12/02-03/2010

BOARD OF REGENTS
NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Third Floor Rotunda
Frank H. Rogers Science & Technology Building
Desert Research Institute
755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas
Thursday, December 2, 2010, 9:00 a.m.
Friday, December 3, 2010, 8:00 a.m.
 
 
Members Present:        Mr. James Dean Leavitt, Chairman
Dr. Jason Geddes, Vice Chairman
Mr. Mark Alden
Dr. Andrea Anderson             {via telephone}
Mr. Robert Blakely
Mr. William G. Cobb
Mr. Cedric Crear
Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher
Mr. Ron Knecht
Mr. Kevin J. Page
Dr. Raymond D. Rawson
Dr. Jack Lund Schofield
Mr. Michael B. Wixom
 
Others Present:            Chancellor Daniel J. Klaich
Executive Vice Chancellor & CEO, HSS, Maurizio Trevisan
Vice Chancellor, Academic & Student Affairs, Jane Nichols
Vice Chancellor, Administrative & Legal Affairs, Bart Patterson
Interim Vice Chancellor, Finance, Mark Stevens
Vice Chancellor, HSS, Marcia Turner
CEO & Special Counsel to the Board, Scott Wasserman
President Michael D. Richards, CSN
President Stephen G. Wells, DRI
President Carl Diekhans, GBC
President Lesley Di Mare, NSC
President Maria C. Sheehan, TMCC
President Neal J. Smatresk, UNLV
President Milton D. Glick, UNR
President Carol A. Lucey, WNC
 
Also present were faculty senate chairs Mr. Bill Kerney, CSN; Ms. Laura Edwards, DRI; Ms. Sarah Negrete, GBC; Ms. Robin Herlands, NSC; Ms. Mary Arbutina, NSHE (Vice Chair); Dr. Cecilia Maldanado, UNLV; Dr. Eric Herzik, UNR; Mr. Scott Huber, TMCC; and Mr. Jim
Strange, WNC. Student government leaders present included Mr. J.T. Creedon, ASCSN President, CSN; Mr. Steve Gronstal; GRAD President, DRI; Ms. Jacqueline Lemback, SGA Vice President, GBC; Mr. Sebring Frehner, NSSA Vice President, NSC; Mr. David Rapoport, CSUN President, UNLV; Mr. Kyle George, GPSA President, UNLV; Mr. Charlie Jose, ASUN
President, UNR; Mr. Matthew J. Smith, GSA President, UNR; Mr. Adam Porsborg, ASTM Board Chair, TMCC; and Mr. Jason McGill, ASWN President, WNC.


Chairman James Dean Leavitt called the meeting to order at 9:13 a.m. on December 2, 2010, with all members present. 
 
Chairman Leavitt requested a moment of silence in honor of the passing of former Regent Madison Graves. Chancellor Klaich related that Regent Graves had served with a deep love of higher education. 
 
Regent Gallagher related that she had had a wonderful relationship with Regent Graves and he will be sorely missed.  
 
Regent Alden related that he had the opportunity to visit with Regent Graves during the last week of his life and that he had been a fine person.  
 
Regent Schofield related that he had known Regent Graves since the time he had been a young boy and had watched him grow up and serve his community. 
 
1.                  Introductions and Campus Updates (Agenda Item #1) - President Lucey related that WNC is busily preparing for exams. She was pleased to report that one of the institution’s new retention experiments of a Latino cohort of 33 students, remains 100% enrolled. WNC plans to use that program as a model for future experiments with other learning communities. Also, the college hosted a meeting of the Fresh Look at Nevada Community Colleges Task Force on campus and she felt that had been a very satisfying and affirming event.
 
President Sheehan related that TMCC is concentrating on making its partnership and collaborations with the K-12 system stronger than ever before.  A first meeting of joint staff from the Washoe County School District (WCSD) and TMCC recently occurred to consider Adult Degree and non-ESL learners to ensure that they have a pathway to jobs in the future. A second collaboration with WCSD involves a program called Linking Pathways that will align gateway curriculum in English and Math and will help to transform the pattern of mathematics at TMCC.
 
President Diekhans related that Ms. Sarah Negrete, GBC Faculty Senate Chair, will receive her doctorate from UNR in December. He reported that students and classes at GBC were doing well. He clarified that media reports of GBC’s foundation failing were over-exaggerated and clarified that the floor had dropped about 3 inches and was in the process of being repaired. 
 
President Richards introduced CSN’s newly appointed Athletic Director, Mr. Mark Norris. He also reported that based on an idea from Regent Wixom, CSN held its first Go to College Nevada fair at Eldorado High School to start working with families to change the college-going culture in the Clark County area. Participants in that project included NSC, UNR, GBC and the Clark County School District (CCSD). Another such event is planned for the spring of 2011. In addition, CSN’s remodeling of the Science Building at its Cheyenne campus is underway and is hoped to be completed by the fall 2011 semester. Modular labs will be brought in until the spring semester. A rebate check in the amount of $500,000 was received from NV Energy for the installation of solar panels on the West Charleston campus. President Richards hoped to implement other utility cost savings


1.         Introductions and Campus Updates (Agenda Item #1) (Cont’d.)
programs at its other campuses. Finally, President Richards reported that CSN recently opened its Veterans Education Center which will function as a one-stop shop for the 14,000 veterans that attend CSN.
 
Regent Wixom expressed appreciation to the presidents that participated in the Going to College Nevada event. He related that one of the lessons that he has learned, particularly for first generation college students, is that it become a family affair. The family’s understanding of the process will determine successful outcomes. It was his hope that this program will continue. He felt that the number of people in attendance at this event was a precursor for the success of future activities.
 
President Di Mare reported that NSC’s master plan was approved by the City of Henderson on November 10, 2010. Also occurring in November, NSC hosted the Southwest Technology Showcase highlighting technological advances designed to enhance on-line degree programs as well as enhancing student services. Over 200 participants from four states attended. President Di Mare also reported that NSC is working with Quest Laboratories in a partnership to develop employment opportunities for NSC’s 160 Biology majors.
 
President Wells highlighted DRI’s economic development activities.  One is Dr. Joe Jenski is exploring leads between drug resistance and the biology of microbes for bridging the gap between research innovation and commercialization. Dr. Jenski has partnered with Dr. Adam March, University of Delaware, to develop a company to target drug resistant diseases. Another opportunity is to help the public gain a better understanding of energy consumption and to modify habits of electronic use and decrease carbon emissions, Dr. Hammond Coons and Dr. Maureen Roberts created a new system called iBUCS (Intelligent Building Utility Conservation System). President Wells announced that DRI and UNR have worked collaboratively on the application of a competitive National Science Foundation grant for major research instrumentation, in which a grant was won for DRI’s patented photocustic instrument used to assess the impact of aerosol particles in the atmosphere and how that in turn impacts radiant energy and climate influences. President Wells also reported that DRI has fully funded the cloud seeding program in all three parts of the state.  The Southern Nevada Water Authority has funded the program at almost $292,000 for seven generators in the Ruby Mountain range, the Bureau of Reclamation has funded $1.5 million over five years to fund the Walker River Basin, the Truckee River Water Authority and Western Regional Water Commission has funded $255,000 to run five generators in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
 
President Glick related that there had been a competition sponsored by the National Institute for Science and Technology to improve science and engineering facilities. Out of 124 applications, five were chosen, including UNR to expand its earthquake laboratory. This was announced in September and ground has already been broken. President Glick felt that this shows what building critical mass can do in allowing the institution to compete at the highest level. He related that an additional project is


1.         Introductions and Campus Updates (Agenda Item #1) (Cont’d.)
allowing one of their faculty’s licenses to be used by a Reno company to remove arsenic from drinking water. President Glick reported that over 30,000 people attended the UNR versus Boise State University football game on the previous Friday. It was the first time in 10 years that the UNR Wolfpack has beaten Boise State and they are looking forward to a bowl game. In terms of graduation rates, President Glick related that UNR had the largest graduating class ever in the spring of 2010, with a 66% increase in graduates compared to over 10 years ago.  UNR continues to meet a critical need in the state of having more college educated citizens. Winter commencement exercises are scheduled for December 4, 2010, and will include honoring Judge Procter Hug and Dr. Richard Tapia as honorary degree recipients.
 
In addition to President Glick’s report, Regent Cobb related that Judge Hug had been a member of the Board of Regents and had served in the capacity of chairman of the Board in addition to General Counsel. Judge Hug’s daughter, Dr. Cheryl Hug English is currently serving as Interim Dean of the School of Medicine. Regent Cobb also related that he had the opportunity to attend UNR’s Senior Scholar awards at which top scholars of each of the colleges are recognized. He shared that of the eight honorees, six were women, one young man had earned a 4.0 GPA and was also a veteran of the Iraqi war, one woman was a native of Romania, and another remarkable woman had overcome severe physical disabilities to graduate with a 3.99 GPA in computer sciences and is now going to work for NASA. In addition, one non-traditional student that began her education in 1996 at TMCC had achieved a 4.0 GPA.
 
President Smatresk related that it had been very exciting to watch UNR as one of the newest members to the Mountain West Conference and he looked forward to many great intra-conference competitions between UNLV and UNR. He reported that the Running Rebels basketball team is currently undefeated. President Smatresk introduced new Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion, Dr. Sterling Stadler. He related that Dr. Bill Sullivan, Gear Up and Trio Program, recently received a large grant to continue serving K-12 in the Clark County School District (CCSD). In Clark County, 27,000 students are served through the Trio program each year with the academic success rate of those students significantly higher than for those students that do not participate. UNLV is also participating in a NSF grant in which scientists from UNLV and from China work collaboratively on topics of research interest. President Smatresk related that Dr. Ed Webber was recently named by Secretary Salazar to head the Mojave Research Commission for the Bureau of Land Management. In terms of student activities, the Senior Design Competition had just been completed the previous day. In that competition, UNLV students exercise their engineering prerogative to make devices that may be useful. In fact, three students are pursuing patents on their devices at this time. President Smatresk related that many UNLV students and affiliated rotary held a Santa Clothes event that provides children with funds to go shopping and allows the students to meet UNLV’s athletes. 
 
Regent Schofield related that he had attended the Senior Design Competition and had been very impressed.


1.         Introductions and Campus Updates (Agenda Item #1) (Cont’d.)
Chancellor Klaich related that Chancellor Emeritus Jim Rogers, owner and operator of KVBC in Las Vegas, has supported the NSHE by once again donating air time for interviews. Interviews have been taped with all the presidents that focus on the critical message of the importance of education for Nevada. He expressed his deep gratitude to Mr. Rogers for continuing his support of higher education in Nevada.
 
Chairman Leavitt introduced Regent-elect Kevin C. Melcher as well as former TMCC President, Dr. John W. Gwaltney.  He added that Dr. Gwaltney had been the longest serving president at TMCC in the history of that institution.
 
 
The meeting recessed at 9:49 a.m. for committee meetings and reconvened at 2:40 p.m. on December 2, 2010, with all members present.
 
 
2.                  Information Only - Institutional Student and Faculty Presentations (Agenda Item #2)- President Wells introduced Dr. Daniel Obrist. Dr. Obrist obtained his Masters of Science from the University of Basel, Switzerland in Ecophysiology and a Ph.D. in Hydrogeology from UNR in 2002. He has done post-doctoral research in Nevada and Switzerland.  His research interests include atmospheric chemistry, transport, and biogeochemistry of pollutants and quantification of surface exchange processes of atmospheric constituents between soils, plants, and the atmosphere. A special emphasis includes cycling of mercury in the environment and how global change and disturbances affect these processes. Current research projects include (i) systematic quantification of mercury loads in forest across the United States to assess atmospheric loadings sequestered in terrestrial systems; (ii) study of biogeochemical processes of mercury sequestered in soils and litter to assess its fate during organic carbon decomposition; (iii) assessment of long-range transport of atmospheric pollutants (e.g., Asian pollution events)and tropospheric oxidation of mercury at DRI’s high-elevation research Station, Storm Peak Laboratory in the Rocky Mountains; (iv) development of a novel real-time sensor based on Cavity-Ring-Down spectroscopy to measure atmospheric mercury concentrations; and (v) study of mercury depletion events in the halogen-rich atmosphere at the Dead Sea, Israel to determine oxidation pathways and kinetics for mercury oxidation in temperate areas. Other interests include effects of wildfires and global change (e.g., elevated CO2, increasing tropospheric ozone)on hydrology and carbon and nutrient cycling processes in terrestrial ecosystems (full presentation on file in the Board office).
 
President Wells introduced Miss Faegheh Moazeni. Ms. Moazeni has a Bachelor’s and a Master’s degree in chemical engineering, both from Sharif University of Technology, Iran. Her Master’s thesis studied how to use microorganisms to speed up the remediation of petroleum-contaminated soils. In 2008, Miss Moazeni came to the University of Nevada Las Vegas where she began her doctoral study in civil and environmental engineering. Her dissertation research, which takes place at Desert Research Institute under the guidance of Dr. Henry Sun, consists of two parts. Part one develops sensors for planetary exploration of Mars. Part two develops technologies


2.         Information Only - Institutional Student and Faculty Presentations (Agenda Item #2)(Cont’d.)
necessary for commercial production of algal biofuel in southern Nevada. Miss Moazeni has one peer-reviewed publication and two manuscripts in preparation (full presentation on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Cobb asked if this process has been patented. Miss. Moazeni replied that the process is not yet complete. Regent Cobb asked what type of interface is being done with other agencies in Nevada. Miss. Moazeni indicated that she understood DRI is working with UNLV’s Harry Reid Center.
 
 
3.                  Information Only - Chairman’s Report (Agenda Item #3)- Chairman James Dean Leavitt discussed current NSHE events and his current activities as Chairman.
 
Chairman Leavitt related that he, Chancellor Klaich, Regent Geddes and Regent Alden spent two full days on the UNLV campus to meet with a wide variety of constituent groups regarding the potential permanent appointment of President Smatresk. He expressed his thanks to Vice Chairman Geddes and to Regent Alden for dedicating two days out of their schedules to gather data. Chairman Leavitt thanked Mr. Fred Tredup, UNLV President’s office, for arranging the logistical details as well as Dr. Cecelia Maldonado, UNLV Faculty Senate Chair for her support of the process.
 
 
4.                  Information Only - Chancellor’s Report (Agenda Item #4) - Chancellor Daniel J. Klaich presented a report to the Board of Regents regarding ongoing planning activities and major projects within the NSHE.
 
Chancellor Klaich highlighted the activities of the System’s staff. Vice Chancellor Nichols and the Academic and Student Affairs team have been focusing on student success and outreach. Vice Chancellor Patterson has been working overtime on the efficiency and effectiveness initiative. Chancellor Klaich thanked the campuses for reaching out to Vice Chancellor Patterson and providing him with assistance for this effort. Executive Vice Chancellor Trevisan has been shepherding the new relationship between University Medical Center (UMC) and the University of Nevada School of Medicine (UNSOM). Interim Vice Chancellor Delmont has been working to keep the iNtegrate project on track and under budget. Interim Vice Chancellor Mark Stevens and the Finance department have been preparing for the upcoming legislative session and state budget process.
 
Chancellor Klaich related that to-date he has met twice with Governor-elect Brian Sandoval and his staff regarding the NSHE budget. He related that those meetings had been extremely professional and engaging and reflected some of the same statements that Governor-elect Sandoval had expressed during his campaign, including hints of a much broader autonomy for the NSHE that remains to be fleshed out in further discussions.  He felt that the governor-elect held a real confidence in the Board of Regents and its staff as the ones to lead higher education and that the Board should have the tools necessary to do that. 


4.         Information Only - Chancellor’s Report (Agenda Item #4)(Cont’d.)
Chancellor Klaich related that he and the presidents were excited about what appears to be a growing partnership between education and business that he has not seen in Nevada for many years. He felt that reflected that education was becoming recognized as an investment in this state. He stated that higher education could not do its job if it continued to lose its resources and ability to do what’s right. 
 
Chancellor Klaich stated that he would keep the Board of apprised of the ongoing discussions with the Governor’s office.
 
Chairman Leavitt noted that the Board would not meet again as a full Board until March 2011. However, in the meantime, he and the Chancellor would be providing updates as the beginning of the legislative session approaches.
 
Regent Schofield felt that what Chancellor Klaich was reporting was that the educators, business people and scientists in the state of Nevada were finally collaborating as a team.
 
Regent Cobb expressed concern about the estimated deficit and the implications of handling that deficit through reductions. He suggested that consideration be given to schedule a special Board of Regents’ meeting to address those issues.  Chairman Leavitt agreed that a special meeting may be necessary to address any issues as they arise.
 
Chancellor Klaich related that the Governor-elect is scheduled to deliver the State of the State Address on January 24, 2011. 
 
 
5.                  Approved - Consent Agenda (Agenda Item #5)- The Board of Regents’ approved the Consent Agenda in its entirety (Consent Agenda on file in the Board office).
 
(1.)       Approved - Minutes (Consent Agenda Item #5)- The Board of Regents approved the minutes from the special Board of Regents’ meeting held August 24, 2010, and the regular meeting held September 9-10, 2010 (Ref. C-1a and C-1b on file in the Board office).
 
(2.)       Approved - Procedures & Guidelines Manual Revision, Academic Program Deactivation (Consent Agenda Item #5) – The Board of Regents approved the request of Vice Chancellor Jane Nichols for a revision to the Procedures and Guidelines Manual providing that a “deactivated” program will be considered formally eliminated if within five years of the date of deactivation it is not reactivated by the institution (Chapter 6, Section 13) (Ref. C-2 on file in the Board office).
 


5.         Approved - Consent Agenda(Agenda Item #5) – (Cont’d.)
 
(3.)       Approved - Handbook Revision, State College Credit by Exam (Consent Agenda Item #3)– The Board of Regents approved the request of Vice Chancellor Jane Nichols for a revision to Board policy concerning the credit by examination provisions for the state college (Title 4, Chapter 16, Section 32). At the September 2009 meeting, the Board approved a revision that broadened the scope of the credit by examination provisions in Chapter 14 and eliminated the redundant university policy that appeared in Chapter 16. The state college section was overlooked at that time and should have been removed. Deleting this section will not impact the Board general policy on credit by examination that is applicable to all institutions (Title 4, Chapter 14, Section 19) (Ref. C-3 on file in the Board office).
 
(4.)       Approved - Procedures & Guidelines Manual Revision, Fee Distribution, William S. Boyd School of Law, UNLV (Consent Agenda Item #4) – The Board of Regents approved the request of UNLV President Neal J. Smatresk of revisions to the Procedures and Guidelines Manual, Chapter 7, Section 16 with regard to fee distributions for the William S. Boyd School of Law. The biennial tuition and fee request as well as fee distribution for the law school was approved by the Board of Regents at its April 16, 2010, meeting. The April agenda item did not include the respective revisions to the Procedures and Guidelines Manual. This request addresses that oversight and provides the revisions reflecting the distribution of fees approved by the Board(Ref. C-4 on file in the Board office).
 
(5.)       Approved - Acceptance of Art Collection Estate Gift, UNR (Consent Agenda Item #5) – The Board of Regents approved the request of UNR President Milton D. Glick for the acceptance of an art collection estate gift from Dr. Robert Smyly (Ref. C-5 on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Alden moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Regent Blakely seconded. Motion carried.
 
 
6.                  Information Only - Public Comment (Agenda Item #6)– None.
 
 
7.                  Approved - Distinguished Nevadan Award (Agenda Item #7) – The Board of Regents approved the request of Regent Dorothy S. Gallagher for the presentation of a 2010 Distinguished Nevadan Award to Reverend Caesar J. Caviglia (Handbook, Title 4, Chapter 1, Section 14) (Ref. BOR-7a and BOR-7b on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Gallagher expressed her great pleasure in bringing forth this nomination. She stated that Father Caviglia is truly a great Nevadan.
 
Regent Gallagher moved approval of the Reverend Caesar J. Caviglia as a Distinguished Nevadan. Regent Wixom seconded. Motion carried.


8.                  Approved - President Emeritus, Dr. John W. Gwaltney, TMCC (Agenda Item #8) – The Board of Regents approved the request of Chancellor Daniel J. Klaich to grant former president of TMCC, Dr. John W. Gwaltney, President Emeritus status. (Ref. BOR-8a and BOR-8b on file in the Board office).
 
Chancellor Klaich stated that this was an honor that was richly deserved and long overdue. He related that Dr. Gwaltney had been the longest serving president of TMCC.
 
Regent Gallagher moved approval of granting Dr. John W. Gwaltney the status of President Emeritus. Regent Page seconded. Motion carried.
 
Dr. Gwaltney thanked the Board of Regents, Chancellor Klaich and President Sheehan for their support and wished them success in the upcoming legislative session.
 
 
9.                  Approved - Procedures & Guidelines Manual Revision, Student Fees (Agenda Item #9) – The Board of Regents approved revisions to Student Fees, Special Course Fees and Food Service Rates (P&GM Chapter 7, Sections 7, 8 and 10) as required by Board Policy (Title 4, Chapter 17) (Ref. BOR-9 on file in the Board office).
 
Vice Chancellor Stevens related that during the fall of each year, institutions are requested to identify new or revised fees in each of the three categories and submit those revisions to the Board of Regents at its December meeting. Although each campus has its own procedure, one consistent factor is the participation of the student leadership in the fee review process. The revised fees typically become effective in the fall 2011 semester. However, there are three exceptions to that generality that allows for fees to become effective in the spring of 2011. 
 
Regent Alden moved approval of revisions to Student Fees, Special Course Fees and Food Service Rates (P&GM Chapter 7, Sections 7, 8 and 10) as required by Board Policy. Regent Cobb seconded.
 
Vice Chancellor Stevens related to the Board the various fees as indicated in the reference material.
 
Regent Cobb asked if the fees were vetted with the individual campuses and he asked if there were any opposition expressed to them. Vice Chancellor Stevens replied that the fees were initially proposed by the institutions. 
 
Regent Page felt that the some of the fees did not make sense. For example, identification cards at UNLV is no charge; UNR is $11; NSC is $5; CSN is $2; the other institutions provide at no charge. He asked if the fees were all submitted by the institutions independent of each other or if they were reviewed at a System level. Vice Chancellor Stevens indicated that a System level review could be done prior to the next submission to the Board.


9.         Approved - Procedures & Guidelines Manual Revision, Student Fees (Agenda Item #9) (Cont’d.)
Chairman Leavitt stated that although he appreciated that there should be consistency he was not troubled that the fees were different among the institutions. Regent Page stated that the fees did not have to be identical. However, the fees were all over the board. Chairman Leavitt asked Vice Chancellor Stevens to have that discussion with the institutions.
 
Regent Anderson asked if the testing fees requested by CSN are for new tests or have fees just now been established for existing tests. Ms. Patty Charlton, Senior Vice President of Finance and Facilities, CSN, replied that some of the fees were for existing tests. There had previously been a misunderstanding by the department that because they were not tied to a specific course they did not require Board approval. She related that the testing actually improves CSN’s student success rate.
 
Regent Geddes referred to page 6 of 39 of Ref. BOR-9 and asked why dental hygiene instrument kits reflected such a wide range between CSN and TMCC. Dr. Jess Carreon, Interim Vice President of Academic Affairs and Student Services, TMCC, related that at their institution more specific tool kits are required. He agreed with the comment made by Regent Page that it may be beneficial for the institutions to communicate more in terms of fees.
 
Regent Rawson requested further clarification of the A+ Certification fee requested by GBC. Dr. Mike McFarlane, Vice President of Academic Affairs, GBC, explained that A+ Certification is a Microsoft certification for networking.
 
Motion carried.
 
 
10.              Approved - Handbook Revision, Differential Program Fees (Agenda Item #10)– The Board of Regents approved revisions to the Differential Program Fee policy to expand authorization for differential program fees to graduate level programs and to provide that the institutions may establish policies and procedures to allow certain graduate assistants to register without a differential program fee, or with a waiver.  (Ref. BOR-10 on file in the Board office).
Regent Alden moved approval to revise the Differential Program Fee policy to expand authorization for differential program fees to graduate level programs and to provide that the institutions may establish policies and procedures to allow certain graduate assistants to register without a differential program fee, or with a waiver. Regent Page seconded. 
 
Regent Geddes referred to page 4 of Ref. BOR-10 and asked if differential fees are to cover the increased costs of a specific program, why not reflect that graduate assistants in this program should be paid more because it is a high cost program.  Ms. Abba related that to some extent the compromise is the indication that it is permissive and not


10.       Approved - Handbook Revision, Differential Program Fees (Agenda Item #10) (Cont’d.)
mandatory, thereby allowing the students to have that conversation with their institutions. Regent Geddes asked if an individual campus could pay the graduate assistants in a program and choose not to waive the fee. Ms Abba confirmed that was within the institutions’ discretion.
 
Mr. Matthew Smith, GSA President, UNR, related that he was in favor of the concept of differential fees but was concerned with the specific proposals for the School of Engineering. He related that although there is comparative data available for costs, what is not available is data on compensation for graduate assistants. Although the spirit of the idea behind differential fees is globally competitive, most of the schools that are being compared provide assistantships to offset those fees. He asked the Board to require more responsibility by the institutions in providing waivers.
 
Mr. Kyle George, GPSA President, UNLV, stated that UNLVs’ graduate students also support the concept of differential fees but also have expressed concern on the unfair burden that it will place on students in certain programs. He felt those concerns could be addressed at the institutional level with the presidents.
 
Regent Geddes requested confirmation that the two university presidents would continue those discussions. Presidents Glick and Smatresk indicated those discussion would continue.
 
Motion carried.
 
 
11.              Approved - Procedures & Guidelines ManualRevision, Differential Program Fee Proposals (Agenda Item #11)The Board of Regents approved differential program fees and the corresponding reduction or elimination of special course or student fees for engineering at UNR, and for architecture, nursing and physical therapy at UNLV (Ref. BOR-11 on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Alden moved approval of differential program fees and the corresponding reduction or elimination of special course or student fees for engineering at UNR, and for architecture, nursing and physical therapy at UNLV.  Regent Page seconded.
 
President Glick related that the proposal includes differential program fees for UNR’s engineering program, which is one of the more expensive programs. The money will be reinvested entirely back into the program to improve laboratories, equipment and so forth. The Dean of Engineering and the students understand and have insisted that they be allowed to review the expenditure plan every year. In addition, President Glick related that although there will be an immediate elimination of all fees for those courses that are affected, the differential fees will be phased in to allow the students plenty of notice.


11.       Approved - Procedures & Guidelines ManualRevision, Differential Program Fee Proposals (Agenda Item #11)(Cont’d.)
Chairman Leavitt requested that the motion be bifurcated to consider differential fees separately for each of the universities.
 
Regent Anderson asked if there was the need to limit the number of out-of-state students that are allowed into these programs or is there a way to make sure that Nevadans get the opportunities that they want.  President Glick replied that, at this time, it is not necessary to exclude any qualified students from the engineering program. Candidly, he expressed that it would be his greatest hope that would be a problem.
 
Regent Geddes stated that his first concern was that he would have preferred to see a firm plan on how the proposed fees were to be spent. Secondly, he noted that although the Engineering program is 35% higher than other programs, the fee increase represents a 60% increase. He felt that the institutions were not covering the 35% higher program, but actually raising the fee 60% and then they wanted to come back later and inform the Board how they spend the extra funds. President Glick stated that it was because UNR was not satisfied with the quality of their engineering program. In some cases, the equipment and facilities are obsolete and the program has far too few faculty to create a program of critical mass.  He felt those shortfalls affected the institution’s ability to provide a broad spectrum master’s degree program.
 
Dr. Emmanuel Maragakis, Dean of the College of Engineering, UNR, noted that in anticipation of concern regarding this proposal, he required an expenditure plan to be submitted to him. However, concerns were still raised by the students. Taking the concerns of the students and faculty into consideration, a list was prepared of “Tentative Suggested Allocation of Differential Fee Funds” (on file in the Board office). Dean Maragakis emphasized that this was a plan to overhaul the Department of Engineering and that there was an identified need in this country for engineers. As technology advances, new resources were needed in order for the University of Nevada, Reno, to remain globally competitive in this field. 
 
Regent Geddes thanked Dean Maragakis for providing the tentative suggested allocation of the fees, adding that was very helpful. He felt that it may serve UNR better to focus the interests of its current faculty into fewer subject areas. President Glick stated that Regent Geddes has asked one of the toughest and most insightful questions that could be asked.  Given the size of the engineering faculty at both the universities, there needs to be a focus on specific areas of critical mass such as earthquake research. However, there also needs to be an increase in faculty in the broader areas to teach undergraduate students. One of the strengths of having a critical mass program such as earthquake science is that it is complementary and includes engineers and scientists.
 
Motion to approve differential fees at UNR carried.
 
President Smatresk related that detailed spending plans were available should the Regents request them. In the way of a position statement, President Smatresk felt that if the state of Nevada had a thoughtful formula funding system that incentivized the


11.       Approved - Procedures & Guidelines ManualRevision, Differential Program Fee Proposals (Agenda Item #11)(Cont’d.)
production of high needs and high-value degree programs, he probably would not have to ask the Board for these rather exceptional differences. Although there are times, such as with an executive MBA program, when it is normal to request additional funds, he would hope that for fundamental programs such as nursing the ordinary funds would be available. The programs included in the proposal are double or more the cost of the average FTE per student for graduate or undergraduate education. That means that UNLV has a limited ability to serve students and are nearly always on the margins of being able to run the programs. President Smatresk felt that because UNLV is forced to limit class sizes in areas such as nursing and physical therapy that has allowed specialized private colleges to create “cottage industries” that can charge up to three times more than UNLV. 
 
President Smatresk related that the proposal before the Board is one in which UNLV hopes to create a better educational environment, as well as improved access, in order to promote growth on a reasonable basis. In all cases, the vast majority of funds are returned to the program, after financial aid has been deducted. Financial aid will be provided back to students with high need within the applicable programs. In regard to the architecture and nursing and programs, ten percent in miscellaneous fees will be returned to UNLV to offset the high level of funding commitments that the institution has made to those programs. For physical therapy, twenty percent will be returned to the institutions. The impact of establishing these differential fees will be to keep the programs from being eliminated, particularly since nursing, architecture and physical therapy, is felt to be critical in nature to serve Las Vegas and the state of Nevada.
 
Regent Anderson asked, in such a high demand program such as physical therapy, where in 2009, 492 students applied and 411 were denied, does UNLV have a preference for Nevada students. Ms. Carolyn Yucha, Dean of Nursing and Allied Health Sciences, UNLV, related that up to this point, preference has not been given to Nevada students in the nursing or physical therapy programs.
 
Regent Geddes noted that when doubling course fees, one would think that the additional fees for consumables would be absorbed in that increase. He asked that fees for consumables be eliminated wherever possible. He stated that the average student cost at UNLV is $11,800, compared to $12,600 for the architecture program, $13,300 for the physical therapy program and $19,000 for the nursing program. Regent Geddes asked why the proposed differential fee of $156 is the same for all three programs when the higher cost ranged between $800 more and nearly $8,000 more. President Smatresk replied that in every case, the differential fee pushed the fees closer to market average but below private schools or the national competition average. It was felt that the proposed amount would still allow UNLV to be less expensive than national competition but allow the institution to more fully pay the cost of providing those programs.
 
Regent Geddes stated that in architecture where it was not even ten percent above the average student cost, UNLV was proposing a 100% fee increase. President Smatresk


11.       Approved - Procedures & Guidelines ManualRevision, Differential Program Fee Proposals (Agenda Item #11)(Cont’d.)
clarified that the current cost to educate a student at UNLV is $12,000 per year, per FTE student, while the institutional average in other places is $11,000. What UNLV is paying out is relatively high. In order to recover that difference, UNLV is proposing to double tuition which will reduce the average cost so that this program no longer stands out as a program in which cutting would generate a lot of income for the university.
 
Regent Geddes asked what the average UNLV student cost the university.  President Smatresk stated it was approximately $6,000 per FTE. In other words, the architecture program is about double the cost per FTE of the typical UNLV upper division student.
 
Regent Geddes referred to Section 4 of the three proposals, and in each one the institutional average of $11,800 is the same. He asked if that meant that the institutional average for nursing, architecture and physical therapy were the same. President Smatresk replied that $11,800 is the average for all students, undergraduate and graduate students combined.
 
Regent Geddes felt that number made it difficult to determine what was being compared. 
 
Dean Yucha related that the nursing program is approximately twice the cost of the other programs primarily due to the supervision ratio. Most of the students have assurance of a starting salary of $60,000 with assurance there is employment within six months. Regent Geddes stated that the proposal for the nursing program made sense to him. He was questioning the architecture and the physical therapy proposals. Dean Yucha related that physical therapy’s current tuition is one of the lowest in the country. If there are 400 applicants for 30 positions, UNLV felt that the market forces could in fact cover that increase in tuition. The UNLV physical therapy program has many items that it feels could enhance the program if more funds were allocated to it. Regent Geddes noted and echoed UNR’s response that the proposed fee is not just to cover increased costs but to build the program. Dean Yucha confirmed that the proposed fees would augment the program.
 
Motion to approve UNLV differential fees carried.
 
 
12.              Information Only - Renewable Energy Report (Agenda Item #20) – As part of this agenda item, Regent Schofield related that Dean Maragakis was in attendance to share information on collaboration possibilities in the area of research. Although the remainder of this report would be heard the next day, Dean Maragakis needed to back on the UNR campus and thanked the Chairman for his indulgence in letting Dean Maragakis speak that day.
 
Dean Maragakis related that Regent Schofield had contacted him to present some of his plans for putting together activities that would create collaboration among several institutions. Dean Maragakis related that a few years ago the University of Nevada, Reno, had created a Renewable Energy Center. That Center uses expertise from


12.       Information Only - Renewable Energy Report (Agenda Item #20) – (Cont’d.)
colleges across the university and is administered by a council of deans of the colleges involved. As such, the Center has focused on developing research and educational development activities, emphasizing collaboration within the university, the other System institutions and other institutions throughout the country as well as private industry. 
 
 
The Board of Regents recessed at 4:06 p.m. and reconvened at 4:18 p.m. on Thursday, December 2, 2010, with all members present.
 
 
13.       Approved - Employment Contract, President, UNLV and Code Revision Waiver for President Search (Agenda Item #15)- Based on input received from various stakeholders, including faculty senate representatives, student officer representatives (graduate and undergraduate), administrative staff, alumni association representatives, classified council representatives, the affirmative action/diversity officer, UNLV Foundation representatives and community leaders, Chancellor Daniel J. Klaich made a recommendation to the Board for the permanent appointment of Dr. Neal Smatresk as the president of UNLV. The Board voted to waive the Code provisions relating to the president search process found in Title 2, Chapter 1, Section 1.5.4, that essentially acted as a deletion or strikethrough of these provisions and is in the nature of a temporary Code amendment. Notice was provided to the Regents, Chancellor, each System institution president, each faculty senate and each student body president on October 21, 2010, to the extent that this waiver would constitute a one-time amendment of the Code provisions found in Section 1.5.4 and any associated provisions. Pursuant to Section 1.3.3 of the Code, after the Board approved such waiver, the Board took final action to appoint Dr. Smatresk as the permanent president of UNLV (Ref. BOR-15a and BOR-15b on file in the Board office).
 
Chancellor Klaich thanked Dr. Bill Robinson, UNLV Faculty member, for creating the survey instrument and deeply appreciated Dr. Robinson’s efforts to distribute that survey on a specific timetable.
 
Chancellor Klaich related that in 2009, Dr. Smatresk’s original contract for Acting President of UNLV was intended to provide a degree of necessary stability through the legislative session. Since that time, Dr. Smatresk has been doing everything asked of him in an exemplary fashion. As a result, it has become apparent that there is real potential for Dr. Smatresk to be poached by another institution. In light of the unprecedented current budget situation, the remarkable job that Dr. Smatresk has been doing combined with the potentially intolerable situation of having leadership absent at UNLV, Chancellor Klaich is asking that the Board revisit Dr. Smatresk’s contract. As part of that consideration, should Dr. Smatresk’s contract be extended and he be appointed permanent president of UNLV, the Board would have to consider waiving the provisions of the Code with respect to the search process.


13.       Approved - Employment Contract, President, UNLV and Code Revision Waiver for President Search (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
Chancellor Klaich reported that input was solicited from the UNLV community, the broader Las Vegas community, the UNLV Alumni Association, the UNLV Foundation, as well as with the UNLV faculty, students and staff. Each constituent group was asked two very distinct and difficult questions. One was how each group felt Dr. Smatresk was doing, and the second being should this recommendation be made at this point and without a search process. Chancellor Klaich related that although the answer was clear to him, it was not a simple question because of the core values that govern the Board of Regents. If the Board waives an executive search and appoints Dr. Smatresk as permanent president, the System would be unable to look at a diverse pool of candidates. However, Chancellor Klaich related that Dr. Smatresk had been initially hired as Provost after being recruited and vetted in a national search. 
 
With those questions in mind, Chancellor Klaich reported the following findings. First, he related that he found an enthusiastic and engaged community that was excited not only about the institution but about the leadership of that institution. There was unanimity about what an excellent job Dr. Smatresk was doing. There was not a single community that found fault with Dr. Smatresk. It was easy to determine that Dr. Smatresk is a great fit for Nevada, for Las Vegas and one that has given UNLV its voice back. There were no concerns as to whether Dr. Smatresk should be appointed.
 
Chancellor Klaich related that there was a greater concern expressed as to whether the Board should waive, on a one-time basis, the Code provisions regarding the search for a president. This was not a concern for the greater UNLV community, except for with the faculty. As expected, the faculty was more divided and introspective on that issue and raised a number of concerns including one regarding the respect for the Code and procedures. It was asked that if the Code is waived for this instance, what would be next. Chancellor Klaich stated that he did not buy into that argument, adding that he has watched the Board for six years and has observed the respect in which the Board holds its policies and bylaws. There was also issue in regard to the core value of diversity. Although the appointment of Dr. Smatresk would not address that concern, Chancellor Klaich recognized that diversity is a critical and core value for everything that the System is involved with.
 
Chancellor Klaich related that the timing of this request had also been questioned, and what was prompting the recommendation at this time. He felt that answer was reflected by the state of Nevada’s extraordinary budget situation. To change strong, constructive, collaborative, transparent and articulate leadership at a critical time in the history of this institution did not make sense. To that end, Chancellor Klaich stated that it was his recommendation to the Board that Dr. Smatresk be named the permanent president of UNLV. He felt that Dr. Smatresk had earned the appointment through his performance and his exemplary conduct over the last 18-months. Chancellor Klaich recommended that Dr. Smatresk be extended a contract for a three and a half year term. The odd term was reflective of the annual and periodic evaluation schedule. The recommended contract terms were consistent with those held by the president of UNR, with one significant exception in regard to salary. Chancellor Klaich indicated that now was not the time to


13.       Approved - Employment Contract, President, UNLV and Code Revision Waiver for President Search (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
recommend a raise to Dr. Smatresk’s annual salary. However, an acceptable alternative is to allocate $50,000 and essentially create a retention bonus. Chancellor Klaich stated that he was making this recommendation without reservation and with great pride.
 
Dr. Cecilia Maldanado, UNLV Faculty Senate Chair, thanked the Chancellor and Board for listening to the faculty’s input. Her role that day was to provide the Board with the results of the faculty senate evaluation. She maintained that the informal evaluation conducted by the faculty senate conforms to the highest confidentiality. The survey was conducted online with a received response rate of 39.5% (723 out of 1,826). Of those 723 responses, 44.3% of the respondents were administrative faculty and 49.1% were academic faculty. Classified staff and students were not offered the opportunity to provide feedback due to the time constraints involved. The questionnaire contained four sections, including one that dealt with Dr. Smatresk’s public comments to the campus, his management of the budget process last year, his general management of the university and two direct questions including one that dealt with his appointment and one on the Code suspension. In addition, there were two open ended questions.
 
Dr. Maldanado reported that in terms of Dr. Smatresk’s public comments to the campus, the strongest responses included areas on how well Dr. Smatresk maintained accreditation and how he enhanced freshman education and retention. The weakest responses dealt with the Academic Success Center, proposed changes to general education, iNtegrate system and improvement to the process of tenure promotion. The responses were evaluated using a ratio that added up the sum of those that “Agreed” against the sum of those that “Disagreed.” Responses of “Don’t Know” or “Neutral” were not used in the ratio.
 
In regard to the questions on the way in which Dr. Smatresk handled budget cuts in the last year, the strongest responses were in support of the decision to make vertical cuts and that the planning process was open and transparent. The weakest responses were that the cuts were not consistent with the best long term interest of the university or that the budget cut process was not linked to the Focus 50 to 100 Strategic Plan that took place a few years ago.
 
Dr. Maldanado reported that in terms of general management, the strongest responses included Dr. Smatresk’s visibility and his promotion of stability, research, scholarship and creative activity. The weakest responses were in regard to his support of faculty governance and service, effective management of budget cuts, ability to require administrative accountability on campus and creating a strong leadership team.
 
In regard to the open ended questions, the first question asked what actions President Smatresk has taken in the recent past that best demonstrates his commitment to the goals of UNLV. The most positive comments were made in terms of Dr. Smatresk’s internal and external communication skills, how he managed the budget cut process, having accepted the interim presidency under the current fiscal situation, and in having brought the Brookings Mountain West and the Lincy Institute to the UNLV campus. 


13.       Approved - Employment Contract, President, UNLV and Code Revision Waiver for President Search (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
The negative comments expressed comments that Dr. Smatresk was more concerned with himself rather than the UNLV campus and expressed concern about the actions of Dr. Smatresk’s subordinates.
 
Dr. Maldanado reported that the second open ended question asked what action Dr. Smatresk could take in the next year that could have the greatest impact on UNLV. The responses included preventing budget cuts, a call to remove or replace most of the vice presidents, all of the deans and many others in middle management, better continued communication, undergraduate education, research support, Dr. Smatresk’s resignation and other varied comments.
 
Finally, in regard to the direct question on whether Dr. Smatresk should be appointed as president, approximately 70% of the tenured faculty gave a positive answer, and approximately 23% disagreed. The academic faculty gave him approximately 80% positive response and an approximate 10% negative response.
 
Dr. Maldanado related that although some concerns were raised in regard to the wording of the second question on whether the Code should be waived, the responses received showed that approximately 50% of the faculty indicated their support of a waiver while 38% did not.
 
Mr. David Rapoport, CSUN President, UNLV, thanked the Chancellor and Regents for meeting with all of the UNLV stakeholders. Mr. Rapoport related that the first thing that came to mind when he thought about Dr. Smatresk was accessibility. He felt that although not all students know President Smatresk, those that do are shocked to see a president walking around the campus. He felt that students were also aware that President Smatresk has an open door policy and that their concerns will be addressed. Looking to the 2011 legislative session, Mr. Rapaport stated that the students feel it is imperative to have a strong president and leadership group. He stated that the students firmly believe that President Smatresk is the right person to lead the university and help guide UNLV on its path to greatness. In terms of waiving the Code, Mr. Rapoport related that the students are more concerned on costs of tuition and progress to graduation than on the provisions of the Code. He stated that the students strongly support the Chancellor’s recommendation to hire President Smatresk as the permanent president of UNLV.
 
Mr. Kyle George, GPSA President, UNLV, related that at the last meeting of the GPSA Council, two questions were asked in relation to President Smatresk. The first question was if Dr. Smatresk was a worthy president for UNLV and second was if the waiving of the Code was merited. Although there were some concerns expressed by a few of the graduate students on the suspension of the Code, those concerns were in the minority. Mr. George related that he had the opportunity to work with Dr. Smatresk when he was Provost Smatresk. He felt that Dr. Smatresk was remarkable in that he had the ability to separate disagreement on policy from a personal disagreement. Mr. George stated that the opinion of the Graduate and Professional Student Association is to support the appointment of Dr. Smatresk as permanent president of UNLV.


13.       Approved - Employment Contract, President, UNLV and Code Revision Waiver for President Search (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
Chancellor Klaich thanked Mr. Mark Fine, Chairman of the UNLV Foundation, and its members for its continued partnership in assisting in the funding of UNLV when the state has not. Mr. Fine related that twelve members of the Foundation were present at the interviews. He stated that although UNLV is a very young university, it is important to the future of the children and businesses in Las Vegas. He felt that Dr. Smatresk represents a continuity to address the challenges presently facing the institution. Since Dr. Smatresk’s appointment as Acting President in August 2009, he felt that Dr. Smatresk had taken the university to heart and has guided the university through some very difficult financial times. In regard to the decision before the Board to retain Dr. Smatresk permanently or to conduct a search, Mr. Fine stated that although there is always a temptation to see what one might find in a search, he felt that Dr. Smatresk has shown the Foundation, faculty, student body and the community that he has the desire, the will and the capability to lead the university. Prior to becoming Acting President, Dr. Smatresk had done an exceptional job. He realized that appointing Dr. Smatresk as permanent president required an exception to the rule, but felt that once in a while it is necessary to make an exception to the rules. Mr. Fine felt that Dr. Smatresk has demonstrated a commitment to the university and that Dr. Smatresk recognizes the value of the university to the business community, not just to higher education. Mr. Fine related that Dr. Smatresk has been involved and engaged in fundraising activities and has personally met with donors when and where it is convenient for them and in making gifts accountable and transparent. Mr. Fine felt that UNLV was fortunate to have Dr. Smatresk as its leader, and it is his sincere hope that he would continue to have the privilege of working with Dr. Smatresk. He respectfully requested that the Board retain Dr. Smatresk as president.
 
Mr. Matt Engle, President of the UNLV Alumni Association, related that the UNLV Alumni Association’s mission is about keeping the alumni engaged with UNLV and keeping leaders in the community. Mr. Engle related that not a single negative comment about Dr. Smatresk was expressed at the Alumni Association’s interview. Dr. Smatresk’s ability to build and establish relationships among the different facets of the university has been tremendous. Based on that, he strongly supported the Chancellor’s recommendation.
 
Ms. Pam Hicks addressed the Board on behalf of the past presidents of the UNLV Alumni Association. Ms. Hicks related that although the Board had received a letter from the past presidents, they asked her to be present to represent and expand their voice. Due to the diverse vocations and avocations of the past presidents of UNLV’s Alumni Association, the members know what they want their university to be, and what they want it to achieve.   Ms. Hicks related that Dr. Smatresk defines and exemplifies the courage to turn the tide. They believe that Dr. Smatresk can affect the change needed to alter the course of the university and alter the course of the System. With great respect, Ms. Hicks stated that the past presidents of the Alumni Association support the recommendation to appoint Dr. Smatresk president of UNLV.
 
Ms. Hannah Brown, resident of Las Vegas, related that Dr. Smatresk had been asked to accept the appointment of interim president of UNLV at a very difficult time but has


13.       Approved - Employment Contract, President, UNLV and Code Revision Waiver for President Search (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
made it work. She related that having moved many times in her own career, she knew how unsettling it was not to be able to make long term decisions. She understands the importance of giving Dr. Smatresk some stability. She added that Dr. Smatresk’s willingness to accept speaking engagements without knowing all of the details has created opportunities for people in the community to meet him that wouldn’t have otherwise. She felt that Dr. Smatresk possessed the necessary people skills and professionalism that UNLV needs as a president. She strongly supported the Chancellor’s recommendation to appoint Dr. Smatresk as the permanent president of UNLV.
 
Mr. Greg Lee, member of the UNLV Foundation and Co-Chair of its Development Committee, related that there was no more vociferous ambassador for UNLV than Dr. Smatresk. He felt that was an important trait, particularly for a young university such as UNLV. Mr. Lee related that Dr. Smatresk and Mrs. Smatresk have been great advocates of the Osher Lifelong Learning Center and program in Mesquite, Nevada. To spend an evening at the Mesquite High School to talk about how UNLV can extend its reach to rural high schools reflects the Smatresks’ commitment to Nevada and to the community. Mr. Lee agreed that policy was important. However, he has watched Dr. Smatresk serve UNLV over the last 18 months and feels strongly that Dr. Smatresk is what UNLV wants.
 
Mr. John Hunt, graduate of UNLV (1979), stated that during his time at UNLV, he had served as student body president, student body vice president and treasurer. It had struck him how selfless the Regents were in making sure the dreams of Nevada’s sons and daughters come true. Mr. Hunt felt that because of his familiarity with the NSHE, he felt that he’d had the special opportunity to observe all the presidents at UNLV. He indicated that it was evident to him that Dr. Smatresk was accessible and holds the goal of bringing the community to UNLV so that the university becomes the heart and soul of the community.   He stated that in 34 years, he had not seen anybody with Dr. Smatresk’s type of positive influence on the community and the school. Mr. Hunt indicated his support of the Chancellor’s recommendation.
 
Mr. Jeff Shaw, member of the UNLV Foundation and CEO of Southwest Gas Corporation, related that UNLV was very important to his corporation. Although he personally does not know Dr. Smatresk, he has seen him speak and felt that his vision was clear and that his leadership was right for UNLV. Mr. Shaw indicated his corporation’s support of the Chancellor’s recommendation before the Regents that day.
 
Mr. Fred Cox, member of the UNLV Foundation Board of Trustees and sponsor of the UNLV School of Engineering Senior Design Program, related that although he had not attended UNLV, he realized how important UNLV was to the community. Mr. Cox related that when Dr. Smatresk became Acting President of UNLV 18 months ago, he began in less than ideal circumstances and then immediately had to deal with an excruciating budget situation. Throughout that process, Mr. Cox considered spending his time and money elsewhere. He did not always agree with the decisions that were being made and felt that UNLV’s School of Engineering was headed towards


13.       Approved - Employment Contract, President, UNLV and Code Revision Waiver for President Search (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
mediocrity. However, Dr. Smatresk has since made some decisions and appointments that have increased the excitement in the School of Engineering to a level that he had not previously seen. He now felt hat the quality of the School of Engineering was going to be world class. Mr. Cox related that, from his narrow focus on the School of Engineering, he supported the Chancellor’s recommendation to appoint Dr. Smatresk as permanent president of UNLV.
 
Mr. Bruce Layne, member of the UNLV Foundation Board of Trustees, expressed his support of the Chancellor’s recommendation to appoint Dr. Smatresk as permanent president of UNLV.
 
Ms. Jessica Lucero, former GPSA President and current UNLV Ph.D. candidate, expressed her support of the Chancellor’s recommendation to appoint Dr. Smatresk as permanent president of UNLV. However, she felt that Dr. Smatresk should be entitled to equitable pay and asked that the Board reconsider that aspect of the contract.
 
Mr. Ed Quirk, former chairman and current member of the UNLV Foundation Board of Trustees, related that in his previous role as chairman of the UNLV Foundation Board, he had the pleasure of working with Dr. Smatresk on a daily basis. In view of the articulate remarks from those that preceded him, he briefly stated that Dr. Smatresk was terrific and that the Board needed to make sure that it retained Dr. Smatresk and compensated him adequately. Mr. Quirk felt that it was not the right time to conduct a search and that such a search would send the wrong message to the community, alumni, students, faculty and legislature. He also felt that many times people look good on paper but could not deliver the goods, adding that it would take years for a new president to learn the nuances of the Las Vegas community and the System. He encouraged the Board to approve the Chancellor’s recommendation.
 
Mr. John O’Reilly related that he has lived in the Las Vegas community since the late 1960’s and felt compelled to address the Board on one of the most important decisions in UNLV’s history. Given the challenges being faced, he felt there was not time to waste to conduct a search for a new president. He felt it was very rare to find an individual who possessed the academic talent, experience in education, and, more importantly, direct experience with leading the university as Dr. Smatresk has. He also felt that it was important to retain Dr. Smatresk in a way that allowed him to be enthusiastic for the long term. 
 
Ms. Alyssa McCormick, student at the Greenspun College of Journalism, UNLV, related that she has seen and interacted with Dr. Smatresk on and off the UNLV campus. She felt that his interaction and visibility on campus was exactly what UNLV needed. She related that Dr. Smatresk also had the support of many of her student colleagues.
 
Regent Gallagher related that although she too had initially felt that a search always had to be conducted for the president of an institution, her experience has shown that is not


13.       Approved - Employment Contract, President, UNLV and Code Revision Waiver for President Search (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
always the case. She indicated that even when a search has been conducted, the institutions and System have not always known if the person hired can really do the job. Over the years, she has learned that when there is someone who already fits, that person needs to be given the opportunity and it usually turns out well.
 
Regent Alden moved approval of the permanent appointment of Dr. Neal J. Smatresk as the president of UNLV. Regent Knecht seconded.
 
Regent Alden stated that he has known every president at UNLV for the last 30 years. He related that he had received a letter from Mr. Sig Rogich, former advisor to three United States Presidents as well as being a former NSHE Regent, that strongly urged the appointment of Dr. Smatresk as the president of UNLV. Regent Alden urged the Board to support the Chancellor’s recommendation.
 
Regent Page felt that Dr. Smatresk was the right person at the right time and indicated his full support of the Chancellor’s recommendation.
 
Regent Schofield highly recommended that the Board appoint Dr. Smatresk to the permanent position as president of UNLV. Regent Schofield noted that Dr. Smatresk is a scientist and everything that he would want in a president to take UNLV to the next level.
 
Regent Geddes related that he had enjoyed being on the UNLV campus and hearing the constituent support for Dr. Smatresk. The one phrase that he heard from several groups was that although Dr. Smatresk did not always agree with them, he took the time to listen and is working to improve. Regent Geddes felt that was all that could be asked for.
 
Regent Crear stated that he very much liked Dr. Smatresk and felt that he and Mrs. Smatresk were assets to Las Vegas. Based on that, Regent Crear stated that consideration of this request was very difficult for him. He felt that it was important that opportunities be fair and equitable to all and if the Regents, as elected officials, do not create those opportunities in an honest and fair environment, then the Board was not doing its job. Every institution has an equal employment opportunity and diversity statement. Regent Crear read the following excerpts from a statement entitled “Reaffirmation of Commitment to Equal Educational and Employment Opportunity (EEO),” found on the UNLV website.
 
The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) is committed to and will provide equality of educational and employment opportunity for all persons regardless of race, sex, age, color, national origin, ethnicity, creed, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, marital status, pregnancy, veteran status, or political affiliation…


13.       Approved - Employment Contract, President, UNLV and Code Revision Waiver for President Search (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
Further, the university seeks to promote campus diversity by enrolling and employing a larger number of minorities and women where these groups have historically been and continue to be under-represented within the university in relation to availability and may extend preference in initial employment to such individuals among substantially equally qualified candidates…
 
Regent Crear stated that Dr. Smatresk had an opportunity to show that UNLV is a diversified institution and applauded him for continuing with UNLV’s Department of Diversity. However, Regent Crear noted that the System had not conduct a diversified search for UNLV’s Head Football Coach or the Athletic Director, for the System’s Chancellor, for the President of CSN or for the President of GBC. He asked at what point is it okay to conduct a search versus not to conduct a search. He stated that he has a high level of respect for the individuals that had spoken that date. However, the NSHE was not his personal business enterprise. Regent Crear stated that it made the decision very difficult because there is no doubt that Dr. Smatresk is the right person for the job. He too received letters from many community leaders, but he also received letters expressing concern that the Board should not waive the Code. He also indicated that he did not support the concept that the search for a provost is the same as a search for a president. It was with heavy heart that he felt that a search should be conducted. He felt that Dr. Smatresk would be approved and felt that would be a great decision. Regent Crear stated that he would do everything possible to support Dr. Smatresk should he be appointed. However, he may not be able to fully support the appointment without a search having been conducted.
 
Regent Cobb stated that he was very sensitive to Regent Crear’s concerns. However, in reading the voluminous materials provided by Chancellor Klaich, he referred to page 22 where he quoted the Chancellor as stating “exceptional circumstances warrant exceptional action.” Regent Cobb asked if it was appropriate to request two separate motions, one for suspension of the Code, and depending on the outcome of that vote, a second motion could be made for the appointment of Dr. Smatresk. He also questioned the proposed contract that states that “part of the president’s pay would come from the UNLV Foundation.” He noted that they are not a signatory on the contract and questioned the authority of the Board of Regents on committing the UNLV Foundation to pay approximately $70,000 per year.
 
Chancellor Klaich felt that the contract accurately reflects the System’s obligation to Dr. Smatresk, or to any president whose salary is supplemented and is contingent upon receiving those funds from the Foundation. He stated that Regent Cobb was correct in that the System does not have the authority to obligate the Foundation’s funds. However, if those funds are not delivered, then the System does not have the obligation to make full payment of the supplement.
 
Regents Alden and Knecht accepted bifurcation of the original motion and second.


13.       Approved - Employment Contract, President, UNLV and Code Revision Waiver for President Search (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
Regent Knecht related that he also had the same concerns as expressed by Regent Crear. He had concluded that the Board had made a mistake 18 months ago when it felt that it would be feasible to reconsider Dr. Smatresk’s appointment as Acting President on a two year basis, when that appointment would come to an end prior to a legislative session. In part, due to that mistake, he felt that he could partly understand the case for making an exception. He added that the appropriate remedy would not be to forage on and continue with that mistake for another nine months, but rather to remedy it at this current time. Regent Knecht expressed his support of the recommendation for Dr. Smatresk.
 
Regent Knecht rescinded his second to allow Regent Schofield to second the motion.
 
Regent Anderson thanked the UNLV Faculty Senate for conducting the survey, adding that the data had been very helpful. She agreed with the many positive comments regarding Dr. Smatresk. She felt that one of the important themes reflected in the survey had been Dr. Smatresk’s access to faculty, staff, students and the community.   She indicated her support of Dr. Smatresk’s appointment.
 
Regent Rawson felt it was important for Dr. Smatresk to know that he has the confidence of the full Board and hoped that support of this recommendation would be unanimous. He indicated that going forward, it was important to have great institutions and that would take great leadership.
 
Regent Blakely expressed his full support of the Chancellor’s recommendation to appoint Dr. Smatresk as permanent president of UNLV. In his capacity as a member of the Board, Regent Blakely related that Dr. Smatresk has always been accessible to him.
 
Chairman Leavitt related that 18 months ago he had known that Dr. Smatresk would be the right person for the job and expressed his support of the Chancellor’s recommendation. He felt that it must have been challenging for Dr. Smatresk and Mrs. Smatresk to assume the mantle of leadership at considerable personal risk. On behalf of the Board, Chairman Leavitt stated that he was thrilled that Dr. Smatresk would continue to work within the System.
 
Regent Alden moved approval to suspend the Code provisions, allowing Dr. Neal J. Smatresk to be appointed as permanent president of UNLV without a search. Regent Schofield seconded. Upon a roll call vote, Regents Leavitt, Page, Rawson, Schofield, Wixom, Alden, Anderson, Blakely, Cobb, Gallagher, Geddes and Knecht voted yes. Regent Crear voted no. Motion carried.
 
Regent Alden moved approval to appoint Dr. Neal J. Smatresk as the permanent president of UNLV. Regent Schofield seconded. Upon a roll call vote, motion carried unanimously.


13.       Approved - Employment Contract, President, UNLV and Code Revision Waiver for President Search (Agenda Item #15)(Cont’d.)
President Smatresk expressed his appreciation to all. He related that the System has had many opportunities and challenges over the last several months. It has been his privilege and pleasure that each member of the Board has been there with him as friends and confidants. Together, with the other institution presidents, he has been able to make some difficult decisions. He indicated that without everyone being part of the team, he fears for the future of higher education, adding that every day higher education lives somewhere in the chasm between hope and despair. The Board’s rare leadership and comments have helped him learn and to grow and he in return hopes that he can give that back to the Board, UNLV and the Las Vegas community.
 
 
Chancellor Klaich related that an article just published in the Las Vegas Sun had been brought to his attention. He wished to relate that he had no prior information with respect to the budget-related numbers published in that article and indicated that he would provide an update as soon as he was able to. Chairman Leavitt asked Chancellor Klaich to provide a report the next morning.
 
 
The Board of Regents’ regular meeting recessed at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 2, 2010, and reconvened at 9:53 a.m. on Friday, December 3, 2010, with all members present.
 
 
14.              Approved - Faculty Hire Above Salary Schedule, UNSOM (Agenda Item #12) – The Board of Regents approved the request of UNR President Milton D. Glick for the employment salary above schedule for John M. Ham, M.D., in the position of Professor, Transplant Surgery, Surgery, Las Vegas, UNSOM, at a salary of $500,000, which exceeds the established maximum salary of $433,664 (Ref. BOR-12 on file in the Board office).
 
President Glick emphasized that this appointment is not with tenure and is entirely funded by the University Medical Center (UMC). He explained that the UNSOM is in need of a transplant program for surgery residency. In addition to facilitating the ability to provide a transplant program for surgery residency, having a transplant program in Las Vegas will also ensure that Nevadans receive a higher priority on transplant lists.
 
Regent Alden moved approval of employment salary above schedule for John M. Ham, M.D., in the position of Professor, Transplant Surgery, Surgery, Las Vegas, UNSOM, at a salary of $500,000. Regent Page seconded.
 
Regent Alden indicated his full support of this request.
 
Regent Knecht related that UMC’s full funding of this position alleviated most of his concerns. He asked for what period of time will UMC’s commitment stand, what the conditions were that might allow UMC to revoke that commitment and how Dr. Ham’s


14.       Approved - Faculty Hire Above Salary Schedule, UNSOM (Agenda Item #12)(Cont’d.)
salary will be paid if the funding is revoked. President Glick replied that the contract is for an initial three year appointment. However, the offer of employment explicitly states that if UMC removes funding from the position, or if Dr. Ham is no longer serving as Chief of the Division of Transplant, then Dr. Ham’s entire salary will be derived from practice plan income and subject to quarterly salary adjustments. Dr. Glick added that this situation highlights that the NSHE does not have the right salary parameters in place. He stated that an annual salary of $500,000 is well within the range of what a transplant surgeon can expect to earn.  He felt that one of the frustrating issues for him, the Board and the other institutions was that these types of positions are well within the market range. 
 
Regent Knecht replied that he was satisfied with President Glick’s response, particularly because of the contract language that allows for quarterly salary adjustments.
 
Regent Crear emphasized that this is another opportunity to stay on top of the clinical positions and to monitor revenue being generated.
 
Regent Cobb related that he shared Regent Crear’s concern and asked for a report regarding clinical revenues. Regent Crear related that a report was provided to the Audit Committee and it was discovered that 50% of the clinical revenue physicians were covering their salaries. He added that report should come back through the Audit Committee or the full Board in the form of an annual report. 
 
President Glick reiterated that a report was provided to the Audit Committee this year and the School of Medicine would be happy to provide that information on an annual basis.
 
Motion carried.
 
 
15.              Approved - Appointment, Vice Chancellor for Finance, NSHE (Agenda Item #13)– The Board of Regents approved the request of Chancellor Daniel J. Klaich for the appointment of Mr. Mark Stevens as the Vice Chancellor of Finance for the NSHE.
 
Regent Alden moved approval the appointment of Mr. Mark Stevens as Vice Chancellor of Finance. Regent Knecht seconded.
 
Chancellor Klaich related that initially Mr. Stevens had been hired at an annual salary of $175,000. Upon assuming the Interim Vice Chancellor duties, Mr. Stevens received an additional 10% stipend. The request to approve Mr. Stevens as the Vice Chancellor of Finance on a permanent basis does not include a further increase in his current salary.
 
Regent Cobb requested confirmation that Interim Vice Chancellor Stevens would be receiving his initial salary plus the 10% stipend on a permanent basis. Chancellor Klaich stated that was correct. Regent Cobb added that he has heard that Interim Vice Chancellor Stevens has been doing an excellent job.


15.       Approved - Appointment, Vice Chancellor for Finance, NSHE (Agenda Item #13)(Cont’d.)
Regent Wixom stated that it was a privilege to work with Interim Vice Chancellor Stevens in committee and felt that he had been doing an extraordinary job, adding that Vice Chancellor Stevens was an incredible resource to the System.
 
Regent Knecht also indicated that it has been a privilege to work with Interim Vice Chancellor Stevens.
 
Regent Gallagher felt that Interim Vice Chancellor Stevens held a strong reputation and was certainly a good addition to the System’s staff.
 
Regent Crear requested that it be noted for the record that this was another high profile position that a search was not being conducted for.
 
Motion carried.
 
 
16.              Approved - Tenure Upon Hire, Director for the Center For Business and Economic Research (CBER), UNLV (Agenda Item #14)– The Board of Regents approved the request of UNLV President Neal J. Smatresk for tenure upon hire of Dr. Stephen P.A. Brown, effective September 1, 2010, as the Director for the Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER) (Ref. BOR-14 on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Alden moved approval of tenure upon hire for Dr. Stephen P.A. Brown, effective September 1, 2010, as the Director for the Center for Business and Economic Research (CBER). Regent Knecht seconded.
 
Regent Alden related that it had initially been indicated to him that the annual salary was $135,000.  However, it appears that it is actually $175,000 annually. He requested confirmation of Dr. Brown’s salary.
 
President Smatresk related that since it is a 9-month contract, the annual salary is $135,000, plus the equivalent of a month and a half of salary in the summer.
 
Regent Alden inquired about the determination of the length of contract. President Smatresk explained that as a faculty member, Dr. Brown is entitled to a nine month contract. As Director, Dr. Brown is entitled to a nine month contract plus a stipend.
 
Regent Alden asked what the funding source would be. President Smatresk replied that the funding for this position is from the same hard line money that paid for the previous director’s position.
 
Regent Knecht noted that the one and half summer months would bring the annual salary to $157,500. Regent Knecht related that after Dr. Brown’s pending appointment was announced, he personally heard from many of his peers that this was a really good hire.


16.       Approved - Tenure Upon Hire, Director for the Center For Business and Economic Research (CBER), UNLV (Agenda Item #14)(Cont’d.)
Regent Crear asked why Dr. Brown had not yet attained tenure prior to this position. President Smatresk explained that Dr. Brown had been hired for very high powered positions throughout the world and then for approximately 20 years as the head of the Reserve in Dallas, Texas. President Smatresk emphasized that Dr. Brown has a very steady publication record and is a renowned expert in energy policy, adding that this is a remarkable hire of an incredibly talented person at way below market.
 
Regent Crear asked if the department faculty is in support of Dr. Brown’s hire. President Smatresk related that there had been a unanimous vote from the Department of Economics for the hire of Dr. Brown.
 
Regent Geddes asked Vice Chancellor Patterson and Chancellor Klaich to reconsider the process or policies that require bringing such a contract to the Board. He felt that this should have been a presidential decision and should not be brought before the Board. Chancellor Klaich stated that it would require a change in Board policy.
 
Chairman Leavitt requested that Vice Chancellor Patterson determine the appropriate revisions to the current policy and that it be brought back to the Board through the Efficiency and Effectiveness Initiative.
 
Regent Page expressed his support of this hire. However, he also asked for caution when extending tenure with hire as it may cause issues in the future.
 
Motion carried.
 
The Board of Regents’ regular meeting recessed at 10:12 a.m. on Friday, December 3, 2010, and reconvened at 10:12 a.m. on Friday, December 3, 2010, sitting as Members of the Corporation for the respective institutions with all members present.
 
 
17.              Approved - Foundation Reports (Agenda Item #16)- Sitting as members of the respective institution foundations, the Board reviewed presentations from the institution foundations (see individual Foundation minutes filed separately in the Board office).
 
 
The Board of Regents’ regular meeting reconvened at 11:58 a.m. on Friday, December 3, 2010, with all members present.
 
 
18.              Information Only - Update on the Regents’ Efficiency and Effectiveness Initiative for the Nevada System of Higher Education (Agenda Item #17) - Vice Chairman Jason Geddes, Regent Kevin J. Page and Vice Chancellor Bart Patterson presented a report on the progress of the Efficiency and Effectiveness (E&E) initiative (Reference material on file in the Board office).


18.       Information Only - Update on the Regents’ Efficiency and Effectiveness Initiative for the Nevada System of Higher Education (Agenda Item #17) (Cont’d.)
Vice Chancellor Patterson related that although the many initiatives announced by the Chancellor last September remain ongoing, this report is specifically related to a business operations review that includes human resources, payroll and purchasing. To implement that review, an internal task force was created that includes System staff and officers as well as Mr. Gary Ghiggeri, former legislative fiscal analyst.
 
Vice Chancellor Patterson reported that members of the task force have met extensively with each institution to better understand the relationships and interactions between the institutions and the business centers. Data has also collected from other institutions, higher education systems and business organizations to determine how benchmarks could be established. Going forward, the plan is to assimilate that information and vet it through outside external consultants that are available to the System on a limited basis.  Preliminary ideas will then be presented to the Board at the March 2011 meeting which will hopefully lead to final recommendations to be presented in June.
 
Vice Chancellor Patterson related that there were many ideas being considered that may be considered revolutionary in the academic environment. One example is the reconsideration of the System’s current annual employment contract process that is a very intensive paper-based process. In addition, at the previous day’s Investment and Facilities Committee meeting, a recommendation was made to the Board to set aside funds for the potential financing of a human resources model. Vice Chancellor Patterson emphasized that many of the efficiency and effectiveness recommendations to come forward will not be fully successful without replacing the aged legacy information systems that are in place throughout the System, particularly in the strategic purchasing areas. 
 
Regent Wixom recalled that when this initiative started several years ago, President Glick provided sage advice that it was possible to be very efficient doing ineffective things. He asked what the overarching objectives of the initiative were. Vice Chancellor Patterson replied that the principle question being considered is how the System interacts with its various units and asking if that interaction worked effectively, let alone efficiently. Attempting to see if the System can achieve at least the same level of effectiveness while being more efficient in how fast transactions occur and the cost of those transactions.
 
Regent Wixom cautioned that when restructuring, sometimes the overall objective can be lost and hoped that the overarching objectives are reviewed from time to time. Vice Chancellor Patterson agreed, adding that redundancies were being questioned.  Those redundancies may be necessary, so thoughtful discussions were occurring.
 
Regent Cobb asked Vice Chancellor Patterson to elaborate on the participation of external community members on the committee. Vice Chancellor Patterson stated that involving Mr. Ghiggeri, who has history with the System and the state, is a good start. Other external consultants will be sought to consider the data and other issues related to structure as well as purchasing and supply chain management. 


18.       Information Only - Update on the Regents’ Efficiency and Effectiveness Initiative for the Nevada System of Higher Education (Agenda Item #17) (Cont’d.)
Regent Geddes related that Mr. Bruce James and the Community College Task Force would also be looking at the initiative’s proposals and recommendations.
 
Regent Cobb expressed curiosity on why this initiative did not have that type of commission. He felt that the credibility of such a commission would be enhanced with individuals of that caliber.
 
Vice Chancellor Patterson related that it would be important to move this process forward quickly due to the upcoming legislative session. He felt that the institutions do not necessarily view this as an internal review but rather as a thorough one that will come with results.
 
Regent Page noted that some processes were in place simply because they have always been done that way, adding that is what is being evaluated. 
 
Regent Geddes asked the Chancellor to provide a brief update on the Community College Task Force and the timeline involved. Chancellor Klaich related that the general scope of the task force includes the budget reduction and the efficiency and effectiveness initiative. He reported that the Task Force has now met five times and is headed up by Mr. Bruce James and a group of individuals from the business community have been recruited from throughout the state.  The Task Force is staffed by Dr. Jane Nichols and the Academic and Student Affairs staff, and is largely in an information gathering stage. He felt that what Mr. James and the presidents were trying to do is develop a knowledge base for how the System conducts business that will then form a basis for how it could or should do things differently. He expected the Task Force to conclude in June or July of 2011.
 
 
19.              Information Only - Report on Formula Funding (Agenda Item #18)- Chancellor Daniel J. Klaich related that the report was still a work in progress and should be ready for presentation to the Board at the March 2011 meeting, or sooner if the opportunity should arise.
 
 
20.              Approved - Research, Technology and WorkforceDevelopment Report (Agenda Item #19) – The Board of Regents approved the recommendations from the Research, Technology and Workforce Development Report compiled by the NSHE research officers in consultation with NSHE academic officers. Designed to create a more effective state partnership to build a stronger economic future for Nevada, the report and recommendations come in response to concerns raised by the Board at its June 2010 meeting regarding the negative impact on grants and contracts as NSHE institutions lose funds for required matching dollars (Ref. BOR-19 on file in the Board office).


20.       Approved - Research, Technology and WorkforceDevelopment Report (Agenda Item #19) – (Cont’d.)
Vice Chancellor Nichols related that this report was compiled in response to the questions raised by the Board as to what it can do to help support matching money and grants and contracts at each campus. She related that the following report was compiled by Dr. Marsha Read, Vice President of Research, UNR, Dr. Ron Smith, Vice President of Research, UNLV, and Dr. Terry Surles, Vice President of Research, DRI, in consultation with the academic officers from all eight institutions. 
 
Dr. Smith acknowledged Ms. Nancy Flagg, Special Assistant to the Vice President of Research, UNLV, for her assistance in preparing this report. Although the report contained some disheartening information, he did not want to focus on the negative, but rather on the roles of NSHE institutions as pathways for economic sustainability.
 
Dr. Smith related that the recession of 2007 has led to an action-themed item in every state and across the nation on how to diversify the economy. Dr. Smith stated that it is well known that the state of Nevada is in a difficult downward spiral. Nevada does not have a highly diversified economy and must move from merely talking about economic diversification into serious action through a comprehensive statewide vision. Surrounding states have recognized for some times that by funding university-based research and technology there could be significant opportunity for job growth as well as development of federal and private sector co-funded projects. In those states, universities are always in the middle of these conversations when it comes to economic diversification and growth. 
 
Dr. Smith stated that the report demonstrates that Nevada can move ahead, but the formula for success will require commitment, leadership, vision, and funding to build up research infrastructure and to expand human capital. Success cannot be expected or achieved during the span of influence of one governor or one key business alone. Nevertheless, the process cannot begin without the help of the governor, state legislature and business leaders. 
 
Dr. Smith related that a statewide conference called Nevada 2.0, hosted by Senator Steven Horsford, Assemblyman John Oceguera and Lieutenant Governor Brian Krolicki, will be held January 7, 2011, on the UNLV campus. Although it may appear that NSHE institutions have fared relatively well in terms of federal funding, there is a significant challenge to increase state and private funding. Given the state of the federal deficit as well as ongoing political resistance to earmarks, it is clear that the state of Nevada can no longer rely on federal funding to achieve statewide goals for research and development.
 
Dr. Smith indicated that the report includes highlight of how western states are supported by their government officials and how business has successfully invested in higher education and technology transfer. Nevada can take the best of what has been done and quickly implement similar initiatives if it has the will to do so. The report also looks at opportunities where research could blossom and contribute to the statewide infrastructure and highlights examples of partnerships between the NSHE and Nevada businesses and government entities, including the following:


20.       Approved - Research, Technology and WorkforceDevelopment Report (Agenda Item #19) – (Cont’d.)
Ø Nevada Bioscience Roadmap – A joint effort between UNLV, UNR, DRI, the School of Medicine, the Nevada Biotechnology & Bioscience Consortium, the Nevada Commission on Economic Development, and the Cleveland Clinic.
Ø Earthquake Research – The Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research at UNR was just awarded $12.2 million in federal funding from the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Ø International Hydro Research & Technology Park – This joint project between NSHE institutions, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, and Las Vegas developers.  DRI has taken much of the lead on this project.
Ø Solar Solutions Center – UNLV is pursuing a $45 million federal grant to create one-stop-shop to capitalize on the state’s potential to become the leader in solar-related industries.
Ø Nevada National Security Site – The repurposing of the former Nevada Test Site toward national security issues is rife with potential R&D projects that could make the state a leader in this area.
Ø Nevada Renewable Energy Consortium – This association among DRI, UNLV, and UNR – along with participating community colleges – will play a critical role in making Nevada a leader in the use of renewable energy sources to promote a cleaner environment and more secure nation.
 
Dr. Smith provided the following presentation that summarized the information contained in Ref. BOR-19 (Research, Technology and Workforce Development Report). 
 
Dr. Smith related that NSHE institutions received in excess of $316 million in external funding for FY 2010. The following figures represent the percentage of funding by institution, not just from research grants. He noted that a little over half of the awards were received by DRI, UNLV and UNR for research.
 
Ø Where Are We Now?
·         DRI – 12%
·         UNLV – 30%
·         UNR – 35%
·         WNC – 3%
·         GBC – 1%
·         TMCC - 6%
·         NSC – 1%
·         CSN – 12%


20.      Approved - Research, Technology and WorkforceDevelopment Report (Agenda Item #19) – (Cont’d.)
Ø Statewide Vision for Economic Growth:
State funding for universities’ and DRI research and technology transfer, along with workforce education at the colleges – all with focus on economic growth.
ü Focus areas to be set by a state entity based on business needs & faculty strengths.
Look to western states like Colorado, Utah and New Mexico to see how they have invested in higher education and technology transfer.
Significant opportunities for building industrial strength in key areas if state takes lead with investment and structure for support of NSHE efforts.
Long-term vision and commitment from civic and political leaders necessary.
 
Ø Opportunities:
Five colleges have 23% of external funding coming into NSHE.
Opportunities exist to increase the amount of external funding if colleges have more:
ü Sponsored project structure and support
ü Matching dollars for federal grants
ü Business partners
 
Ø Research Funding by Institution:
UNR, $66,463,297 (50%)
UNLV, $38,381,001 (29%)
DRI, $28,923,708 (21%)
 
Ø Nevada’s Challenge:
UNLV, UNR and DRI need to increase federal funding.
Each has faculty strength in specific areas to support such increases and grow Nevada’s economy.
Why would prospering companies want to move to Nevada? Intellectual capital and educated workforce.
How do new companies get started? New products and new partnerships.
 


20.       Approved - Research, Technology and WorkforceDevelopment Report (Agenda Item #19) – (Cont’d.)
Ø Previous State and National Studies:
Battelle Memorial Institute Study (2000).
ü Provided a SWOT analysis of Nevada’s vision for R & D and a proposed model.
Report of the Committee to Evaluate Higher Education Programs (2005).
ü Recommendation for Nevada to emulate the Georgia Research Alliance
Nevada Science and Technology Plan (2009).
ü Plan identifies 9 key focus areas for research and workforce development
Nevada Vision Stakeholder Group Report (2010).
ü Developed 5, 10 & 20 year strategic goals for improving NV’s quality of life in 6 broad areas and advocated for increase in research and workforce development in NSHE.
The Science Coalition and the Rockefeller Institute of Government studies (2010).
ü Examined model research programs and their role in advancing R & D and commercialization for states.
 
Ø How State Investments Can Make A Difference:
·         Since 2000 among the 50 states:
ü 9 states have implemented major long-term funding initiatives for research.
ü 30 states have provided significant funding.
ü 20 states (including Nevada) have no significant funding dedicated to academic research or technology.
ü States who have invested have grown their economy.
 
Ø 5 Characteristics of Successful Commercialized Technologies
Research leadership in areas relevant to specific regional economics.
A large group of nationally prominent faculty.
Leadership that prioritizes economic growth and links effectively with the business sector to pursue that goal.
The physical infrastructure necessary to support research, including labs, equipment, research parks, and classroom and conference facilities.
Enough flexibility in laws and policies to allow the commercialization of research outcomes.
 
Ø Workforce Development to Support Business and Industry
Combination of research, technology transfer, new business development, and workforce education and training are all key to Nevada’s future.
NSHE can coordinate its efforts in partnership with the State to build new business and to meet the needs of current businesses.


20.       Approved - Research, Technology and WorkforceDevelopment Report (Agenda Item #19) – (Cont’d.)
Ø Recommendations to the Board of Regents and State of Nevada:
Authorize the Chancellor to work with the 2011 Legislature to pass legislation to establish a model that emulates the Utah USTAR and to seek seed money for this purpose.
As part of that legislative initiative, ask for the establishment of the Nevada Research and Business Alliance as a permanent statewide entity.
Support needed alignment between university research initiatives and workforce development programs at the colleges as implemented by the Presidents.
 
In conclusion, Dr. Smith felt that it was high time that something actually be done.
 
Regent Page asked Dr. Smith if the Brookings Institute was involved on this report. Dr. Smith stated that yes the Brookings Institute was an invaluable resource.
 
Dr. Surles indicated that DRI is in fact working with the Brookings Institute for the Energy Nexus Initiative. He related that he had just returned from Washington D.C. where he had spoken in regard to funding for this activity. He also pointed out that the National Science Foundation rankings are slightly skewed in the sense that everything cannot be funded for everyone. For example, DRI is 20th in the country for environmental resources. It is important to consider how to strengthen exclusive areas within the System in ways that industry would be interested in or attracted to.
 
Dr. Smith noted that Utah narrowed it down to twelve areas including nutrition and biomass. Utah’s twelve areas may not be entirely the right ones for Nevada, but those areas need to be determined quickly.
 
Vice Chancellor Nichols requested that the Board take action to empower the Chancellor and the presidents to then take action on these recommendations. 
 
President Wells related that not only is DRI ranked 20th by the National Science Foundation, but when considering the top 50 institutions in the environmental sciences, UNR and UNLV are there as well. It is the only area in which all three of Nevada’s research institutions rank in the top 50.
 
Regent Cobb related that in September 2010, Chancellor Klaich had issued the NSHE Plan for Nevada’s Colleges and University, which he thought had been forward looking and aggressive.  He referenced Goal #2.b. of that report that indicated the need for more external funding in research. The state of Nevada needed to partner with the three research institutions to establish, coordinate and fund research initiatives designed to bring high tech wage business to Nevada, which is also consistent with the state’s goals for economic diversification. 


20.       Approved - Research, Technology and WorkforceDevelopment Report (Agenda Item #19) – (Cont’d.)
He expressed his surprise at seeing that the System brings in $316 million in external funding and research.  He urged the institutions and the System to share those accomplishments, feeling that they were incredible. 
 
Regent Wixom moved that the Board adopt the three recommendations presented in the report and that those recommendations be submitted to the Legislature as a legislative proposal during the 2011 session.
 
Chancellor Klaich indicated that the Board heard mostly from the three research institutions that day. However, there is a second half that involves workforce development at the state and community college level. 
 
Regent Wixom restated his motion to move for the adoption of the recommendations as presented that day with respect to three research institutions with the caveat that the proposal be broadened to include workforce development on behalf of the respective community and state colleges. Regent Schofield seconded.
 
Regent Geddes asked if Nevada’s model will be what comes out of the Nevada 2.0 conference on January 7th. Vice Chancellor Nichols replied that the intent is to consider and utilize aspects from a number of models for other states. However, whatever that model is, the basic principles are that the state invests money in helping the higher education system in research and workforce development as a focused area for specific industries where Nevada can grow.
 
Regent Geddes encouraged the Chancellor to work with the Governor’s office to make this a single cohesive statewide effort. Chancellor Klaich related that the Governor-elect has deferred to the Lieutenant Governor who is running an independent task force on this initiative. He also noted that Lieutenant Governor Krolicki is one of the hosts of the upcoming Nevada 2.0 conference.
 
Regent Geddes suggested that due to the similarities between the programs, that Nevada build upon what Utah has implemented to launch this initiative forward.
 
Regent Knecht, hoped that in creating a comprehensive science and technology plan, he would see a set of specific goals and measurements by which effectiveness can be evaluated five or ten years in the future. He hoped that there will be a documentation trail of goals, measurements and achievement so that value can be measured after the fact.


20.       Approved - Research, Technology and WorkforceDevelopment Report (Agenda Item #19) – (Cont’d.)
Dr. Surles related that the most successful of groups are working with state governments in a sustained multi-term effort with local industry to attract new industries with very explicit and measurable targets in the technical and scientific areas.
 
Dr. Read indicated that it was very important to each institution’s plan to constantly know what has been achieved and what goals remain. 
 
Regent Knecht wanted to see Nevada succeed at diversifying its economy. However, he felt that expectations needed to be conditioned on the theory that many of the great successes nationwide have had nothing to do with central planning, noting the creation of the Microsoft Corporation. Although it is essential to have the research institutions and higher education infrastructure, it may not be enough.
 
Regent Wixom related that although it was wise to temper expectations, he related that only 10- to 15% of the University of Utah’s funds come from the state while the remainder comes from efforts within private industry. He felt that in the long term, this would be an extraordinary opportunity for this Board to make a difference in Nevada for five to twenty years down the road. Although an immediate benefit may not be seen, it is vitally important to approach this proactively and thoughtfully. 
 
Chancellor Klaich related that the System has been very careful to state that a partnership with the state is critical. The System is looking for the state of Nevada to make an investment in research and to help create a structure that aligns the goals of the state with those of the System in a way never seen before.
 
Regent Knecht indicated that although he really would like these initiatives to succeed, what he does not want is failure with the only accomplishment being the generation of reports and meetings. He wanted to be able to know, at the end of his term as a Regent, what was accomplished and what continues to be successful.
 
Chancellor Klaich stated that he does not want to sit and wait. He wanted the state’s research institutions, and state and community colleges to find the next opportunity and make it happen.
 
Regent Schofield related that he wanted to leave a legacy that was meaningful to humanity and quoted Winston Churchill in saying “You must never give up.” He felt that research was the key. 
 
Regent Blakely felt that the Board needed to approve the recommendations in addition to considering what the Board and System can do to stimulate the faculty to develop programs that provides rewards for efforts made. He asked that such a proposal be presented to the Board at the March meeting.


20.       Approved - Research, Technology and WorkforceDevelopment Report (Agenda Item #19) – (Cont’d.)
President Glick thanked the Board for embracing this report. In regard to Regent Knecht’s comments that although serendipity may work, he recently attended a small meeting with Bill Gates Sr. in attendance and at which Mr. Gates had made clear that if the University of Washington had not been available, his son would not have started his company. In addition, he related that the investment in Utah has transformed Utah State as a research enterprise. Finally, President Glick related that he recently spent time on a study commission to San Diego, where it became clear that the establishment of UCSD was the anchor of that community. If critical mass is not developed in this state, it can be planned that nothing will happen.
 
Regent Alden felt that that too much politics and fear were the obstacles to the incredible opportunities that were available and that could bring much to the state of Nevada. He indicated his support of the report.
 
Motion carried.
 
 
12.       Information Only - Renewable Energy Report (Agenda Item #20) – (Cont’d.)
President Wells related that there is not a single NSHE institution that is not making remarkable efforts in renewable energy. Although the focus of that day’s report was on the collaboration of the three research institutions (DRI, UNR and UNLV), Dr. Wells stated that the Consortium that will be mentioned includes the community colleges as well.
 
Dr. Alan Gertler, Research Professor, DRI, as well as Senior Director of the Green Technology Center, Program Manager for the Nevada Renewable Energy Consortium, and former DRI Faculty Senate Chair, related that the Nevada Renewable Energy Consortium is a federally directed program through U.S. Senator Harry Reid’s office. Funding has been received with the overall purpose of helping Nevada achieve a vision of being a national leader in renewable energy and to provide a sound foundation for the Nevada System of Higher Education. The overall scope of the consortium is to expand and accelerate the research that is already being done.
 
Dr. Gertler indicated that there are a tremendous number of projects throughout the System as outlined in the report. Specific objectives of the consortium are to force collaborative research among the institutions, to develop an inventory of what is being done throughout Nevada, to enhance outreach and workforce development efforts and to build partnerships with industry. The consortium will help promote the research being done at the institutions and move it into real world development and commercialization of intellectual capital.
 
Dr. Gertler reported that the consortium has only been in existence for one and a half years. Funding for the first year was $2.8 million with an additional $2.8 million received for the second year. Of that funding, 70% is allocated to research and 30% is allocated to program management and workforce development efforts. During the first year, 12 research projects were funded; four in biofuels, four in solar and four in


12.       Information Only - Renewable Energy Report (Agenda Item #20) – (Cont’d.)
geothermal energy. In the second year there will be 12 new programs including more in biofuels and solar energy as well as new programs in resource assessment. Dr. Gertler emphasized that all of the projects are collaborative among DRI, UNLV and UNR. 
 
Dr. Gertler stated that in terms workforce development, certificate and training programs were being developed in the fields of biofuel- and solar-oriented programs.  He added that the consortium is also working in collaboration with NIREC (Nevada Institute for Renewable Energy Commercialization).
 
Regent Geddes related that the leverage created when the institutions work collaboratively, such as with the geothermal centers, allows Nevada’s alternative energy assets to expand. 
 
Regent Schofield reported on his recent visit to the University of Utah and introduced Dr. Rajesh Menon, Professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Utah. Dr. Menon is one of the USTAR professors and specializes in optical nanotechnologies in order to create more efficiency in photovoltaic cells. 
 
 
21.              Information Only - Washoe County School DistrictStrategic Plan(Agenda Item #22)- Dr. Heath Morrison, Washoe County School District Superintendent,  provided the following presentation of the Washoe County School District strategic plan.
 
Dr. Morrison related that the WCSD strategic plan is more than about Washoe County. It is about where the state of Nevada is currently in terms of the economy and education, and about the partnership that K-12 and higher education must have to be the hope at the end of a very dark tunnel. He related that he and the presidents of UNR, TMCC and DRI meet regularly and are working on collaborations. He also thanked Chancellor Klaich for his friendship and partnership.
 
Dr. Morrison related that the WCSD strategic plan is entitled “WCSD 2015: Investing in Our Future.” He related that when he came to Washoe County approximately one and a half years ago, he had wanted to be a superintendent of a school district that was committed to doing things differently. He was very fortunate to be hired by a Board of Education that wanted change. He provided the following presentation on where the state of Nevada currently is and what challenges the K-12 and higher education faces.
 
Ø Nevada by the Numbers…
·         National foreclosure rate: 1 in 78 homes
·         Nevada foreclosure rate: 1 in 17 homes
·         Nevada’s budget deficit: $2.9 billion (42% of $7 billion budget)
·         National unemployment rate: 10%
·         Nevada’s unemployment rate: 15.2% (highest in country)
·         Nevadans looking for work: 195,000 reported; 220,000 estimated


21.      Information Only - Washoe County School DistrictStrategic Plan(Agenda Item #22)(Cont’d.)
Ø The dropout issue is a national disgrace:
·         1.2 million students dropout of school each year
·         7,000 teens become high school dropouts every school day
·         High correlation with being jobless, homeless & in prison
·         Earn $260,000 less than H.S. graduates over lifetime
·         Cost nation $209,000 each for healthcare, welfare and crime
·         We incur $1.5 billion in future losses every school day
 
Ø And in the “Silver State”…
·         The dropout rate in Nevada is 24% higher than the national average.
 
Ø State of Education in Nevada
Education Week “Chance of Success”
·         Nevada received the lowest score in the nation, almost 30 points below MA.
·         Factors include parent education, family income, pre-school enrollment, NAEP scores, and employment.
 
Ø State of Education
“Chance of Success” – NV vs. US Averages
·         11% lower in parent education
·         11% lower in parent language skills
·         19% lower in preschool education
·         2nd lowest % of young adults with degree,
ü 36.2% vs. 52.8% nationally
 
Ø According to The Wall Street Journal, Nevada’s opportunity GAP is the largest in the nation.
 


21.      Information Only - Washoe County School DistrictStrategic Plan(Agenda Item #22)(Cont’d.)
Ø State of Education in Nevada
School funding
·         Per pupil spending in NV in 2006 was $7,213; 27% lower than the $9,963 U.S. Average.
·         Percent of taxable resources spent on education in NV is 2.8%; U.S. is 3.7%.   NV is 2nd lowest in the nation.
·         K-12 education took a 6.9% reduction after the special session last year.
 
Ø Nevada is at a Crossroads…
·         50............. Percentage of students graduating in Nevada
·         220,000.... Number of students out of 440,000 who do not reach graduation.
·         50............. Nevada’s national ranking of college graduates in four years.
·         1............... Nevada’s national ranking in high school drop-outs.
·         50............. Nevada’s national ranking in jobs available for college graduates.
·         3............... Nevada’s national ranking in employing high school drop-outs.
 
Ø Education is the Key to our Economic Future
·         Everyone agrees that Nevada needs to diversify its economy.
·         However, businesses will not come unless they can promise their business leaders a quality work force and their workers a quality educational system for children.
 
Ø Education is the Key to our Economic Future
In a poll ranking states’ attractiveness for new businesses, the Wall Street Journal cited Nevada as…
·         16th in Tax Friendly Structure
·         50th in Educational Quality & Funding
 
Ø Education is the Key to our Economic Future
·         We have to get Nevadans to see investments in education, not just because it’s the right thing to do for our children, but because of the economic return on investment they can expect.
·         Many people are talking about why they don’t want to raise revenue. Let’s get them talking about the revenue we are losing as a state by not making education a priority.
·         78% of Nevada’s prison inmates do not have a high school diploma.
·         Nevada spends 15% more on incarceration than any other state.
 
Ø Estimated savings if all high schools students graduated
·         $230 million saved in health care costs.
·         $25.8 million saved in college remediation costs.
·         $78+ million impact each year for a 5% gain in male graduation rate.
·         $5.2 billion in lost lifetime earnings for the class of 2009 drop-outs.


21.      Information Only - Washoe County School DistrictStrategic Plan(Agenda Item #22)(Cont’d.)
Ø Nevada’s Promise:   Nevada has 436,000 students who are depending on us to deliver Nevada’s Promise:
·         Every school will be led by an effective principal.
·         Every classroom will be led by an effective teacher.
·         Every student will graduate.
 
Ø Nevada’s Promise:  Objectives:
By 2014, Nevada’s Promise calls for (data based on 2009 results):
·         Increasing the graduation rate to 85%.
·         Reducing the achievement gap by 50%.
·         Increasing graduates enrolling in post-secondary instructions by 50%.
·         Increasing the percentage of students proficient or advanced on the NAEP fourth-grade mathematics and reading.
 
Ø Plan of Entry Led to…
·         Visits to every school, most multiple times.
·         Extended workshops and team building with the Board of Trustees.
·         2,850 meetings with individuals or small groups to discuss WCSD.
·         Proactive outreach to diverse community members.
·         160 presentations to Chambers, Rotaries, civic groups, etc.
·         Collaboration with key local, state, and national political leaders.
 
Ø Key Design Principles of Reform:
The 4 A’s
·         Alignment
·         Accountability
·         Accessibility
·         Achievement
 
Ø Strategic Goals:
·         Goal 1: Provide Continuous Academic Success for Every Student
·         Goal 2: Recruit and Support Highly Effective Personnel.
·         Goal 3: Engage Families and Community Partners.
·         Goal 4: Value and Strengthen a Positive, Self-Renewing Culture.
·         Goal 5: Align Performance Management Systems.
 
Ø Overall Summary:
·         80% of our schools improved in reading.
·         86% of our schools improved in math.
·         Many of our schools had double digit gains.
·         WCSD is at 4 year record levels, with the exception of 8th grade math.
·         WCSD outperforms the state average in every grade in reading and math.


21.      Information Only - Washoe County School DistrictStrategic Plan(Agenda Item #22)(Cont’d.)
Dr. Morrison related that education reform is about having a quality principle at each school, a quality teacher in each classroom, a commitment to partner with the community, parents and higher education friends and having a safe and inviting culture. He stated that it was not hard to know what to do, simply hard to make it happen. It requires the courage to see the data reflecting that third, fourth and fifth graders are not meeting proficiency and stand a 50% chance of not graduating from high school. 
 
Ø Key to School Reform:
·         Inspiring, excellent teacher in every classroom.
·         Excellent principal in every school.
·         Quality support staff in each site.
·         Engaged parents and community.
·         Positive, safe, and engaging learning environments.
 
Dr. Morrison stated that:
Ø Nevada is in crisis, and it is a dark time for the Silver State, but education can be the light at the end of the tunnel. 
Ø We are all Nevadans, and our roots are as a frontier state.
Ø Pioneers may not know exactly where they are going, but they know they must move toward a better tomorrow.
Ø It will require vision, prioritization, courage, and resolve.
 
Chairman Leavitt stated that Dr. Morrison’s presentation had been the most engaging and passionate presentation that he’s heard in six years on the Board of Regents. 
 
Dr. Morrison related that Clark County recently hired Dr. Dwight Jones as its new School District Superintendent. He felt that Clark County would have good things to see in Dr. Jones, adding that he was a great agent for change and they would work together to make a difference in Nevada.
 
The meeting recessed at 2:18 p.m. and reconvened at 2:24 p.m. on Friday, December 3, 2010, with all members present.
 
22.              Information - Update on Redistricting and Reapportionment (Agenda Item #21) - Mr. Scott G. Wasserman, Chief Executive Officer and Special Counsel to the Board of Regents, provided an update on census information and redistricting as it pertains to the Board of Regents. 
 
Ø Measuring Population Equality –Terminology:
·         Ideal population – the ideal district population is equal to the total state population divided by the total number of districts.
·         Deviation - is the degree by which a single district’s population varies from the ideal population.
·         Overall range or maximum population deviation – the difference in population of the largest district and the small district.


22.      Information - Update on Redistricting and Reapportionment (Agenda Item 21) – (Cont’d.)
Ø Summary of Legal Principles for Redistricting:
·         Population of districts can withstand a constitutional challenge only if there are minor deviations in population between districts. The general rule is that a redistricting plan must have a maximum population deviation among districts of under 10%.
·         A redistricting plan must not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That is, a redistricting plan must not be discriminatory against any person or group of persons on account of race, color or status as a member of a language minority group.
·         A redistricting plan must avoid racial gerrymandering.
·         Racial gerrymandering exists when:
ü Race is the dominant and controlling rationale in drawing district lines; and
ü Traditional race-neutral districting principles become subordinate to racial considerations.
 
Ø Traditional Districting Principles:
·         Compactness
·         Contiguity
·         Preservation of political subdivisions
·         Preservation of communities of interest
·         Preservation of cores of prior districts
·         Protection of incumbents
·         Compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
 
Ø Summary of Legal Principles for Redistricting:
·         A redistricting plan must not be the result of political gerrymandering
 
Ø 2001 Joint Rules of the Nevada Legislature:
·         Required plans not to exceed overall range of population deviation of 10%; no district to exceed plus or minus 5% from the ideal district.
·         Equality of population in accordance with the standard for state legislative districts is the goal of redistricting for the Board of Regents.
·         Federal decennial census must be the exclusive database for redistricting.
 
Ø Population Growth:
·         Nevada has had 50% growth rate over the past decade in Clark, Lyon, Nye and Storey Counties.


22.      Information - Update on Redistricting and Reapportionment (Agenda Item 21) – (Cont’d.)

Ø 2000 Population & 2009 Population Estimates:
Regent / District
Pop.
Ideal Pop.
Percent Deviation from Ideal
Actual Deviation from Ideal
2009 Est. Pop.
2009   Ideal Pop.
2009 Percent Deviation from Ideal
2009 Actual Deviation from Ideal
 
1 – Crear
152,569
153,712
-0.74%
-1,143
225,308
211,256
6.65%
14,052
 
2 – Blakely
153,856
153,712
0.09%
144
163,368
211,256
-22.67%
-47,888
 
3 – Page
153,257
153,712
-0.30%
-455
180,023
211,256
-14.78%
-31,233
 
4 – Alden
153,141
153,712
-0.37%
-571
192,442
211,256
-8.91%
-18,814
 
5 – Schofield
151,640
153,712
-1.35%
-2,072
168,074
211,256
-20.44%
-43,182
 
6 – Wixom
154,906
153,712
0.78%
1,194
198,907
211,256
-5.85%
-12,349
 
7 – Rawson
152,570
153,712
-0.74%
-1,142
166,318
211,256
-21.27%
-44,938
 
8 – Gallagher
151,390
153,712
-1.51%
-2,322
173,377
211,256
-17.93%
-37,879
 
9 – Knecht
156,918
153,712
2.09%
3,206
201,884
211,256
-4.44%
-9,372
 
10 – Cobb
157,252
153,712
2.30%
3,540
188,525
211,256
-10.76%
-22,731
 
11 – Geddes
156,932
153,712
2.09%
3,220
208,521
211,256
-1.29%
-2,735
 
12 – Anderson
151,568
153,712
-1.39%
-2,144
298,170
211,256
41.14%
86,914
 
13 – Leavitt
152,258
153,712
-0.95%
-1,454
381,414
211,256
80.55%
170,158
 
Total
-1,998,257
-2,746,331
 

 
 
Ø Statewide Distribution of Districts:
2000 Population
(Census data)
·         Clark County: 1,375,765 = 69% of the state’s population. 69% of 13 districts = 8.97.
·         Rest of the state: 622,462 = 31% of the state’s population. 31% of 13 districts = 4.03.
 
2010 Projected Population*
·         Clark County: 2,148,122 = 72% of the state’s population. 72% of 13 districts = 9.36.
·         Rest of the state: 815,690 = 28% of the state’s population. 28% of 13 districts = 3.64.
*Source = State Demographer


22.      Information - Update on Redistricting and Reapportionment (Agenda Item 21) – (Cont’d.)
Regent Geddes noted that there had been tremendous growth in Regent Leavitt’s district. He asked if proposed district lines were drawn taking only current population into consideration or if trends in growth were also considered.  Mr. Wasserman replied that both concepts were taken into consideration. He noted that state and federal law require existing population to be used. However, areas of predicted growth can also be taken into consideration.
 
In reviewing slides 15 through 41 (Current and Draft Conceptual Plans),Mr. Wasserman emphasized that there are three districts (1, 12 and 13)that had more than the ideal population, adding that other than District 1 (Regent Crear), that had only a 7% growth, all of the excess population for the entire state is in Districts 12 (Regent Anderson) and 13 (Regent Leavitt). That population growth will cause the most significant changes in those districts’ existing boundaries.
 
Ø Redistricting Timeline:
·         Redistricting software has been purchased.
ü Includes 2009 population estimates – review population estimates and general redistricting plans at the December 2010 Board meeting.
·         December 2-3, 2010, Board of Regents meeting – Board will look at potential redistricting themes based on 2009 population estimates.
·         December 31, 2010 - Statewide population totals reported to the President of the United States (congressional seats apportioned).
·         February 7, 2011 –Legislative Session begins - Legislature adopts Joint Rules addressing redistricting plans.
·         Late February – early March, 2011:
ü U.S. Census Bureau required to provide census block level data no later than April 1, 2011.
ü Census Bureau delivers block level data to states in phases based on redistricting deadlines - Nevada in second group to receive data.
·         March 10 & 11, 2011, Board of Regents meeting:
ü Board will review for approval potential redistricting plan.
·         March/April 2011 – Presentation of Board approved redistricting plan to the Nevada Legislature.
·         On or before June 6, 2011, Nevada Legislature enacts into law Board of Regents’ redistricting plan (or in special session).
 
Mr. Wasserman emphasized that the redistricting plan enacted by the Legislature on or before June 6, 2011, will not become effective until January 1, 2013, with the exception that the approved plan will become effective in 2012 for the purpose of electing candidates running for open district seats. 
 
Chairman Leavitt felt that it may be premature for the Board to take any action at this time. Regent Wixom agreed with Chairman Leavitt.
 
Regent Page acknowledged Mr. Wasserman’s expertise on this subject.


22.      Information - Update on Redistricting and Reapportionment (Agenda Item 21) – (Cont’d.)
Regent Rawson asked how many people would be affected in Mesquite. Regent Anderson felt that there were close to 35,000 people in the area affected. Mr. Wasserman added that the census may cause that figure to be re-evaluated.
 
Regent Rawson expressed concern that moving Mesquite from District 12 with a representative in Clark County, to District 8 with a representative in Elko County, may make it difficult for the regent in northern Nevada to visit with the area and may disenfranchise the citizens of Mesquite from ever running for election.
 
Mr. Wasserman replied that area in Mesquite will be one of the major population centers in District 8. He added that the state’s population will dictate that the majority of the Nevada’s rural geographical area will be in District 8.
 
Regent Knecht mentioned that, in addition to the 35,000 to 37,000 under population for District 8, Mr. Wasserman has also had to deal appropriately with the net under population between Districts 9, 10 and 11 in the north, which also adds to District 8’s under population problem. There is not a way around one of the districts having to pick up some part of Clark County.
 
Regent Blakely felt that an adjustment in his existing district boundaries may help facilitate less of an impact upon District 8. Mr. Wasserman indicated that would be considered.
 
 
23.           Information Only - Farewell to Outgoing Regents (Agenda Item #23) - The Board members expressed their gratitude to outgoing Regents Gallagher and Rawson for their service to the Nevada System of Higher Education.
 
Chairman Leavitt stated that the Board was saying thank you to two of Nevada’s educational heroes. He related that it was difficult to put into words what Regent Gallagher has done for the entire state of Nevada over the years, not just for northern and northeastern Nevada. It was extraordinary service that would not be forgotten. Chairman Leavitt thanked Regent Rawson for his service. He related that although much of Regent Rawson’s time in service had been in the Legislature, he was known for his commitment to higher education.  The Board will continue to solicit advice from both Regents Gallagher and Rawson.
 
Regent Knecht related that both Regents have been an inspiration and both will be missed. He also noted that the Board would continue to solicit their advice.
 
Regent Anderson related that Regent Gallagher is a legend and has done much for Nevada. She greatly appreciated Regent Gallagher for what she has accomplished. In terms of Regent Rawson she related that her most prominent memory is of the programs that he started for CSN that will go on forever.
 
Regent Geddes related that Regent Rawson was one of his heroes in the Legislature. He cited his quiet, calm style of leadership that has served Nevada very well.  He thanked Regent Gallagher for gently counseling him as an undergraduate and continues to do so. He thanked her for her service and for guiding the members of Board.


23.       Information Only - Farewell to Outgoing Regents (Agenda Item #23)(Cont’d.)
Regent Wixom related that Regents Gallagher and Rawson are extraordinary people that have enriched his life. Certainly they both could look back on their service and say they have contributed, adding that the state of Nevada is a much better, more enlightened and thoughtful place for their service.
 
Regent Crear stated that it had been an absolute pleasure to serve with both Regents Gallagher and Rawson.
 
Regent Page related that he had the privilege of being appointed to the Board by the Governor on the same day as Regent Rawson. Although Regent Rawson does not say much, when he does, people listen. It’s been an honor and privilege to serve with Regents Rawson and Gallagher.
 
Regent Cobb agreed that when Regent Rawson speaks those around stop and listen to his wise counsel.  In regard to Regent Gallagher, Regent Cobb stated that she is an institution in her own right and he felt tremendously honored to have served with one of the greatest education leaders of the state of Nevada.
 
Regent Schofield related that he had heard of Regent Gallagher long before he had met her and held her in a great deal of respect. Regent Schofield stated that he had the privilege of being one of Regent Rawson’s teachers as a teenager. He appreciated them and their service to the state of Nevada.
 
Regent Blakely thanked both Regents Gallagher and Rawson for their service, adding that it had been a joy to work with the both of them.
 
Chancellor Klaich stated that Regents Gallagher and Rawson were such great Regents because of their core values and integrity.  They are both great people that have done great things.  
 
President Wells stated, on behalf of the presidents, that he has watched what Regent Gallagher has done in forging Nevada’s system of higher education together and for what she’s done for research and collaboration. In terms of Regent Rawson, President Wells stated that it had been a pleasure to have him on the Board for the last two years and thanked him for his important service.
 
On behalf of the Chairman and the members of the Board of Regents, Mr. Wasserman presented a gift and proclamation to Regents Gallagher and Rawson
 
 
Regent Alden left the meeting.
 
 


24.           Approved - Audit Committee (Agenda Item #24) – Committee Vice Chair Kevin J. Page reported that the Audit Committee met on December 2, 2010, and heard the following:
 
The Committee requested updates from institutions on the following items at a future meeting:
ü Report on Internal Control Matters (NSHE, UNSOM)
ü Automotive Department, CSN
ü Child Development Center, WNC
 
Action items
Board action was requested to approve the following recommendations of the Audit Committee.
 
Ø Minutes – The Committee recommended approval of the minutes from the September 9, 2010, meeting (Ref. A-1 on file in the Board office).
Ø Office of Management & Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 Report – The Committee recommended approval of the OMB Circular A-133 Audit Report for the year ended June 30, 2010 (Ref. A-2 on file in the Board office).
Ø Financial Statements, NSHE – The Committee recommended approval of the NSHE Financial Statements for the year ended June 30, 2010 (Ref. A-3 on file in the Board office).
Ø Communications with those Charged with Governance, NSHE – The Committee recommended approval of a report on the Communications with those Charged with Governance for the year ended June 30, 2010 (Ref. A-4 on file in the Board office).
Ø Report on Internal Control Matters, NSHE –The Committee recommended approval of the NSHE Report on Internal Control Matters for the year ended June 30, 2010 (Ref. A-5 on file in the Board office).
Ø Financial Statements and Report of Certified Public Accountants, UNSOM – The Committee recommended approval of the UNSOM Combined Financial Statements and Report of Certified Public Accountants for the year ended June 30, 2010 (Ref. A-6 on file in the Board office).
Ø Report on Internal Control Matters, UNSOM – The Committee recommended approval of the UNSOM Report on Internal Control Matters for the year ended June 30, 2010 (Ref. A-7 on file in the Board office).
Ø Internal Audit Reports – The Committee recommended approval of the following internal audit reports: (Ref. Audit Summary on file in the Board office)
ü Nevada Public Health Laboratory Follow-up Audit, UNR (Ref. A-9 on file in the Board office)
ü Hosting, UNR (Ref. A-10 on file in the Board office)
ü Hosting, UNLV (Ref. A-11 on file in the Board office)
ü Office of International Programs, UNLV (Ref. A-12 on file in the Board office)
ü Purchasing Department, UNLV (Ref. A-13 on file in the Board office)
ü Health Science System Foundation, NSHE (Ref. A-14 on file in the Board office)
ü Risk Management/Worker’s Compensation, DRI (Ref. A-15 on file in the Board office)
ü Risk Management/Worker’s Compensation, TMCC (Ref. A-16 on file in the Board office)
ü Automotive Department, CSN (Ref. A-17 on file in the Board office)
ü Child Development Center, WNC (Ref. A-18 on file in the Board office)
ü Network Security Audit, GBC (Ref. A-19 on file in the Board office)


24.      Approved - Audit Committee (Agenda Item #24) – (Cont’d.)
Regent Page moved acceptance of the report and approval of the committee recommendations. Regent Wixom seconded. Motion carried. Regent Alden was absent.
 
 
25.           Approved - Investment & Facilities Committee (Agenda Item #25) - Chair Michael B. Wixom reported that the Investment & Facilities Committee met on December 2, 2010, and presented the following report with the emphasis and additional clarification placed on the following two items:
 
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the University of Nevada, Reno’s purchase and sale agreement for real property located at 1701 W. Charleston Boulevard, Las Vegas and delegation to Chancellor Klaich, subject to consultation with the Chair of the Investment and Facilities and Chairman of the Board of final approval of the purchase of the property, with the caveat suggestion of Regent Knecht that, if necessary, a special meeting of the Investment and Facilities Committee will be held to approve the transaction and delegation by the Board to take that action is requested (Ref. IF-4 on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the lease from the Nevada Division of State Lands, on an exclusive or shared basis, certain lands, buildings and other facilities at the former Fire Science Academy site in order to continue operation of the Fire Science Academy program. Authorized the Chancellor to execute the finalized lease Agreement as well as any documents in connection with the lease. And authorized UNR and NSHE to join with the Nevada Division of State Lands and Nevada Department of the Military to present the proposed Lease Agreement to the Board of Examiners and the Interim Finance Committee. The Committee requested UNR to review at the March meeting the availability of funding to continue operating the Fire Science Academy (Ref. IF-7 on file in the Board office).
 
The Committee heard the following reports:
Ø David Breiner from Cambridge Associates reported on asset allocation and investment returns for the pooled endowment and pooled operating funds.
Ø Ruby Camposano reported that the account balance of the operating pool’s reserve account was positive $24.5 million as of December 1, 2010.
Ø Vice Chancellor Mark Stevens advised the Committee of the updates to the Real Property Reports of DRI, UNR and WNC.
 
Action Items:
In addition to the items listed above, Board action was requested to approve the following recommendations of the Investment and Facilities Committee:
 
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the minutes from the September 9, 2010, meeting (Ref. IF-1 on file in the Board office).


25.      Approved - Investment & Facilities Committee (Agenda Item #25) (Cont’d.)
Action Items:- (Cont’d.)
Ø Cambridge Associates presented a report on asset allocation and investment returns for the pooled endowment and pooled operating funds for the quarter ended September 30, 2010. Based on the report, the Committee recommended approval of the following:
ü Redeem $3 million from the PIMCO Total Return account in the Endowment pool to fund the pool’s regular disbursements to the campuses.
ü A revised asset allocation in the operating pool based on 40% of assets being invested in equities and 60% allocated to cash/fixed income investments.
Ø The Committee recommended approval to transfer $20 million from the operating pool reserve account and earmarked the funds for future phases of the iNtegrate project. The recommendation included a stipulation that the $20 million cannot be expended without prior approval from the Investment and Facilities Committee and the Board of Regents.
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the University of Nevada, Reno’s purchase and sale agreement for real property located at 1701 W. Charleston Boulevard, Las Vegas and delegation to Chancellor Klaich, subject to consultation with the Chair of the Investment and Facilities Committee and Chairman of the Board of final approval of the purchase of the property (Ref. IF-4 on file in the Board office)
Ø The Committee recommended approval of a lease with Third Place, LLC to operate an Einstein Bros. Bagel operation in UNR’s Joe Crowley Student Union  (Ref. IF-5 on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the sale of real property, S-Bar-S Ranch, Wadsworth, and related water rights, for its appraised value of $3,716,880 (Ref. IF-6 on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended approval of a first amendment to the lease amendment between the Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education on behalf of the University of Nevada, Reno, and the Whittemore-Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease which will result in a $1.25 million credit to the original $4,074,135 pledge made by the Whittemore Family Foundation (Ref. IF-8 on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended approval of an Interlocal Agreement to adjust the boundary of the Tropicana Wash flood channel easement at the DRI Las Vegas campus, as requested by the Clark County Board of County Commissioners (Ref. IF-10 on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended approval of a rescission of the previously approved six month contract extension for Bank of America from January through June 2011 and selected Bank of America to provide the exclusive Banking Services for the Nevada System of Higher Education for a new five year period effective January 1, 2011. 


25.      Approved - Investment & Facilities Committee (Agenda Item #25) – (Cont’d.)
Action Items: - (Cont’d.)
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the establishment of a Market Fluctuation Account to be funded by the reserve balance in the operating pool or from a portion of the monthly distribution allocated to institutions from the operating pool. Proposed modifications to the Board of Regents Handbook will be developed for review and approval at the committee’s meeting in March 2011 (Ref. IF-12 on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Wixom moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations, with the notation that due to his relationship with Bank of America, he recused himself from consideration of IF-11. Regent Knecht seconded.  Regent Page abstained.  Motion carried. Regent Alden was absent.
 
 
26.           Approved - Academic, Research & Student Affairs Committee (Agenda Item #26) - Chair William G. Cobb reported that the Academic, Research & Student Affairs Committee met on December 2, 2010, and heard the following:
 
Vice Chancellor Jane Nichols and Assistant Vice Chancellor Magdalena Martinez presented a report on the bachelor of applied science degree, including NSHE-specific policies and national trends. Chancellor Daniel Klaich and John Kuhlman, NSHE Manager of Public Information, discussed the development of strategies to tell the NSHE story, particularly in relation to academic and research programs, grants and contracts, and contributions to the economic future of the state.
 
Dr. Neal Smatresk, President, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, reported on UNLV’s recent accreditation review by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities related that UNLV was reaffirmed for accreditation at the baccalaureate level.  The institution received seven commendations for various areas of institutional success and only two recommendations for improvement. 
 
Action items:
Board action is requested to approve the following recommendations of the Academic, Research, and Student Affairs Committee:
 
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the minutes of the September 9, 2010, meeting of the Academic, Research, and Student Affairs Committee (Ref. ARSA-1 on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the elimination of Associate of Applied Science in the following program areas at CSN (Ref. ARSA-2a; ARSA-2b, and ARSA-2c on file in the Board office):
·         Addiction Studies;
·         Biotechnology; and
·         Landscape Design/Contracting.


26.       Approved - Academic, Research & Student Affairs Committee (Agenda Item #26) (Cont’d.)
Action items: - (Cont’d.)
Ø The Committee recommended elimination of the Associate of Applied Science in Drafting Technology, at WNC (Ref. ARSA-3 on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended approval of a new Bachelor of Applied Science in Clinical Laboratory Sciences at CSN (Ref. ARSA-5 on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended approval of a new Bachelor of Applied Science in Cardiorespiratory Sciences at CSN (Ref. ARSA-6 on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the 2011-2014 NSHE Planning Report that highlights the strategic objectives for the next four years for each NSHE institution, including foreseeable plans for new academic programs, student services and research initiatives (Ref. ARSA-7 on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended approval ofa Handbookrevision regarding transfer agreements and general education requirements for the associate of arts, associate of science, associate of business and baccalaureate degree programs (Title 4, Chapter 14, Sections 13 and 16, and Title 4, Chapter 16, Sections 24?25), formally effective for academic year 2012-13, but where feasible institutions may implement for academic year 2011-12 (Ref. ARSA-8 on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended approval of a Handbook revision authorizing NSHE institutions to consider a student’s standing at a previously attended institution including, but not limited to, records of disciplinary action (Title 4, Chapter 16, Sections 9, 18 and 28) (Ref. ARSA-9 on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Cobb moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations. Regent Blakely seconded. Motion carried. Regent Alden was absent.
 
 
27.           Approved - Business & Finance Committee (Agenda Item #27) - Chair Ron Knecht reported that the Business & Finance Committee met on December 2, 2010, and heard the following:
 
Ø NSHE State Supported Operating Budget to Actual Comparison for fiscal year 2009-2010.
Ø State Accountability report for fiscal year 2009-2010 reconciling the Board of Regents’ approved budget to actual revenues and expenditures per Legislative Letter of Intent.
Ø Self-Supporting Budget to Actual Comparison for fiscal year 2009-2010.
Ø Student association reports of revenues, expenditures and ending account balances for fiscal year 2009-2010.
Ø All Funds revenues and expenses of NSHE for the first quarter of fiscal year 2010-2011.
Ø NSHE Fiscal Exceptions of self-supporting budgets and the status of state appropriated budgets for the first quarter of fiscal year 2010-2011.
Ø Budget transfers of state appropriated funds between functions for the first quarter of fiscal year 2010-2011.


27.      Approved - Business & Finance Committee (Agenda Item #27) - Chair Ron Knecht
Ø State of Nevada’s Prepaid Tuition Plan.
Ø Budget and spending review of the last decade for the NSHE compared to other state agencies and outlook for tax, budget, and spending matters in the coming Legislative session.
 
Action items:
Board action was requested to approve the following recommendations of the Business and Finance Committee:
 
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the minutes from the September 9, 2010, Committee meeting (Ref. BF-1 on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the fiscal year 2009-2010 Accountability Report reconciling the Board of Regents approved budget to the fiscal year-end actual revenues and expenditures (Ref. BF-3a and BF-3b on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended approval for the Nevada System of Higher Education to expend excess student registration fee revenues for the purpose of funding additional adjunct faculty and to seek Interim Finance Committee authorization to expend any additional student fee revenues not utilized for adjunct faculty costs, within the state operating budgets for fiscal year 2010-2011 (Ref. BF-9 on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended approval of a resolution, on behalf of the University of Nevada, Reno and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, to issue fixed rate revenue bonds up to $177M to fund various projects and to refinance existing debt for interest savings. In addition the Committee recommended approval of a resolution, on behalf of the University of Nevada, Reno to expend $4M of the Mill and McCarran land sales proceeds as part of this financing transaction (Ref. BF-10 on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Knecht moved acceptance of the report and approval of the committee recommendations. Regent Wixom seconded. Motion carried. Regent Alden was absent.
 
 
28.           Approved - Cultural Diversity Committee (Agenda Item #28) - Chair Cedric Crear reported that the Cultural Diversity Committee met on December 3, 2010, and heard the following:
 
Institutional representatives from WNC, DRI and System Administration, including presidents and faculty senate chairs, presented their Faculty Diversity Plans that have been developed over the past year at the direction of the Cultural Diversity Committee.  The reports included information on the new efforts that will be put in place to recruit, hire, retain and promote faculty and staff members from diverse backgrounds and the unique challenges faced in meeting diversity goals for faculty. In addition, the reports included various current statistics such as the number of tenure and non-tenure track faculty by sex and race and ethnicity in order to define the problem and set goals. 


28.      Approved - Cultural Diversity Committee (Agenda Item #28) (Cont’d.)
Assistant Vice Chancellor Magdalena Martinez reported on the status of the College Access Challenge Grant (CAGC),including information on sub-grants that have been recently awarded to Nevada high schools and other participating organizations. In addition, Ms. Martinez reported on the recent work of the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Council, including work on the equity scorecard, which is being conducted in collaboration with WICHE and USC.
 
Vice Chancellor Bart Patterson reported on the progress to date on the implementation of the NSHE supply chain inclusion program previously approved by the Committee, much of which is dependent on completion of the business and finance iNtegrate modules. Chair Crear encouraged the institutions to move forward in areas that can be accomplished now and not to wait for completion of iNtegrate. Finally, Dr. Sterling Saddler, new Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion at UNLV, was introduced to the Committee. He discussed his initial vision for his work at the university and introduced key members of his staff.
 
In conclusion, Chair Crear indicated that during 2011, the Committee will shift its primary focus to students and student success in the context of various initiatives now underway in the system. For example, in the coming year the Committee will look to the institutions for goals and strategies related to increasing the number of minority graduates in an effort to meet the state’s goals for Complete College America.
 
Action items:
Board action was requested to approve the following recommendations of the Cultural Diversity Committee:
 
Ø The Committee recommended approval of the minutes of the September 10, 2010, meeting of the Cultural Diversity Committee (Ref. CD-1 on file in the Board office).
Ø The Committee recommended acceptance of the Faculty Diversity Plans proposed by WNC, DRI, and System Administration (Ref. CD-2a; CD-2b and CD-2c on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Crear moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations. Regent Page seconded. Motion carried. Regent Alden was absent.
 
 
29.              Approved - Health Sciences System Committee (Agenda Item #29) - Chair Raymond D. Rawson reported that at the December 3, 2010, Committee meeting, the Committee failed to make a motion on HSS-5 (Update on the Health Sciences System Mission and Scope of Services) and requested that the Board vote upon that item before continuing with the report.


29.       Approved - Health Sciences System Committee (Agenda Item #29) (Cont’d.)
Regent Wixom moved approval of the update on the Health Sciences System Mission and Scope of Services. Regent Page seconded. Motion carried. Regent Alden was absent.
 
Chair Rawson reported that the Health Sciences System Committee met on December 3, 2010, and heard the following:
 
Ø Chair Rawson reiterated the goal of the Health Sciences System and noted that it was an awesome and worthwhile responsibility.
Ø Executive Vice Chancellor Trevisan updated the Committee on the recent activities related to the efforts to transform University Medical Center into a more robust teaching hospital by developing a closer partnership with the NSHE health sciences programs. He provided the Committee with a brief history of related activities to date. This briefing included an overview of the appointment of a new 11 member UMC advisory committee to govern UMC. He also provided an overview of the establishment of a UMC/NSHE working group to oversee the joint academic relationship between UMC and NSHE programs. He also provided an overview of a two-part study that is under way to evaluate UMC’s operations and the UMC/NSHE partnership opportunities. He mentioned an overview document that was provided to the UMC advisory committee which describes the nature of the study and the efforts to collaborate and noted that a copy of this report will be provided to the Regents.
Ø Vice Chancellor Turner provided the Committee with an overview of an effort to share critical training equipment between NSHE nursing programs. UMC and NSC had high-tech simulation manikins which were no longer needed for their programs, and HSS staff helped to facilitate the transfer of this excess equipment to GBC and WNC nursing programs. Regents Knecht noted that this type of sharing among institutions demonstrates the value of having a coordinated system of higher education.
Chancellor Klaich provided an overview of the recent discussions regarding the mission, scope of services and recommendations for the future of HSS. He provided background on a number of discussions that took place among the NSHE stakeholders to determine the future of HSS. Dr. Glick, Dr. Smastrek and Executive Vice Chancellor Trevisan were tasked with developing a strategic plan to outline how to move forward into the future. The goals of this plan were to demonstrate: a commitment to academic master planning, a commitment to inter-institution collaboration, and a commitment to ensuring a strategic position for the System in the plan. The ultimate plan successfully incorporated each of these elements. The plan outlined: the HSS mission as defined by the Board; the role of the Executive Vice Chancellor; it recommended a specific governance structure with representatives from the related institutions; and six specific areas to be addressed, including expanding the UNSOM with respect to its relationship with UMC, addressing the development of the Shadow Lane Campus, expanding research collaboration, developing a faculty road map, and promote collaboration among institutions. Regent Wixom complemented the


29.       Approved - Health Sciences System Committee (Agenda Item #29) (Cont’d.)
parties on this accomplishment as a significant step forward. He outlined some specific points of action related to developing a more robust and coordinated physical footprint in the Shadow Lane Campus, including: enhancing the footprint for the medical school, coordination of footprint of SLC among the NSHE users, developing an ongoing collaboration with UMC in developing an overall footprint of the area, ongoing development of a relationship for Ruvo Center to develop the SLC area into a medical district. He suggested that a topic of this nature be added to the plan. Regent Rawson mentioned that there is an opportunity to develop our programs to become stronger resources to the community so fewer people have to go out of state for care.
 
Chancellor Klaich noted that the concept of an Academic Health Center was discussed when the plan was under development.  Executive Vice Chancellor Trevisan noted that facilities planning was an integral part of the UMC study. Regent Cobb voiced a concern about the goals as stated in the plan, omitting a specific reference to the Dental School, and mentioned that the Dental School should be more specifically articulated as a goal. Regent Rawson mentioned the need for Dental Residency program strength. Executive Vice Chancellor Trevisan reiterated the importance of the Dental School and noted he would modify the document to reflect this.
 
Regent Cobb mentioned that in the plan, the governance committee provided the opportunity to add additional members and he suggested that the Chair of the Regents HSS Committee be included. Regent Klaich suggested that it is better for the Regents not to participate in the management-level activities, but rather remain focused on policy issues. 
 
Regent Gallagher brought up the historical evolution of the HSS. She is pleased that the two presidents and the Executive Vice Chancellor worked together to develop a plan. She noted that there was an identity problem with the UNSOM in Southern Nevada. She stated that it is important to establish the footprint and the collaboration. She encouraged staff to be careful to develop a cohesive and inclusive plan. She added that HSS is a great opportunity for the System, health care and the State of Nevada. She noted that it is important to remember that it doesn’t matter who is doing what as long as we are all doing something meaningful. She supports the plan and congratulated the group for their willingness to coordinate and encouraged the group to continue on with the development of the HSS. 
Ø Regent Knecht raised an issue relating to the effect new federal health care policy may have on our students and recognized Executive Vice Chancellor Trevisan’s help in providing some background materials on this. And while it may be premature to act now, he noted that we should still remain vigilant in preventing harm to our students as a result of these policies.
Ø Regent Alden asked if the next agenda could include a discussion of the creation of another unit in the System called health science unit, and consider leadership and other issues related to developing something like an Oregon Medical Center in Nevada. He stated that we need to be the leaders in health. He asked for the


29.      Approved - Health Sciences System Committee (Agenda Item #29) (Cont’d.)
development of the points needed for a long-term plan.
 
Regent Cobb noted that only the CSN dental hygiene program was mentioned in the plan and noted that Truckee Meadows also has such a program which should be included in the plan. Executive Vice Chancellor Trevisan said he would include this program in the plan.
 
Action items:
Board action is requested to approve the following recommendations of the Regents Health Sciences System Committee:
 
ØThe Committee recommended approval of the minutes of the September 10, 2010, meeting (Ref. HSS-1 on file in the Board office).
 
Regent Rawson moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations. Regent Knecht seconded. Motion carried. Regent Alden was absent.
 
 
30.           New Business (Agenda Item #30) – Regent Knecht highly recommended a recently released documentary entitled “Waiting for Superman.” He also requested that the Board office make DVDs of that documentary available to Regents that wish to see it.
 
Regent Gallagher related that working with Regent Rawson made her remember the other champions of higher education that were in the Legislature such as Senator Bill Raggio, former Speaker of the Assembly Joe Dini, Jr., former Assemblyman John Marvel and former Assemblyman John Carpenter. She recommended that the Board of Regents recognize the efforts of Senator Raggio within the next year for the great service that he has done.
 
 
The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
 
 
Prepared by:                          Jessica C. McMullen
                                               Administrative Assistant IV
 
Submitted by:                        Scott G. Wasserman
                                               CEO and Special Counsel to the Board of Regents
 
 
Approved by the Board of Regents at the April 8, 2011, meeting.