12/07/1988

UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
December 7-8, 1988








12-07-1988

Pages 92-98



                         BOARD OF REGENTS

                    UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM

                        December 7-9, 1988



The Board of Regents met on the above dates in the Waterford

Room, Carson Valley Inn, Minden, Nevada.



Members Present:  Mrs. June F. Whitley, Chairman

                  Dr. James Eardley

                  Mrs. Dorothy S. Gallagher

                  Mrs. Joan Kenney

                  Mr. Daniel J. Klaich

                  Mrs. Jo Ann Sheerin

                  Mrs. Carolyn M. Sparks

                  Mrs. Jill Derby, Regent-Elect

                  Dr. Lonnie Hammargren, Regent-Elect



Members Absent:   Mr. Joseph M. Foley

                  Mr. Chris Karamanos



Others Present:   Chancellor Mark H. Dawson

                  President William Berg, NNCC

                  President Anthony Calabro, WNCC

                  President Joseph Crowley, UNR

                  President John Gwaltney, TMCC

                  President Robert Maxson, UNLV

                  President Paul Meacham, CCCC

                  Vice President Dale Schulke, DRI

                  Mr. Donald Klasic, General Counsel

                  Dr. Warren Fox, Vice Chancellor

                  Mr. Ron Sparks, Vice Chancellor

                  Mrs. Edna Brigham, Assistant to the Chancellor

                  Ms. Karen Steinberg, Director of Institutional

                      Research

                  Ms. Mary Lou Moser, Secretary

                  Mrs. Leslie Jacques, Assistant to the Secretary



Also present were Faculty Senate Chairmen Cheryl Bowles (UNLV),

Patricia Crookham (NNCC), Gilbert Cochran (DRI), Tom Kendall

(Unit), Robert Mead (UNR), Paul Nelson (WNCC), Dru Raney (CCCC)

and Dave Wilkins (TMCC).



A workshop for Regents, Presidents, Faculty Senate Chairmen, the

Chancellor and the Chancellor's staff was held.  Chairman Whitley

called the meeting to order, declaring that all attendees were

invited to actively participate in discussion of agenda items.



 1.  Welcome and Workshop Preview



     Chairman Whitley and Chancellor Dawson welcomed participants

     to the Fall workshop and stated that they hoped for a very

     educational workshop over the next few days and welcomed

     open discussion on the agenda items.  Chancellor Dawson gave

     a preview of the agenda.



     Chairman Whitley introduced newly elected Regents Jill Derby

     and Lonnie Hammargren.



Thursday, December 8, 1988



 2.  Boardsmanship



     Mr. Robert A. Cashell, Chairman of the Board of Cashell

     Management Corporation, former Lt. Governor of the State

     of Nevada and former Chairman of the Board of Regents, and

     Mr. William Martin, Chairman of the Board and Chief Execu-

     tive Officer of Nevada National Bank presided over the dis-

     cussion on boardsmanship.  The discussion included internal

     workings of a board, such as setting and reaching goals;

     representing a district, yet maintaining a Statewide per-

     spective; effective decision making; and defining an "ex-

     cellent" board.  Also discussed were external relationships

     such as serving UNS interests; supporting progress of each

     institution; representing the System; and demonstrating

     leadership to the State.



     Mr. Martin stated that public and private boards differ

     mainly by the selection process, but also by setting direc-

     tions and reaching the goals slated for the organization.

     The boards are similar in respect to future aspects and

     competition for funding.  The main objective for a board is

     to set a common goal without losing site of the broader

     picture.



     Mr. Cashell referred to the common goal as a UNS "System-

     wide" goal which should encompass what is best for the

     System and the State of Nevada.  He suggested that after a

     member is elected to the Board, he should not remain demo-

     cratic or republican, or in fact, should not remain a

     "district" Regent, but rather a University of Nevada System

     Regent.  There must be compromises within the decision-

     making process, and members should agree to disagree, then

     support the final decision.



     Mr. Cashell further suggested that in dealing with the Ne-

     vada State Legislature, UNS should appear before the Legis-

     lature with coordinated representation with at least two

     representatives -- one to speak and one to listen.



     Dr. Eardley stated that he felt the mission and goals of the

     institutions were very general and may possibly duplicate

     efforts of other institutions.  Dr. Eardley's conception of

     the Board of Regents' mission was to provide education for

     students in Nevada.



     Mrs. Gallagher stated that the Board has not set goals dur-

     ing the last 2-3 years and felt it was time to set goals for

     the Board of Regents.  She stated that the primary concern

     of the Board of Regents is the funding and growth of the

     institutions.  With the fast paced growth, she is concerned

     about maintaining quality education.



     Mr. Klaich stated his concerns and felt that the Board is

     fearful of the future in regard to growth, funding, identity

     and reapportionment.



     President Calabro stated that Nevada is in a positive posi-

     tion in comparison to other western states and that we

     shouldn't be so hard on ourselves.



     Mrs. Sparks agreed with President Calabro and felt that the

     credibility of education in the State of Nevada is return-

     ing.  She felt that the System was giving quality education,

     but was in need of additional classroom space.



     In reference to institutional goals, Chairman Whitley stated

     that long-range goals will direct the Board and institutions

     to develop common goals.



     President Crowley stated that the institutions were not

     capable of strategic planning for the System.  The institu-

     tions are very diverse.  The Council of Presidents are ad-

     dressing this issue, but suggested we should not develop

     one strategic plan.  In regard to this issue, President

     Berg stated that he felt that institutions should not be

     required to follow other institutions' policies, because

     of the diversity.



     Faculty Senate Chairman Dru Raney stated that there should

     be a commitment to shared governance within the System.



     Mr. Cashell stated that the Board may be creating its own

     problems.  There is a strong need to communicate, compromise

     and be realistic.  Communication is the major problem for

     private and public boards.  Regents should be able to com-

     municate among themselves.  He suggested that the Board

     honestly critique itself.  The Board should set goals for

     itself and direct these goals to helping the institutions.

     He advised listening to and working with Presidents.  The

     Board should not get involved in Campus politics.  The Board

     should utilize its people on Campuses and work as a team.



     The question was asked, "What makes a good Board member?".

     President Crowley felt a board member should hire, fire and

     nurture administration; not get involved in Campus politics;

     advance ideas, then stop when appropriate; and get along

     with each other by understanding strengths and weaknesses

     of fellow members.



     Faculty Senate Chairman Patricia Crookham felt that the

     Board should listen to Faculty Senate Chairmen.  The Faculty

     Senate Chairmen represent thousands of people and their con-

     cerns.



     Mrs. Gallagher stated that, in her opinion, a Regent should

     listen to faculty, gather information from faculty, and the

     faculty should have access to a Regent.  A Regent must lis-

     ten, but can't make promises.  A Regent should always notify

     the President if they will be on the Campus.



     Mrs. Sheerin suggested that the Board become educated on

     national education issues and be able to discuss these is-

     sues and attain goals set forth.  She further suggested that

     the Board be evaluated once a year, as the Presidents are.



     In closing, Mr. Cashell suggested that the Presidents become

     more creative at meetings; there should be no name calling

     or spreading of rumors; the buck stops at the Chairman; the

     Chairman must be vocal and be able to confront the issues.



Thursday afternoon, December 8, 1988



 3.  Agenda for the Future



     Vice Chancellor Warren Fox opened the discussion by stating

     that Nevada's growth has increased 56% over the past 10

     years and is predicted to continue to increase.  Growth af-

     fects research, developmental education, buildings, faculty,

     staff and recruitment of students.



     The following are issues facing the University of Nevada

     System:



     A.  "Access" concerns the ability of potential students to

         enroll in higher education.  The facts are 1) many more

         students plan to enroll in postsecondary education in

         Nevada; 2) State population is growing; and 3) Regents

         endorsed a policy to encourage increased access for

         those who have not traditionally participated in higher

         education.  Questions to ask ourselves are 1) do we have

         the current capacity to maintain access?; 2) can we en-

         roll all who apply?; and 3) do we need enrollment caps?



         President Maxson stated that he felt UNS has a good

         ratio between institutions and State population.  If

         the System should adopt capping, there would be no

         alternatives to fall back on.  The Universities do not

         have critical mass of full-time students, especially

         in certain programs such as foreign languages, to sup-

         port capping.



     B.  "Quality" concerns our ability to offer high quality

         instruction to students who enroll, and quality re-

         search and public service.  Facts are 1) quality is a

         very difficult attribute to measure; 2) more programs

         are accredited or seeking specialized accreditation;

         3) impressions of UNS institutions seem to be more posi-

         tive by Nevadans; and 4) UNS is raising admission

         standards at the Universities.  Questions to ask our-

         selves are 1) can we assure quality and accommodate

         growth?; 2) how do we measure quality?; and 3) how do

         we convey quality to students?



         Mrs. Sheerin pointed out that quality is the driving

         force behind support for higher education.  President

         Calabro stated that he felt quality and access main-

         tained an equal position on the scale of higher educa-

         tion.  President Maxson stated that growth is increas-

         ing quality.



     C.  "Cost of Education" concerns both what the Campus must

         spend to offer programs of study, and the students'

         ability to pay a fair share of education.  The facts

         are 1) cost of education is rising; 2) students' per-

         ceptions of the cost of education are greater than the

         actual costs; 3) cost of education to the student in

         Nevada is low in comparison with other states.  Ques-

         tions to ask ourselves are 1) what is the appropriate

         share of the cost of education for the student to bear?;

         2) what is an appropriate tuition policy for the UNS?;

         and 3) what can/should the UNS do to assist the parents

         with the cost of education their children (financial

         aid, tuition assistance programs)?



     D.  "State Resources" must be increased to provide access

         and quality.  The facts are 1) enrollment growth alone

         will require increased resources; 2) to make significant

         improvement in quality, even more resources are requir-

         ed; and 3) the UNS share of State allocations is not

         increasing.  Questions to ask ourselves are 1) does the

         State have the resources required to meet the growth in

         enrollments?; 2) does the State have the resources re-

         quired to meet the growth in enrollment and implement

         quality programs?; 3) what is the appropriate role for

         the UNS in educating Nevada's citizens to the cost of

         quality higher education?; and 4) what is the role of

         the Board in obtaining resources?



     E.  "Campuses/Facilities" must provide adequate space and

         facilities to provide instruction to increasing numbers

         of students.  The facts are 1) our Campuses are cur-

         rently close to or exceeding capacity; 2) construction

         and equipment costs are rising; and 3) UNS has signifi-

         cant unmet capital construction needs.  Questions to

         ask ourselves are 1) are our current Campuses adequate

         to meet current and future demands?; 2) do we meet

         demands best by increasing the size of Campuses or

         building new Campuses?; and 3) how do we decide where

         to build?



     F.  In preparing the agenda for the future, questions to ask

         ourselves are 1) what is the role of the Board of Re-

         gents in preparing the agenda? and 2) what directions

         for the future of the University of Nevada System should

         we pursue?



     Vice Chancellor Fox requested that each participant answer a

     questionnaire, which he and Mrs. Karen Steinberg tallied,

     analyzed and presented to the participants, which is filed

     in the Regents Office.



Friday, December 9, 1988



 4.  Financing Higher Education



     The cost of education is rising, and coupled with Nevada's

     growth, the UNS faces tough, complex questions on financing

     education into the 21st century.  Discussions were centered

     on the State of Nevada's recently released revenue study

     prepared by The Urban Institute and Price Waterhouse, and

     its impact on UNS; the UNS 1989-91 Budget Request and pri-

     orities; and Estate Fund procedures.



     Vice Chancellor Ron Sparks reviewed the budget, priorities

     and formulas.  He stressed that the funding for the Base

     Budget was ultimate priority of the UNS, with faculty sal-

     aries as next in line.  The Faculty Senate Chairmen unani-

     mously supporting funding for the Base Budget with the hopes

     that faculty salaries would be then increased.  The Chairmen

     stated they will deliver the message to their faculties.



     Vice Chancellor Sparks commended Mrs. Karen Steinberg and

     Dr. Jim Rimpau for their deciphering of the letter from

     Price Waterhouse in regard to the future of Nevada planning.

     The study indicated that under current conditions UNS could

     operate with a $7 million increase.  Mr. Sparks indicated

     that UNS needs $15-16 million in State General Fund money

     next fiscal year just to take care of the enrollment in-

     crease.  The study also indicated that the estate tax and

     slot tax should not be dedicated for education.  The Chan-

     cellor's staff submitted information on enrollment figures,

     projections, etc. to The Urban Institute and Price Water-

     house, but the information was not used in the final study.

     Therefore, the study is very alarming to UNS.



     Mr. Klaich stated that a citizens advisory group will be

     meeting on December 12 to address the needs of the State of

     Nevada and present them to the Legislature.



     Dr. Hammargren suggested that the Chancellor's staff submit

     a report on the student to The Urban Institute and Price

     Waterhouse, before the final report is printed.



     Chancellor Dawson suggested a special teleconference meeting

     of the Board of Regents be slated to approve a Handbook

     change to the Policies and Procedures of the UNS Estate Fund

     and to send the proposals back to the Estate Fund Committee

     for reconsideration.



     Vice Chancellor Fox stated that he felt the Board should

     reaffirm to the public that it is not the intent of the

     Board to let these funds go into the General Fund.  He

     emphasized the need to obtain the funds for the submitted

     proposals.



Chancellor Dawson thanked the participants of the workshop for

their openness and felt that the workshop was indeed a success.



Chairman Whitley expressed her thanks to Chancellor Dawson and

Secretary Moser for preparing the workshop agenda and arranging

for the facilities.



The workshop adjourned at 11:20 A.M. on Friday, December 9, 1988.



                             Mary Lou Moser

                             Secretary of the Board

                                                       12-07-1988