dr. Eaton suggested that the intent behind the proposal is

not to diminish Board control over programs and services,

agreeing that Board control in these areas is appropriate.

However, she suggested that Dr. Crowley's comments on the

University's increased reliance on private funding was im-

portant and could not be overlooked, particularly when con-

sidering the increasing number of students who are coming

to the Community Colleges. Dr. Eaton noted that there is a

good deal of confusion with regard to the role of the

Foundation Fund Board, its status, and what it can and can-

not do, and that confusion has had an impact on its interest

and enthusiasm. She urged that the Board take a very care-

ful look at the foundation vehicle proposed, and that an

attempt be made to preserve the Board control yet encourage

the private resources which that vehicle can tap.

Mr. Buchanan stated that he was strongly in favor of private

endowments and funding, but he did not believe that a statu-

tory foundation was the appropriate vehicle since it would

remove the raising of funds from the control of the Board of

Regents. He suggested that perhaps some other way be found

to allow the Foundation Fund Boards to function with some

latitude but still remain within the framework of the Board

of Regents.

Mrs. Fong also expressed her concern over the degree of con-

trol which the Board of Regents would retain over such fund

raising activities, recalling a previous experience with the

Rebel Athletic Foundation which raised funds for student

housing which they proposed to build on University lands,

but which was subsequently built elsewhere. Dr. Crowley

pointed out that the Rebel Athletic Foundation is a private

foundation and that is precisely what he was proposing be

avoided by the creation of a statutory foundation that

would work in harmony with the University.

In the discussion concerning the establishment of a statu-

tory foundation or one created by the Board of Regents, Mr.

Lessly noted that the Board has already created the Founda-

tion Funds for each Campus, each of which has a Board of

Directors. If, he said, it is the intent of the Board to go

with a separate foundation in which the Board of Regents is

not the controlling Board, it must be done by statute.

In response to a question raised concerning the expectations

of the success of fund raising if conducted by a foundation

as opposed to that effort conducted by the Board of Regents,

Mr. Thornton suggested that was not the issue, rather, the

foundation wishes to have the advice and help from the Uni-

versity and its staff and they were told that a staff person

from the University could not be allowed to work with the

foundation unless the foundation was established by statute.

Mr. Lessly pointed out that University employees could serve

the Foundation Funds as they are now established, they could

serve a foundation if it is established by statute and be-

comes a political subdivision of the State of Nevada associ-

ated with the University, but could not serve a private


It was agreed that the material provided by Mr. Thornton

would be distributed to the Board of Regents, that the

December agenda would include, as an action item, the ques-

tion of whether legislative authority would be sought for

establishment of a statutory foundation or whether the

foundation fund concept would be retained, and that the

Officers and Counsel would be prepared to discuss the

advantages perceived in each alternative.

6. Design Development Drawings, Mackay School of Mines

President Crowley noted that the design development drawings

for the Mackay School of Mines building had been completed,

had been approved by the State Public Works Board, and were

ready for presentation to the Board of Regents by the firm

of Sheehan and Haase. The development budget for the facil-

ity is $6,697,000, with $5,040,000 budgeted for construc-

tion. Start of construction is anticipated for May, 1981.

Following presentation of the drawings, illustrated by

slides and a model of the building, President Crowley recom-

mended approval.

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

carried without dissent.

The Board adjourned for lunch and a meeting of the Chancellor

Search Committee, and reconvened at 1:30 p.m. with all Regents,

except Mr. Ross, and all Officers again present.

7. Proposed Lease, Main Station Field Laboratory

President Crowley recalled that the Board had previously

authorized UNR to proceed to offer for lease, for a period

of 40 years with an option to renew for an additional 40

years, a parcel of land consisting of approximately 56 acres

located at the northwest corner of Mill Street and Boynton


Dr. Crowley reported that bids were opened October 20, 1980.

No bids were received; however, a number of inquiries were

received and a great deal of comment and concerns have been

expressed in this matter. Those concerns related to the way

in which the bid had been approached; the period of the ad-

vertisement which was 60 days; the minimum rental figure

which was advertised and which seemed low; the Board's pol-

icy concerning the nonpayment of real estate commissions;

the terms, the need for planning to go into the process of

making a decision about what to do with the land. All of

these concerns and comments suggest that the matter needs to

be studied in some detail and that a proposal be brought

back to the Board at a subsequent meeting as to how to pro-

ceed with respect to that property.

Dr. Lombardi suggested that the University should look at

several options, including the possibility of developing it

in some manner that would provide income to the University,

and moved that the land not be sold. Motion seconded by

Mrs. Whitley.

Following extensive discussion concerning the possible uses

of this parcel, and the utilization of any income received

from it, President Crowley requested that the Board make no

decision at this time but permit time for development of a

full report concerning the alternatives. Dr. Lombardi a-

greed to withdraw his motion and it was agreed that such a

report would come back to the Board within the next four

months. It was also agreed that at the next meeting an

inventory of undeveloped land owned by the University would

be provided to the Board of Regents.

8. Design Development Drawings, Phase IV, School of Medicine

President Crowley requested that presentation of the design

development drawings for Phase IV of the School of Medicine

be deferred until the December meeting.

9. Graduate Student Association, UNLV

President Goodall presented, with his endorsement, a propos-

ed constitution to establish a Graduate Student Association

at UNLV (Constitution identified as Ref. 7 and filed with

permanent minutes). In addition, he recommended that the

internal distribution of the per-credit fee of $24 be re-

vised to allocate $1 of that fee paid by graduate students

registering for 7 credits or more to the Graduate Student

Association. That amount is now allocated to the Library.

Dr. Goodall noted that the amount of money involved for stu-

dents in this category (i. e., full time graduate students)

would be approximately $3,800 per year, and would not have a

negative major impact on the Library. The Library staff has

understood that this was essentially a "holding pattern"

until a Graduate Student Association was established. Dr.

Goodall also noted that it is the institution's policy to

provide additional funds to the Library from whatever year-

end funds are available, and every effort would be made to

compensate for this slight loss in that manner.

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

carried without dissent.

10. Report on Planning for College of Architecture, Engineering

and Planning, UNLV

President Goodall recalled that the Board had requested a

report concerning the state of planning for a new College of

Architecture, Engineering and Planning and submitted the


Nevada architects and other design professionals began

to see a need for such a College over a decade ago. In

1972 the Regents made it a first priority in academic

planning, and it has been at the top of the UNLV prior-

ity list in each of our four-year Master Plans ever

since. It seemed to be under way in 1973-74 when the

work program or annual budget actually contained money

for a so called start-up year. Budget reductions at

that time prevented implementation.

In 1979, responding to urgent representation by some of

the State's leading architects, the Nevada Senate in

Concurrent Resolution #27 supported in principle the

area of a College of Architecture. The Assembly Ways

and Means Committee, during the same session, suggested

the developmental study now about to be completed.

(This committee suggested as well that capital costs

ought to be in some way met by the profession.)

In the Fall of 1979, we appointed a committee to work on

development and in the Spring of 1980 Dean Hugh Burgess

of Arizona State University's College of Architecture

was retained to lead the study effort. Dean Burgess was

chosen partly because he had just completed a survey of

all such schools in the country. The original nucleus

committee was soon expanded to include more architects,

then planners, and most recently, engineers. Other spe-

cialists such as contractors, financiers, and landscape

architects have offered advice either as committee mem-

bers or as individuals.

As planning for the new school proceeded, UNLV's Depart-

ment of Engineering expressed growing interest in affil-

iation. Dean Burgess' final report will suggest incor-

poration of Engineering as a third element in the new


Because the impetus for all this activity came primarily

from the professions concerned, and our internal plan-

ning did not coincide with budget deadlines, the plan

which is forthcoming was not entered into the University

System's new program component in the Biennial Budget.

It is my understanding that the Nevada Association of

Architects may aproach interested Legislators to spon-

sor a separate bill to begin this venture. A College of

Architecture and Environmental Design (or Planning) has

long been authorized by the Regents. However, the addi-

tion of Engineering -- really the transfer of the De-

partment from one College to another -- is a new propos-

al not previously presented to the Regents.

Dr. Goodall announced that a detailed report will be pre-

sented at the December meeting.

11. Report on Plus-Minus Grading System, UNLV

President Goodall recalled that the Board had requested at

the last Regents' meeting that a status report be provided

concerning the plus-minus grading system. Accordingly, he

distributed a report from the Chairman of the UNLV Faculty

Senate which reviewed the sequence of consideration of this

policy and cited the following conclusions:

1. The plus-minus System has been implemented after

considerable study; it was not done hastily.

2. The system applies to both graduate and undergrad-

uate classes.

3. The most recent computer search of the literature

and the contacts with three excellent Universities

have provided information supporting the faculty's


4. An oversight committee is being formed to monitor

the new system.

5. There have been extensive discussions and consulta-

tions with the students. The faculty has not ig-

nored the students; we just reached different con-

clusions concerning the desirability of the plus-

minus system.

Dr. Goodall noted that there was not agreement on Campus

concerning this grading system and there are students who

still oppose it. However, he pointed out, the proposal came

forward from the Faculty Senate, with the endorsement of the

Academic Standards Committee; it was recommended to the

Board and the Board approved it and it has been implemented.

Mr. Mc Bride commented on the communications he had received

concerning this, from faculty and students, and suggested

that perhaps further implementation could be delayed to

permit additional study, particularly concerning the impact

this different grading system might have in relation to the

other institutions in the System.

At Regent Karamanos' request, CSUN President George Chanos

spoke concerning the opposition of the students to this

grading system, and expressed his own personal concern that

waiting a month to reverse the decision of the Board to ap-

prove this grading system would make it too late to reverse

it for this semester and it would also result in the expend-

iture of approximately $5,000 to have new forms printed.

Chancellor Baepler suggested that if the Regents wish to

consider this matter further, the Registrar's Office at UNLV

could be directed to hold the old forms they have, the fac-

ulty can proceed with its evaluations on the plus-minus

system, and the Board can act on this in December.

Mr. Mc Bride suggested that this be considered as an emer-

gency matter and the Board act on it at this meeting.

Faculty Senate Chairman Fry pointed out that this matter has

been before the Faculty Senate for almost three years and

was endorsed on two occasions after full discussion by the

faculty. Insofar as student opposition, he noted that there

has been student input, and the students' concerns were tak-

en into consideration but the faculty simply did not agree

with the student position.

Mr. Buchanan moved that this matter be brought back as an

action item on the December agenda, that faculty and student

positions be stated in writing and be included as agenda

references. Motion seconded by Mr. Mc Bride, carried with-

out dissent.

12. Litigation Concerning Special Events Centers

Mr. Lessly reported that he had provided each member of the

Board with a copy of a confidential memorandum in which he

had explained the status of the pending litigation of the

Special Events Centers. He requested authorization to work

with the Attorney General's Office to develop details for

the further conduct of this litigation, in accordance with

that memorandum, in order that this matter could again pro-

ceed to the Supreme Court.

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

Lombardi, carried without dissent.

13. Report by TMCC Concerning Articulation

President Eardley recalled that at the previous meeting, the

Board had requested that any of the Presidents who wished

to should report on articulation as it affected his institu-

tion. Accordingly, he noted that such a report had been in-

cluded with the agenda (identified as Ref. 10 and filed with

permanent minutes).

A lengthy discussion concerning this matter followed, during

which it appeared to be the consensus of the Regents and the

Officers that resolution of this problem rested to a major

extent with the Presidents of the institutions and their

ability to develop agreement concerning acceptability of the

quality of teaching and the nature of the degree programs.

14. Report of Investment Advisory Committee

Mr. Karamanos reported that the Investment Advisory Commit-

tee had met earlier, with Regent Lombardi presiding, and

took the following actions:

(1) Received a report from Mr. Monte Miller and recommended

approval of the following transactions in the portfolio

managed by Valley Bank:


Proposed Sale Gain

Shares Description Price Proceeds (Loss)

700 Burroughs 52 Market $ 36,400 ($10,852)

2,000 Merrill Lynch 34 Limit 70,000 20,996

1,000 Union Oil of Cal. 48 Limit 50,000 27,150

------- -------

Total $156,400 $ 37,294


Yield @

Proposed Proposed

Purchase Present Total Purchase

Shares Description Price Price Value Price

3,500 Merrill Lynch 27 Limit 35-1/2 $ 94,500 4.1%

3,000 InterNorth. 33 Limit 36 99,000 5.5%

2,300 Asarco 42 Limit 51 96,600 5.2%

2,000 Cat. Tract. 50 Limit 59 100,000 4.8%

2,400 Ogden Corp. 41 Limit 43 98,400 5.4%

1,300 Union Oil Cal.37 Limit 51 48,100 2.2%

1,300 Norfolk West. 36 Limit 40-1/2 46,800 6.1%

600 Honeywell 82 Limit 94 49,200 3.9%

1,400 Intl. Paper 36 Limit 40 50,400 6,7%

Total $683,000

(2) Discussed possible legislation to facilitate the func-

tioning of the Investment Committee. Mr. Lessly re-

ported that legislation will be sought to enable the

Board to consider investment recommendations by means

of a telephone poll of the members, thus avoiding the

delay and expense of special meetings for this purpose.

(3) Received a report and recommendation from Mr. Tom

Josephsen and recommended approval of the following

transactions in the Atmospherium/Planetarium portfolio

managed by Security Bank:


Total Approx. Antic. Mkt.

Units Security Price Price Income Yield

300 Alcan 35 $ 10,500 420 4.0

200 Celanese 49 9,800 720 7.3

150 Data General 73 10,950 - -

150 Motorola 67 10,050 210 2.1

200 Santa Fe Indus. 58 11,600 520 4.5

200 Phillips 53 10,600 360 3.5

200 Union Oil Ca 47 9,400 160 1.7

150 Santa Fe Intl. 78 11,700 108 .9

200 Pfizer 43 8,600 288 3.3

500 Searle 20 10,000 260 2.6

150 SmithKline 69 10,350 288 2.8

300 Ryder 30 9,000 324 3.6

300 Levi Strauss 39 11,700 450 3.8

300 American Express 33 9,900 600 6.1

150 Texas East. Trans. 75 11,250 480 4.3

600 Great West. Fin. 18 10,800 528 4.9

200 Shell Oil 47 9,400 320 3.4

300 Safeway 31 9,300 780 8.4

400 Johns Manville 25 10,000 768 7.7

100 Combustion Engin. 96 9,600 300 3.1

Total $204,600 3.6


210,000 U. S. T-Bills 12.13% Due 10-2-81

(4) Received a report and recommendation from representa-

tives of First National Bank. The Committee recommend-

ed approval of FNB's request for rescinding of its

authorization to sell 5,900 shares of Aetna Life &

Casualty, and approval of the following transactions

in the portfolio managed by that bank:


Approx. Approx. Antic. Mkt. Gain

Units Security Price Value Inc. Yield (Loss)

35M State of Calif. 80.87 28,305 1,505 5.3 ( 3,580)

Veterans Bonds

4.30% due 10/1/86

100M State of Calif. 76.89 76,890 4,750 6.2 (11,310)

Clean Water Bonds

4 3/4% due 2/1/89

------- ----- --- --------

105,195 6,255 5.9 (14,890)


105M Commercial Paper 13.50 14,175 13.5

15 to 30 days to yield

approx. 13 1/2%

Mr. Buchanan moved approval. Motion seconded by Mrs.

Knudtsen, carried without dissent.

15. Request for Funding for Community College Student


Chancellor Baepler proposed that the Board of Regents al-

locate $15,000 from the Board of Regents Special Projects

Account to subsidize a new Community College Student Govern-

ment Association and leadership training programs to be

sponsored by that organization.

He explained that the proposal is to provide matching funds

for two Statewide student leadership programs each year, one

in the Fall and one in the Spring. These monies would be

used to bring in consultants and experts for workshops to

help the Community College students to more quickly develop

their leadership skills. A third use for the money would be

to fund travel expenses for a representative of this new as-

sociation to attend Regents' meetings similar to the manner

in which travel to such meetings is now funded for the

President of USUNS.

The $15,000 allocation would be distributed in the following


Spring Student Government Workshop $ 4,000

Fall Student Government Workshop 4,000

Consultants and Related Expenses 3,500

Instate Travel Expenses for Regents' Meetings 3,000

Contingency Monies 500


Dr. Baepler explained that attendance at Statewide Community

College Government Workshops would involve approximately 60

persons, to be subsidized one-half by the sponsoring Student

Association and one-half from the monies allocated by the

Board of Regents, at an estimated cost of $113 per student

per workshop.

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


In response to Mr. Buchanan's question concerning future

funding for this organization, Chancellor Baepler suggested

that although the organization may return with a subsequent

request for modest funds, it is anticipated that as the or-

ganization grows and gets stronger it would be self-support-

ing from its own budgets. He said he did not believe this

allocation would be a commitment for continued funding.

Motion carried without dissent.

16. Report Concerning USUNS

In response to a request at the October meeting, USUNS Pres-

ident David Martinez distributed a report which he summa-

rized as follows:

The purpose of USUNS was to promote the interests and

the welfare of the students of the System. The objec-

tive of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of

USUNS in that particular endeavor.

To provide some historical background on the long range

problems, past documents and minutes of the organization

were analyzed. Since 1976, USUNS has been encumbered

with recurring problems which have impeded its develop-

ment. Student government representatives at UNR have

historically tended to disavow a need for a multi-Campus

system. They contend that Statewide policy planning can

be achieved through the existing structures of Campus

Presidents. A 1978 study conducted by the Bureau of

Business and Economic Research on student attitudes does

in part support their contention. That report concludes

that students may not be familiar with or may not recog-

nize the need for USUNS. Since UNR does not participate

the organization is deprived of that source of funding

and this has added to the organization's fiscal problems

and understaffing. At present, there are over 80 State

Student Associations that exist throughout the country.

The creation and survival of these organizations are, of

course, as dependent upon funding as any other organi-

zation. The poverty of these organizations is a problem

that has been shared by USUNS. USUNS subsequently must

rely on contributions made by member student governments

to fund its programs and this situation has created an

unhealthy fiscal environment and has weekened its struc-

ture. Student governments in the past have seen USUNS

as a threat and as a competitor and have thus cut off

funding. Since student governments have a high turn-

over rate, USUNS has found itself in the position of

reeducating student government members annually. Fi-

nally, survival of USUNS is placed in the hands of a

few government members who are not necessarily repre-

sentative of the students that USUNS is working for.

One brief solution of funding would be to adopt a

mandatory refundable fee structure; that is, supply a

membership fee that could be refunded if the student who

paid the fee wished it refunded. Under administrative

staff and facilities, USUNS Officers unfortunately play

dualistic roles within student government. Because of

this overlapping of responsibilities, demands on their

time are stretched to the limit. This condition re-

stricts the activity of USUNS and perpetuates the back-

ing of administrative duties. The solution, of course,

is that the administrative staff of USUNS should be ex-

panded, and the organization should establish facili-

ties out of which it could operate. This could free

USUNS Officers of these time consuming tasks of develop-

ing schedules, bookkeeping and other such administrative


The greatest problem that I have found in USUNS, and

that faces USUNS in the future, is the division among

its members. In recent months, some Community College

representatives have restated the old concern that

USUNS is structured to serve the interests of the large

institutions. A quick review of USUNS' meetings confirm

that this basic notion existed since the inception of

the organization. These feelings stem from two basic

conditions: (1) the differences in revenue allotments

awarded to each of the member groups; and (2) that the

Community Colleges face different problems which are

unique to their environments, thus, their goals are

radically different from those of the Universities.

It is this difference in problem goal orientation that

has divided the very organization that is responsible

for uniting the System.

As far as the solution to the division, USUNS would have

to be reorganized to eliminate the divisions. An alter-

native structure which would rectify this problem could

be the establishment of Community College and University

coalitions which would allow the respective institutions

to shape their own organizations. Since many problems

facing the Community Colleges are radically different

from those of the Universities, a forum should be creat-

ed for an expression of these problems. While there is

good reason to assume that there is and will continue to

be substantial opportunities for the development of

USUNS, institutional structures must be given primary

considerations at this time. USUNS should be left dor-

mant for a period of two years to allow these regional

structures to develop and mature and then these regional

structures could then be used as building blocks of a

Statewide institution.

Mr. Martinez stated that, based on the findings of the

foregoing report, he recommended that USUNS be shelved for a

period of two years and that the Universities and Community

Colleges be allowed to develop coalitions at their option to

address two-year and four-year institutional issues. He

noted that CSUN President George Chanos would propose in the

near future the formation of a Presidents' council and he

recommended that the proposal be adopted, in addition to the


Mr. Martinez further noted that at its last meeting, the

USUNS Council voted to disband. However, there are still

bills outstanding and monies which will be remaining after

those outstanding bills have been paid and which should be

returned to the respective schools. He requested guidance

from the Board of Regents.

Mr. Buchanan moved that, in accordance with the action by

USUNS to disband, the constitution of that organization be

revoked by the Board of Regents. Motion seconded by Mr.

Karamanos, carried without dissent.

In approving the above motion, USUNS was instructed to pay

their outstanding bills and disburse any remaining monies to

its participating members.

17. Allocation for Funding of Requested Audit

Mr. Mc Bride noted that each of the Regents had been given a

copy of a letter from Kafoury, Armstrong and Company which

contained a proposal for the conduct of an audit which the

Board had requested at its special meeting of October 24

(copy of proposal filed with permanent minutes). The ob-

jective of the audit is to provide the Board of Regents an

accounting of the tickets for home football and basketball

games at UNR and UNLV for the period July 1, 1979 through

June 30, 1980, with particular emphasis on ticket and cash

equivalence accountability. The estimated fee for this

audit is $6,500 and Mr. Mc Bride moved that the Board allo-

cate that sum from the Board of Regents Special Projects

Account for this purpose, noting that the fee has been kept

smaller in view of the fact that the auditing staff in the

Chancellor's Office will assist in the audit. Motion sec-

onded by Mrs. Fong, carried without dissent.

18. Proposed Amendment of Board of Regents Bylaws

At the October meeting, the Board approved a revised posi-

tion description for the Chancellor, with the understanding

that additional amendment to the Presidents' duties and re-

sponsibilities would be necessary. Accordingly, a proposed

amendment to Article VI of the Board of Regents Bylaws was

submitted for first reading. (Proposed amendment identified

as Ref. 17 and filed with permanent minutes), with final

action to be requested in December.

19. Approval of Special Fee, UNR

President Crowley requested approval to increase an existing

special fee for Ice Skating (RPEd. 165) from $20 to $26 per

course, and to assess a special fee of $20 for Backpacking

(RPEd. 141), effective Spring semester, 1981.

Mr. Buchanan moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr.

Karamanos, carried without dissent.

20. Naming of Alumni Lounge Area in Morrill Hall, UNR

President Crowley reported that the UNR Alumni Association

has proposed that the Alumni Lounge area on the first floor

of Morrill Hall be named the Norcross Parlor, in honor of

Judge Frank H. Norcross, the Association's first President.

President Crowley recommended approval.

Mr. Buchanan moved approval. Motion seconded by Mr.

Karamanos, carried without dissent.

21. New Business

(1) Chairman Cashell asked that the December agenda include

written status reports from the Chairpersons of all

Board-appointed committees.

(2) Mr. Buchanan stated that he had been approached by a

number of people in Las Vegas about the loss of the

Federal funds for the special program at UNR for deaf

students. He requested that President Crowley bring

back to the December meeting a report on the status of

this program and that consideration be given to some

form of supplemental funding to keep the program going.

(3) Mrs. Fong asked that General Counsel be requested to

draft a bill for the Governmental Affairs Committee

that would place a spending limit on campaigns for

nonpaying educational offices, such as Regent and

members of the Board of Education.

(4) Mr. Mc Bride asked that the next agenda include a

written report from Counsel concerning those items

which the Board has addressed over the past year and

which they have requested be submitted to the 1981


The meeting adjourned at 2:55 P.M.

Bonnie M. Smotony

Secretary of the Board