November 6-7, 1980
BOARD OF REGENTS
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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-
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
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-
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-
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-
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
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
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%
(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)
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
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
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
(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