UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes
December 11-12, 1970


Pages 93-125



December 11-12, 1970

The Board of Regents met on December 11, 1970 in the Jot Travis

Student Union, University of Nevada, Reno.

Members present: Fred M. Anderson, M. D.

Mr. James H. Bilbray

Mr. Procter Hug, Jr.

Mr. Harold Jacobsen

Mrs. Molly Knudtsen

Louis Lombardi, M. D.

Mr. Paul Mc Dermott

Mr. Albert Seeliger

Dr. Juanita White

Members absent: Mr. Thomas G. Bell

Mr. Archie C. Grant

Others present: Chancellor Neil D. Humphrey

President N. Edd Miller (UNR)

President R. J. Zorn (UNLV)

Director Charles R. Donnelly (CCD)

Director John M. Ward (DRI)

Acting Vice President James T. Anderson (UNR)

Vice President Donald H. Baepler (UNLV)

Mr. Melvin Steninger, Regent-Elect

Dr. Edmund Barmettler, Faculty Senate Chairman


Dr. Don Fowler, Faculty Senate Chairman (DRI)

Mr. Bernard Sadowsky, Faculty Senate Chairman


Dr. John Vergiels, Faculty Senate Chairman


Mr. Edward L. Pine, Business Manager (UNR)

Mr. Herman Westfall, Business Manager (UNLV)

Mr. Edward Olsen, Director of Information (UNR)

Mr. Daniel Walsh, Chief Deputy Attorney General

Mr. Richard Myers, CSUN President

Miss Frankie Sue Del Papa, ASUN President

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hug at 10:45 A.M.

1. Approval of Minutes

Upon motion by Mr. Jacobsen, seconded by Dr. Lombardi, the

minutes of the regular meeting of November 20-21, 1970

were approved as distributed.

2. Report of the Committee of the Whole Meeting of December

11, 1970

Mr. Hug reported that the Committee of the Whole had re-

ceived Phase II presentations from UNLV on 3 new programs:

Additional options to the Ed. Specialist Program, of

Elementary Education, Secondary Education and Special


Doctor of Education (Ed. D.)

Doctor of Business Administration (D. B. A.)

Mr. Hug noted that the Committee of the Whole had recommend-

ed that these new programs be approved subject to funding

and he requested approval by the Board.

Motion by Dr. White, seconded by Mr. Jacobsen, carried with-

out dissent that the above new programs be approved for

UNLV, subject to funding by the Legislature and subject to

additional review at 1971-72 Work Program time.

3. Resolution from ASUN

Miss Del Papa introduced the following resolution by the

ASUN Senate:

WHEREAS, the charges against Professor Paul Adamian,

the actions of the Board of Regents in the matter and

the Hearing Committee's recommendations have become

issues of considerable controversy, and

WHEREAS, the Faculty Hearing was open to the public,


WHEREAS, Nevada State Law, as cited below, requires

an open hearing on the request of the individual


NRS, Chapter 241, section 241.030 (cross reference

section 396.100 Board of Regents, same wording)

"Nothing contained in this chapter shall be con-

strued to prevent the legislative body of a public

agendy...from holding executive sessions to con-

sider...dismissal of a public officer or employee

or to hear complaints or charges brought against

such officer or employee by another public officer,

person or employee unless such officer or employee

requests a public hearing." and,

WHEREAS, Paul Adamian has requested that the Regents

hold a public meeting to hear his case,

THEREFORE, the ASUN Senate respects and supports Mr.

Adamian's request and asks the Board of Regents to

abide by the laws of the State of Nevada and hold an

open meeting on the charges against Adamian.

Miss Del Papa stated that she would like an opinion from

Mr. Walsh or from Mr. Hug on the applicability of the

statute she had referenced and a response from the Board

of Regents as to whether the request for an open meeting

would be granted.

Mr. Hug stated that he had received a request from Dr.

Adamian that the Board consider his case in open session.

He noted that the matter of an open session had been

raised the previous day and Mr. Walsh had been asked to

review the statute under discussion.

Mr. Walsh stated that he had done some research in the area

of statutory construction which he noted was generally the

routine followed when attempting to interpret the meaning

of a statute. He noted that the courts have established

certain principles which should be applied when interpret-

ing this type of statute.

Mr. Walsh pointed out that the first paragraph of NRS 296.

100 which refers to open meetings of the Board of Regents

reads "...it is the intent of this section that the Board's

action be taken openly and that its deliberations be con-

ducted openly." However, he pointed out, paragraph 4 states

that "Nothing contained in this section shall be construed

to prevent the Board of Regents from holding executive

sessions to consider the appointment, employment or dismis-

sal of a public officer or employee..." and then it says

"or to hear complaints or charges brought against such

officer or employee by another public officer, person or

employee unless such officer or employee requests a public

hearing." Mr. Walsh stated that the two parts of the

clause must be considered, the first part being that the

Board of Regents may not be prevented from holding execu-

tive sessions to consider the appointment, employment or

dismissal of a public officer or employee. There is no

record of any board in the State, or any county or city

board, having held a public hearing to determine qualifi-

cations of the people they are about to hire. Mr. Walsh

also stated that the courts have said when the term "or"

is used, it is presumed to be used in the disjunctive;

that is, separating or causing to separate, disjoining.

These two clauses are therefore separate ideas since

the use of the word "or" between clauses prevents the

second clause from acting as a limitation on the first.

Mr. Walsh also stated that there are other rules of

statutory construction which may also be considered. One

is called parliamentary; that is, when a statute is found

to be ambiguous you then consider statutes relating to

the same subject matter. For example, the statute under

discussion was adopted in 1960 along with 3 other statutes

that applied to cities and counties which provide that

no city or county board can consider appointments for

employment in public open meetings.

Mr. Walsh noted that there is a 3rd factor which influences

interpretation and that is custom and practice. He pointed

out that the University Board of Regents has been operating

under this statute for several years and it has been the

custom of this Board to hold personnel sessions considering

appointment, employment or dismissal in executive meetings

and this custom has gone unchallenged.

He suggested that comparisons might logically be made with

a court or jury proceedings; that is, an open hearing as

far as evidence was concerned was held and then the jury

or judge retires to make its decision in closed session.

He advised that the Board could also do this at its dis-

cretion; that is, deliberate in private.

Mr. Bilbray asked if it was Mr. Walsh's opinion that the

Board of Regents could make the determination as to whether

the meeting to consider the matter of Dr. Adamian would be

open or closed. Mr. Walsh said yes.

Mr. Bilbray moved that the hearing be open to the public.

Mr. Hug said he believed that Mr. Walsh's analogy to a court

is valid. He noted that no new evidence will come before

the Board and therefore deliberations on personnel matters

should be separate and apart from the public session.

Mr. Bilbray said he believed the Board should function more

as an appeal or review board. He also stated that the

allegations in this case have been made in public, therefore

the hearing should be in public.

Mr. Jacobsen pointed out that there has already been a

public hearing in the case of Dr. Adamian, and action taken

by the Board of Regents at this point will be in light of

evidence already introduced. He said he would oppose any

new evidence being introduced and believed the Board of

Regents is entitled to deliberate in private. Mr. Jacobsen

also noted that the motion had not been seconded and sug-

gested that further discussion was out of order.

Motion was declared to have failed for lack of a second.

Dr. Anderson noted that several matters had been introduced;

that is, the request by Dr. Adamian that the Board consider

his case in public, the support of the ASUN for his request,

the accompanying resolution by the ASUN stating that the

Board must grant the request under requirements of the State

Law; and an opinion by the Attorney General that the Board

was not compelled to consider personnel matters such as

this in open meeting. He suggested that a decision on the

request be postponed to allow for discussion in the after-


Dr. Anderson moved that decision on this matter be post-

poned until after lunch. Motion seconded by Mr. Bilbray,

failed with 2 affirmative and 7 opposing votes.

Mr. Jacobsen stated that the Faculty Hearing Committee

had conducted a public hearing, at the request of Dr.

Adamian, but had deliberated in private and had reached

its decision in private.

Mr. Jacobsen moved that deliberations of the Board concern-

ing the Adamian matter be held in closed session. Motion

seconded by Mr. Seeliger, carried with the following roll

call vote:

No - Dr. Anderson, Mr. Bilbray

Yes - Mr. Hug, Mr. Jacobsen, Mrs. Knudtsen, Dr.

Lombardi, Mr. Mc Dermott, Mr. Seeliger,

Dr. White

Mr. Bill May, identifying himself as a student, stated that

he was speaking on behalf of approximately 50 students and

faculty who had participated in Governor's Day and wished

to indicate their complicity in the demonstrations which

occurred. Mr. May noted that some of these complicity

statements were in the form of individual statements and

some were signatures to the following petition (complete

text of Mr. May's statements is filed with permanent


At this time I feel compelled to make known the fact

that I participated, out of moral objection, in all

acts of disruption and demonstration related to Gov-

ernor's Day of May 5, 1970. I accept full responsi-

bility for my actions that day, feeling they were

perfectly justified. Governor Laxalt and N. Edd

Miller are guilty of irresponsible acts due to their

negligence to recognize and respect our feelings due

to the events preceding Governor's Day -- the tragedy

at Kent State and the dictatorial, unconstitutional

decision to invade Cambodia followed by the blatant


The actions being taken as a result of our actions on

that day are illegitimate, injudicious and beyond the

powers of the Board of Regents. However, Dr. Adamian

is being subjected to discipline by this improper

authority and I deem it legally and morally correct

to receive the same treatment, regardless of how ludi-

crous it is.

Mr. May noted that the above petition was signed by approx-

imately 40 students, and individual statements had been

submitted by 14 other students, 1 of which he read, as


In the interests of a fair and impartial justice, I

feel constrained to indict myself for, in your words,

attempting to stop a motorcade, leading raucous and

rude cat-calls, and encouraging others to disrupt the

ceremonies on Governor's Day of last May 5.

I acknowledge no guilt and feel no remorse for what

I did. My actions on May 5 were, in my opinion, legit-

imate, responsible and in fact obligatory responses to

an intolerable situation. Following as it did the

deaths at Kent State and the preceding and even more

murderous hypocrisy of the Cambodian invasion, the

offensive militaristic exhibition of Governor's Day

was little less than a statement condoning and sanc-

tioning extreme use of violence. This statement I

could not, and can not accept, and I will continue

to resist this obviously illegitimate authority.

If indeed you are persons of justice and integrity,

my treatment should be the same accorded Professor

Paul Adamian, and as such, I should be tried and

disciplined in a similar manner, or he should be


I await your response.

Mr. May submitted the statements and letters to which he

had referred and urged the Regents to look them over care-

fully as they represented a written commitment by those

who had signed them. Mr. May also urged the Regents to

respond in some manner.

(Statements and letters on file in Chancellor's Office.)

Dr. Anderson commented on the points made by Mr. May, noting

that the charge that the Governor's Day ceremonies were a

condonment of violence was invalid since these ceremonies

were an annual activity at the University and had been held

for many years. The 1970 ceremonies had been scheduled

many months in advance of the occurrence at Kent State and

only by a very curious reasoning could the assumption be

made that holding of scheduled ceremonies was in any way

sanctioning the tragedy which occurred in Ohio.

Dr. Anderson also pointed out that where a mass demonstra-

tion occurs, it is not common practice that everyone who

participates is charged; rather those who are prominent

or who are believed to have a special type of responsibility

which they have violated by their actions would be charged.

However, he said, if any of those students or faculty who

have submitted statements wish to voluntarily accept the

same action that may be taken in the case of Dr. Adamian,

they are certainly free to do so.

Mr. Jacobsen noted that Mr. May had stated that they could

not get the attention of anyone and asked if they had made

a direct approach to the President concerning permission to

demonstrate at Mackay Stadium. Mr. May stated that several

people had approached both President Miller and Governor

Laxalt and asked that they address the situation; that is,

that they speak to the Kent State matter and to the Cam-

bodian invasion.

Mr. Jacobsen asked if Mr. May felt that the only way they

could be heard was to demonstrate. He suggested they try

talking instead.

Mr. May stated that in his opinion the kind of talk the

Regents refer to is not communication. If there is going

to be communication between the students and the Regents,

he stated, there must be some kind of listening and some

kind of commitment to involvement. Mr. May continued by

stating: "If we keep making petitions and statements to

no avail then the only thing that will bring us out into

the open, the only kind of statements that will have any

effect is a statement which is disruption, non-violent

disruption. We don't want to approach this. it would be

much better if we did not have to tromp on the rights of

others but our rights are being tromped on, too. We may

have, in some way, disrupted the freedom of speech of the

ROTC Department. At the same time, our freedom to affirm

life and not to take life had been tromped on."

Mr. Hug accepted the statements presented by Mr. May. He

noted, however, that the Board of Regents has made con-

siderable effort throughout the past years to listen to

the student and the faculty. He pointed out that student

representatives are invited to be present at each Board

meeting and the Board has made a sincere effort to under-

stand the student point of view. One problem, he noted,

is that just because the view is expressed does not mean

the Board of Regents is going to agree with it. He sug-

gested there be no confusion between agreeing to listen

and commiting the Board to agree with, or acting on, every


Mr. May stated that the students did not require action by

the Regents on every request, they just required that some

of the requests be acted upon. He continued by stating

that "all the talk in the world is fine but when there is

no behavior modification then we begin to wonder what the

effect of talking is."

Mr. Hug pointed out that students have had considerable

influence over the past years and many decisions have

been made based on requests from students and faculty.

There is no lack of concern on the part of the Regents,

he said; although it is true there have been many times

when the Regents have not been convinced and have re-

ferred matters back to the students or the Administration.

Frequently, in these instances, the result has been even-

tual adoption of a policy more acceptable to all parties

than that originally proposed.

4. Report of Gifts

A. Dr. Donnelly reported that Mr. Mark Chilton of Elko has

proposed a gift of 34.469 acres of land to Elko Com-

munity College, to be deeded in 2 parcels, 1 in 1970

and 1 in 1971. The land is located northwest of Elko,

adjacent to property previously deeded to the Univer-


Chancellor Humphrey recommended acceptance.

Motion by Mr. Jacobsen, seconded by Dr. Lombardi, car-

ried without dissent that the above recommendation be


B. Chancellor Humphrey reported that the Kennecott Copper

Corporation (Nevada Mines Division - Mc Gill) has given

the University a replica of the Fremont Mountain Howit-

zer as a football trophy for use between UNR and UNLV.

Replacement cost of this trophy has been estimated at

$3000. Chancellor Humphrey recommended that the gift

be formally acknowledged and, further, that the in-

volvement of the Tyson-Curtis-Wilson agency in re-

searching, developing and coordinating this project be


Motion by Mr. Seeliger, seconded by Dr. Lombardi, car-

ried without dissent that the above recommendation be


C. President Miller reported that the family of the late

Randy Aiazzi has indicated that they wish to establish

a memorial fund to be known as the Buck and Randy

Aiazzi Scholarship Fund for deserving students gradu-

ating from Yerington High School and attending the

University of Nevada, Reno.

(Details of the management of the fund were listed in

Ref. A of the agenda and filed with permanent minutes.)

Chancellor Humphrey recommended approval.

Motion by Mr. Jacobsen, seconded by Mr. Seeliger, car-

ried without dissent that the above recommendation be


D. Gifts and grants were recommended for acceptance as

indicated in Ref. B filed with permanent minutes.

Motion by Mr. Bilbray, seconded by Mr. Knudtsen, car-

ried without dissent that the above recommendation

be approved.

5. Report of Personnel Appointments

Approval of the following personnel appointments was recom-

mended by the appropriate officers:



Frank Dell 'Apa, Adjunct Associate Professor of Judicial

Administration, 8/1/70-6/30/71 - (new appointment)



Leon Harry Steinberg, Adjunct Professor of Radiology,



Harold F. Stewart, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Biology,



Robert N. Knittel, Administrative Systems Analyst/Program-

mer, 11/24/70-6/30/71 at a salary of $8337.50 based on

annual rate of $13,650 (replacement for G. D. Vance)

Motion by Mrs. Knudtsen, seconded by Mr. Jacobsen, carried

without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.

6. School of Medical Sciences, UNR

President Miller reported that a detailed report from the

School of Medical Sciences concerning the progress of plan-

ning for the School, including the planning for physical

plant, and all other aspects preparatory to receiving stu-

dents in Fall 1971, will be made at the February meeting.

7. Student Publications Code, UNR

President Miller recalled that in November the Board re-

viewed a statement of policy concerning student publications

at UNR but deferred action until December in order that con-

sideration might be given to inclusion of a clause prohibit-

ing obscenity in such publications. The policy statement

proposed by ASUN was included with the agenda as Ref. D

and is filed with permanent minutes.

Miss Del Papa presented the following statement on behalf

of ASUN in response to the Regents expression of concern:

In response to the Publication Code presented to the

Board of Regents at the June, 1970 meeting, we sent

to President Miller a copy of ASUN Publication Board

By-Laws and a copy of our "Criteria of a Good News-


Of special interest to the Regents are the following

sections of the By-Laws that pertain to the Sagebrush


420-101B1 Shall determine the editorial policy of

the Sagebrush subject to the supervisory

control of the Publications Board.

420-101B2 Shall determine with the Business Manager of

the Sagebrush the size of the paper per is-

sue and the number of publications per semes-

ter, subject to the approval of the Publica-

tions Board and the Finance Control Board.

420-101B3 Shall be responsible to the Publications

Board for all material that appears in the


420-101B4 Shall adhere to the canons of good journal-

ism in all material printed in the Sagebrush.

420-101B6 Shall insure that no material violates the

laws of libel, copyright, obscenity, or

postal regulations.

In light of the recent opinion letters that were print-

ed in the Sagebrush, the ASUN Publications Board adopt-

ed the following additional policy statement for all

ASUN publications:

ASUN publications will avoid printing vulgar words.

If "four letter" words must be used in the context

of a news story or in opinion pieces, they will

be run with a first letter followed by blanks

according to the number of letters. ASUN publica-

tions also will not print obscene pictures.

We feel that student publications are an integral part

of the College experience. We further feel that the

proper control of student publications rests with the

ASUN Publications Board.

The above statement was signed by Frankie Sue Del Papa,

ASUN President, and Peter Moss, Vice President of Finance

and Publications.

In the discussions following, opinions were expressed con-

cerning the use of profanity or obscenity in a student


Dr. Anderson questioned the desirability of including this

kind of language, pointing out that the Sagebrush has, in

effect, captive subscribers in that a fee is assessed the

student whether he reads the paper or not. He stated that

he has received many complaints concerning this factor.

Mr. Jacobsen agreed with Dr. Anderson, pointing out that

the students must recognize that the Sagebrush contributes

to the image of the University throughout the State and

accept the responsibility of protecting that image.

Miss Del Papa stated that she has received no complaints

concerning the Sagebrush but suggested that if students

do not approve of the newspaper they should address their

complaints to the student body officers.

In response to a question from the Board concerning the

policy of commercial newspapers, Regent-Elect Steninger

expressed the opinion that the Board of Regents must be

considered to be in the position of publisher of the student

newspaper and the Publications Board would be compared to

an editorial board. He stated that it is his policy to

avoid objectionable words whenever possible and suggested

that for a student newspaper this requirement should be

more stringent than for public newspapers.

President Miller pointed out that the proposal by the ASUN

Publications Board stated that "ASUN publications will

avoid printing vulgar words."

Mr. Mc Dermott stated that it appeared that this is a

commitment on the part of the students and should be rec-

ognized as such. He agreed the proposal was proper.

Sheila Caudle, editor of the Sagebrush, stated that she

did not agree with the amended policy in that she believed

that if profanity is relevant it should be included. She

said she considers the proposal to be a compromise and that

she personally believed she would be misrepresenting a

faction of the student body if she did not print letters

to the editors even though they do contain objectionable


Mr. Carl Haviland, reporter for the Reno Evening Gazette,

commented on the proposed policy at the request of the

Regents. He pointed out that freedom of the Press is

established constitutionally; however, he noted that use

of profanity in a commercial newspaper depends on the

policy of the publisher. A working reporter will often

hear profanity but is not compelled to quote it. There

should be no effort to restrict the Press; however, there

must be discretion on the part of those in the business.

Nedra Joyce, reporter for the Las Vegas Review Journal,

also commented at the request of the Regents. She stated

that she had used profanity in stories, particularly in

quoting public statements by public officers. She agreed

there are words which are considered indelicate and per-

haps should not be used; however, she stated that she

believed the ASUN proposal was an acceptable compromise.

She disagreed with Regent-Elect Steninger's statement

that the Board of Regents was the publisher of the student


President Miller recommended approval of the policy state-

ment "Criteria of a Good Newspaper", together with the

substance of the additional statement submitted earlier and

reflected above.

Motion by Mrs. Knudtsen, seconded by Mr. Jacobsen, carried

with Mr. Seeliger opposing, that the statement be approved

as amended.

The meeting adjourned for lunch and reconvened at 1:50 P.M.

8. ASUN Petitions

With the concurrence of Chairman Hug, 3 petitions were

presented as follows:

(1) Paul Basta submitted the following petition, noting

that it had been circulated at an ASUN rally for the

student government earlier in the day:

We support the ASUN government as a responsible

and effective authority on the Campus of the

University of Nevada, Reno. We ask that you

reaffirm confidence in the ASUN as being able

to handle responsibly this authority. We feel

that decisions which affect the students of

this Campus can best be made by delegating

appropriate authority to the personnel (students,

faculty and Administration) who live and work on

this Campus. Let us help you make a better Uni-


Mr. Basta stated that student government is having a

difficult time reaching the student on Campus and

they believe that student government needs more power.

(Petition filed in Chancellor's Office.)

(2) The following petition was presented by Neal Artz

and Kelly Clark:

We, the undersigned students and faculty members

of the University of Nevada, believe that by

his disruption and disrespectful actions in-

volving last year's Governor's Day ceremonies,

Dr. Paul Adamian demonstrated an attitude un-

suitable in an instructor at this University.

Further, by his actions he forfeited any rights

he held as a member of this University community.

(Petition filed in Chancellor's Office.)

(3) Kevin Weatherford presented the following list of


1. Resignation of present Board of Regents.

2. Governor reappoint interim Board in a democratic

manner representing the people who are governed:

4 students, 4 faculty, 5 State at large.

All Regent meetings will be open and all Regents

will be required to be on Campus at least 10

days per month with an open door policy.

3. Legislature will reconstitute Board of Regents

to above democratic representation.

4. New Board of Regents will have powers delegated

by the State Constitution and in cases of over-

extension of power and jurisdiction, a faculty-

student-Regent committee will provide inter-


5. The immediate problems to be resolved by the new

Board of Regents will be:

1) Abruptly break the University's role as a

capitalist, imperialist, racist, chauvinist,

elitist institution and assume a leadership

role in eliminating these cancers from


2) All University committee membership will be

proportionate to University population; "one

man, one vote". This population will only

include academic persons; and administrative

personnel where involved by that particular


3) All University contracts, positions, plans,

policies, curriculum and structure will be

reviewed by the Board of Regents and/or by

the appropriate committees.

4) There will be a moratorium on all current

University plans; these plans will be re-

viewed and a new long range plan will be


5) Campus Police will be controlled by a student-

faculty committee.

6) All personnel matters of the past 10 years

will be reviewed.

7) All current financing of the University will

be reviewed and all alternative methods will

be evaluated and implemented where appropri-


8) Free and open education available to all.

9) The current Board of Regents will end the

Adamian affair with the recommendation of

the faculty committee.

10) The Board of Regents will take positive action

on this last demand and the petition presented

by the ASUN government immediately, before the

students leave this room.

Mr. Hug noted that several of the demands submitted by Mr.

Weatherford would require rather significant constitutional

and Legislative changes. If such action is desired, he

said, then normal channels such as those available to ef-

fect a constitutional amendment are open to anyone wishing

to pursue such action.

9. Summer School Budgets, UNR

President Miller recommended approval of the Summer School

Budgets for calendar year 1971 (budgets identified as Ref.

E and filed with permanent minutes).

Motion by Mr. Bilbray, seconded by Mr. Seeliger, carried

without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.

10. Refund Schedule

President Miller recommended that the refund schedule for

the registration fee and the capital improvement fee for

students who have registered for 7 credits or more (and

have therefore paid a consolidated fee) and who are chang-

ing to part time status (6 credits or less) be changed

from the existing policy of no refund to one in which the

per credit cost of the reduced load will be subtracted

from the original payment for the registration and capital

improvement fees and the difference refunded as follows:

1 - 2 weeks 75% refunded

3 - 6 weeks 50% refunded

7 - 8 weeks 25% refunded

9 - 16 weeks No refund

Chancellor Humphrey noted that, if approved, this schedule

would be consistent with the refund schedule presently

being followed for non-resident tuition for students who

change from full-time to part-time status for fee purposes

and for students who withdraw from the University.

President Zorn reported that he had discussed this proposed

amendment to the refund schedule with the UNLV Business

Manager, who had, in turn, recommended that this schedule

also be adopted for UNLV, recognizing, however, that a

part-time student at UNLV is one registered for 8 credits

or less.

Chancellor Humphrey recommended approval of the proposed

amendment to the refund schedule for UNR and UNLV.

Motion by Mr. Bilbray, seconded by Mr. Seeliger, carried

without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.

11. Request for Matching Funds

President Miller reported that UNR has received $100,975

for the National Defense Student Loan Program for the

Spring semester 1970-71 and $7,078 for the Nursing Student

Loan Program. He requested $12,006 be allocated from the

following accounts to provide the 1/9 matching funds:

David Russell Loan Fund (1-070-3001) $ 4,210.07

Goodfellow Loan Fund (1-070-3005) 7,795.93

Total $12,006.00

Chancellor Humphrey recommended approval.

Motion by Mr. Jacobsen, seconded by Dr. Lombardi, carried

without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.

12. Installation of Carpeting in Student Union Building, UNR

Mr. Pine requested approval of an expenditure of $1800 from

the W. E. Travis Grant (1-1-057-4129) to purchase and in-

stall 250 square yards of carpet in the main lounge of the

Jot Travis Student Union. He noted that Commercial Carpet

Corporation had agreed to a joint venture agreement with

the University to replace the present carpet. The cost

to the University will be as follows:

250 yards carpeting @3.50 per yard $ 875

Decorator's Service 100

Freight 200

1/2 of installation cost 625

Total $1,800

Mr. Pine also requested authorization to purchase from the

W. E. Travis Grant the following items of furniture for

the main lounge of the Union, at an estimated cost of


9 chairs

4 5-foot benches

2 3-seat 6-foot benches

2 2-seat couches

2 bean bag chairs

President Miller recommended approval. Chancellor Humphrey


Motion by Mr. Seeliger, seconded by Mr. Bilbray, carried

without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.

13. Utilization of the Dr. Reno Building

President Miller recalled that the Board of Regents had

previously instructed that several University owned struc-

tures on Sierra Street be demolished and the area land-

scaped. One of these buildings is a combined home and

medical office acquired from Dr. Reno which is now being

used by the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges.

President Miller requested that the Dr. Reno building be

continued in service to be used in connection with a

program between the School of Medical Sciences and the

Washoe County Advisory Board on Mental Retardation for a

period of 2 years. Under this arrangement, Washoe County

would pay a rental of $50 per month for the space used; the

balance of the space would be used in a teaching program in

the Health Sciences.

Chancellor Humphrey recommended approval.

Motion by Dr. Lombardi, seconded by Mr. Seelige, carried

without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.

14. Progress of University Projects

A report on the progress of University projects under the

supervision of the Director of Physical Plant, UNR, was

distributed with the agenda. A similar report for projects

under the supervision of the State Planning Board was dis-

tributed at the meeting (both reports are on file in the

Chancellor's Office).

Mr. Dan Teglia interrupted the meeting to repeat a demand which

he stated had been presented earlier "on whether the Committee

report on Professor Adamian's case would be the final say. One

of our demands was that the Committee report, the Committee

that you appointed, that Committee's recommendation would be the

final recommendation."

Mr. Hug pointed out that this matter had been discussed earlier

in the morning when the students had endorsed Professor Adamian's

request that consideration of his case be held in open meeting

and a decision had been made. He commented that it may be a

demand of the students but pointed out that it had not been

agreed to by the Board.

Mr. Teglia challenged Mr. Hug's understanding of the meaning of

a demand and charged that "you have totally disregarded every-

thing we have said; we want some discussion on this and we want

it now."

Mr. Hug stated again that discussion had been held and the

matter had been determined. Mr. Hug called for a recess, at

which time President Miller announced that a telephone call

had been received reporting that a bomb had been placed in the

meeting room and ordered the building evacuated.

The meeting reconvened at 3:00 P.M., after a thorough search of

the building by police officers.

15. State Plan for Community Colleges in the State of Nevada

Director Donnelly commented on the State plan for develop-

ment of Community Colleges which had been distributed with

the agenda. He noted that the plan would be discussed with

the Advisory Committees in Elko, Clark County and Western

Nevada and would be presented to the Board of Regents in

January for adoption.

Following presentation of the plan, Mr. Jacobsen read a

resolution from the Carson City Chamber of Commerce re-

questing consideration of Carson City as a location for

a Community College.

Dr. White reported that Boulder City has land available

and would also be interested in being considered as a loca-

tion for a Community College.

Dr. Anderson asked about a statement on Page 44 of the State

Plan that "It is assumed that all 2-year technical programs

at UNLV would be placed into Community College programs in

Clark County Community College and those at UNR would be

placed into Community College programs in Western Nevada

Community College." He suggested that there might be some

2-year programs in either of the Universities which would

be better served if left with the University and perhaps

should be considered individually before determination is

made on where they will be placed.

Mr. Humphrey noted that one of the purposes in scheduling

this for action in January is to be in a position to make

specific recommendations as to which programs will be

transferred. This recommendation can only be made after

agreement between the Divisions. He pointed out that it

will be necessary that the decision is made prior to

consideration of the University's budget request by the


16. Graduate Record Examination

President Zorn reported that the UNLV Graduate Council has

recommended, and he had approved, that, effective Fall 1971,

once a candidate has been admitted to Graduate Standing

he will not be required to take the Graduate Record Exam-


President Miller reported that it was his intention to re-

quest the UNR Graduate Council to consider this action for

possible adoption.

17. Modification of Exterior of Chemistry Building

Mr. Westfall reported that the following bids were opened

November 23, 1970 for the application of a decorative and

waterproofing multmil textured coating to the Chemistry


Hanco, Inc., San Diego $11,840

W. J. Thompson, Las Vegas 11,920

Nevada Contracting, Las Vegas 12,000

President Zorn recommended that award be made to W. J.

Thompson of Las Vegas, the low bidder considering in-State

preference and that funds be provided from the UNLV Capi-

tal Improvement Fee Fund.

Chancellor Humphrey reported that the UNLV Capital Improve-

ment Fee Fund cash balances, plus anticipated receipts

Spring semester 1971, less budgeted debt service, is ade-

quate to fund this expenditure and recommended that the bid

of W. J. Thompson be accepted.

Mr. Jacobsen asked about the communication from the archi-

tects in which they recommended against this procedure.

(Letter from Jack Miller & Associates, A. I. A., on file in

Chancellor's Office.) Dr. Zorn commented that the building

has not lightened and that he did not believe it would

lighten. He also stated that they believe the concrete

stain would cause problems.

Mr. Seeliger asked about recommendations of the State Plan-

ning Board that application of the coating be deferred for

one year and then give consideration to the pigmented stain


Dr. Zorn stated they had determined they did not wish to

follow the recommendation of the State Planning Board. He

added, however, that the action proposed is not a reflec-

tion on the architect or the State Planning Board, stating

that the interior of the building is considered to be ex-


Motion by Dr. White, seconded by Mr. Bilbray, carried with-

out dissent that the bid of W. J. Thompson be accepted and

the contract awarded.

18. UNLV Campus Bookstore

President Zorn reported that since 1968-69 the Student Union

Board has operated the Rebel Shop, the UNLV Campus book-

store. He noted that the enterprise was launched on the

basis of loans from the Capital Improvement Fee Fund. Due

to a variety of management and fiscal problems the book-

store has persistently incurred deficits. The Union Board

has recommended that the operation be liquidated and the

bookstore leased to a private firm.

Dr. Zorn introduced Winston Burbank, Chairman of the Moyer

Campus Student Union Board, who stated that the status of

insolvency poses problems for the Spring semester. He re-

ported that 4 companies were invited to submit proposals

for leasing the bookstore. Two proposals were received

and after review of the two proposals the Union Board rec-

ommended that a contract be signed with Nebraska Book

Company to operate the bookstore. Mr. Burbank noted that

the proposal by Nebraska Book Company provides for a pay-

ment to Moyer Campus Student Union Board of a commission

of 6% of gross sales minus refunds for a 5-year period

with renegotiation at the end of that period and purchase

of all existing inventory and supplies in the bookstore

at not less than 66 2/3% of the wholesale price. Mr.

Burbank also stated that it is anticipated that liquida-

tion of the bookstore's assets will satisfy existing defi-

cits and revenue will retire the loan from the capital

improvement fee fund by June 1972.

Mr. Paul Greenberger, Associate Dean of Students, endorsed

the recommendation of the Student Union Board.

The meeting was interrupted by a group of students clapping and

singing. President Miller requested quiet and stated:

"Let me make a plea to you. You have had your opportunity to

present your petitions and make your position known. I urge

you -- I cannot urge you too strongly -- don't jeopardize the

thing you want by action of this sort. Don't attempt to disrupt

in order to achieve something which you cannot achieve in this

way. Let me urge you also, don't jeopardize the kind of Campus

that I think all of us want. A great many people have been

working on this Campus to provide freedom, to provide opportu-

nity for expression of ideas, and any kind of disruptive action

now will jeopardize not only your interest in the Paul Adamian

case but you very well may jeopardize the kind of Campus I think

we all want. I plead with you, you have made your position

known. Be mature and use wisdom. Please. I have been defending

you around this State because I believe you are mature and wise

people. Show it now."

Dr. Paul Adamian spoke from the audience, stating "I would like

to make one comment in response to what President Miller said.

I don't think that there is anything that any of the students

could do here to jeopardize my position. I don't think that

should be a consideration."

There was continued disruption with several charges made that

"you have already made the decision." "How can we jeopardize

him, you intend to fire Paul Adamian because you don't like


President Miller emphasized that no decision had been made and

again urged the students not to jeopardize their position by

continuing to disrupt.

One student who did not identify herself charged that "we have

not been allowed discussion at all. In avoiding a verbal con-

frontation here you are just creating frustration which will

lead to a different kind of confrontation."

Dr. Miller pointed out that the students had been given an op-

portunity during the morning to state their position, to present

their statements and petitions. He urged them again to recog-

nize that they had been heard. He requested that the meeting

be allowed to proceed, pointing out that the Adamian case would

be discussed the next day.

There were comments from the audience objecting to the Regents'

decision to deliberate the Adamian matter in a closed meeting.

Mr. Weatherford repeated his charge that they had demanded

that the Regents "end the Adamian affair with the recommenda-

tion of the Committee. No action has been taken. We have been

told that this is an open meeting and we will be allowed to

present our side of it. We have presented our side and made

what we consider to be a very simple request. This request has

not even been touched upon, much less met in any way. We don't

think it's too much to ask of the Board of Regents to consider

Paul Adamian and this case right now in front of everyone who

is most concerned with Paul Adamian, that being the students,

because those are the people who benefit or those are the people

who lose from this educational system. It's not the Regents,

it's not even you (speaking to President Miller). We realize

your position, we appreciate what you have done. We have made

several requests and all our requests have been ignored. Now

it has once more been requested that we silence ourselves and

that we don't create a disruption. I would say that the only

disruption since I have been at the University for 4 1/2 years

-- the only thing that has significantly disrupted the process

of education as I understand it, is the Paul Adamian affair.

If there is any disruption going on here, it is the way the

Board is considering the Paul Adamian case and the fact that

they will not bring it out into the open and hear it before the

students. This is not a disruption on behalf of the students;

this is a disruption on behalf of the University and the Board

of Regents, and we do not hold that this is within the interests

of education, the interests of the students as human beings or

as students, or within the interests of the University and there-

fore we do not find that what we are doing is disruption in any


Dr. Miller again pointed out that the students had expressed

themselves and had stated their positions. He repeated again

what had been announced during the morning; that is, that this

matter would be taken up the following day. Dr. Miller stated

that this would not be changed, the matter would not be con-

sidered earlier. Dr. Miller also again pointed out that the

students had a great deal to lose in persisting in the kind of

action they were engaging in, not only for themselves but also

for those students who follow in subsequent years.

Dan Teglia again stated that "all they were asking for was an

open session. You say it's going to be considered tomorrow

and you say you want open communication and open discussion and

at the same time the hearing remains closed."

Dr. Miller pointed out that the procedures which have been fol-

lowed in this case provided for an open hearing in this matter

and the final decision will be made as provided in the policy

statement in a closed personnel session. He stated, "that there

is noting new about this, it is not a change in plan, it is not

something unpredicted, it is something you have known all along."

Kevin Weatherford stated "assuming that nothing can be done to

change the Board of Regents agenda, which I consider to be a

somewhat nebulous assumption, since the Adamian affair has been

so extraordinary, and since so many policies have been violated,

as has been pointed out by the former President of AAUP and by

several students, since the Student Senate and several other

student petitons circulated by independent student groups, I

do not think it would be inconsistent with the proceedings to

be carried out tomorrow if we could ask, if you don't want the

disruption to go on now and if you would like to be able to

continue the meeting, to have some sort of guarantee of a 100%

open meeting with the Regents tomorrow or at their earliest con-

venience before they consider Paul's case in their closed ses-

sion and that Paul's case not be considered in closed session

because that would not be inconsistent with numerous other vio-

lations they have made of University procedure. So we would

like to ask for that guarantee right now."

President Miller pointed out that he was in no position to make

guarantees of that sort and further stated that he would not

make such a recommendation to the Board. He noted again that

the policy statement had been followed and would continue to be

followed. President Miller requested again that the meeting be

permitted to proceed. He stated that if they did not they

would do so much harm to so many people. He suggested they not

be so selfish and let the meeting go on.

Dan Teglia asked why Dr. Miller was talking for the Regents.

Dr. Miller stated that he was not talking for the Regents -- he

was talking for himself. He added that he was "pleading for the

kind of University that I think we should have."

Kevin Weatherford said that, "We recognize that the Board of Re-

gents has silenced themselves and you are speaking in your role

as President of the University, which we appreciate, but the

Board of Regents is here and it is not necessary for you to

defend them or to speak for them and you are not doing it. We

have a request -- I have made the reqest -- that the Regents

take some action right now to give us some guarantee of an open

meeting with them concerned specifically with the case of Paul

Adamian and that at this meeting, or right now, we can discuss

the possibility of an open personnel hearing which would be

exceptional and we differ on whether or not there have been

exceptions made. Now I don't think this requires an answer

from you, I would like an answer from the Board of Regents on

whether or not they will take some action to give us this


Dr. Anderson noted that this was discussed earlier in the day

and the Board had already determined by majority vote that their

deliberations would be held in a closed meeting. He suggested

proceeding with the regular agenda. Dr. Anderson also stated

that the Regents did indeed speak for themselves and pointed out

he had no intention of being intimidated.

Mr. Weatherford said they did not intend to be intimidating in

any way. He stated, "we are here to make a request. You have

ignored all our other requests." "Perhaps you were not aware

that there were this number who do not go along with your some-

what arbitrary actions. Now we are asking you, out of respect

for what the University is all about -- to educate the people

and we are those people who are supposed to be educated -- and

we have voiced an opinion. We have asked -- I consider polite-

ly. We have gone through all the various procedures and you

are still resorting to something you did this morning before

this happened. Now I think that what has happened so far, at

the very least, should have opened your eyes that there is a

definite opinion on this Campus that disagrees with what you

did this morning. Now, all we are asking is that you reconsider

and that you do so now. You cannot keep closing off the stu-

dents. The students are a very important part of the Univer-

sity. The students are a very necessary and integral part and

sooner or later, if you don't meet a few demands of the students,

then the students' demands will be made in what might be termed

a much more irrational way, in a much more felt way, and that

will be with destruction. I am sure that all of us who disagree

on everything else agree that destroying the University does not

help education. But neither does never answering a student's

demands or never answering a student's requests and we ask once

again that you please consider this while we are here."

In response to a demand for dialogue with the Board of Regents,

President Miller pointed out that there had been dialogue with

the Board of Regents. He repeated again that the decision had

been made that the personnel session would be closed.

Kevin Weatherford spoke again to President Miller, stating, "We

have come to you a hundred times and have produced what I con-

sider to be an open dialogue with you. A lot of significant

things have been carried out. Now we have been told that the

Board of Regents would open their meetings and we all thought

that in opening their meetings we would be able to develop with

them the rapport we have developed with you. A rapport develop-

ed only through respect for each other as human beings, for each

other in their role within the University and for each other as

to what they are saying. Unfortunately, where your ears are

open, where your mind is open, and where you show what the

best points of a University can be, the Board of Regents, in

most cases, has chosen to ignore us."

Before allowing a response, Mr. Weatherford charged that "if

the Board has chosen this time not to ignore us, please come

forward and talk to us and take some action that we have re-

quested or at least take some action on the action we have


Dr. Miller emphasized that a great many things have happened

for the good at the University during the past 4 or 5 years and

a great many of these have happened because of action by the

Board of Regents "and you cannot convince me, no matter how hard

you try, that this Board of Regents doesn't listen to students.

They have been listening and they are listening now. All I am

asking you is give up this kind of approach -- it will do no

good and will do much harm."

Mr. Weatherford interrupted President Miller by stating that "no

dialogue was evey developed by merely listening. Both sides have

to participate and the only thing we are asking now is participa-

tion of the Board of Regents. He charged that the Regents have

said, "Yes, we are listening. Yes, we have heard you." Now, he

stated, "we would like to see them do something about what they


We have asked them to guarantee us an open session about the

Paul Adamian affair and the possibility to discuss whether or

not they will make exception and open this and we have said

this and they have said nothing in reply. We have asked them

to reconsider their action of this morning, they have said

nothing; they have done nothing. What is happening to Paul

Adamian and all the surrounding affairs is not a step forward

in any direction, it is a step backwards."

Dr. Miller objected to a judgement on this matter prior to a

decision. He pointed out that the Board has made its decision

about the process it is going to use, and is following a process

which was developed over 2 years ago. Again, he pointed out,

there is nothing new about this. He suggested again that they

abide by the procedure.

Mr. Weatherford stated "We are not asking they open it at the

time they make a decision, we are asking a chance to have the

time to express ourselves and how we feel about Paul and we

also want them to express themselves. I don't care to be there

when they vote. We want to hear their side of what has been

going on with Paul Adamian."

President Miller asked again that the meeting be allowed to


The audience resumed clapping briefly but responded to Chairman

Hug's request for attention.

Mr. Hug made the following statement: "The matter which you wish

to have before the Board of Regents was discussed this morning.

The resolution of the Senate was presented. We have asked for

an opinion of the Attorney General. It is equivalent in our

opinion, and in his, to the proceedings of a jury. No new

evidence is going to be presented. The only thing that is going

to be presented is the evidence that was presented in an open

hearing at the time that it was considered by the faculty.

This was the basis of the action this morning. This is the

equivalent to deliberations of a court or jury when evidence

has been presented. There is now no point in reopening that.

The decision was made and will be considered in that fasion.

I agree with President Miller. It is very important that you

not continue to disrupt; instead we proceed with the meeting.

We have tried our best to listen to you, we have heard you, we

have received your petitions. The only thing that I must men-

tion is that in every case in which you present an opinion does

not necessarily mean that you are going to always convince us,

or any other body to which you make presentations. Part of the

function of a policymaking body such as this is to consider all

the points of view, and then to act on them. That's our respon-

sibility. That is why in some Universities and Colleges they

are called trustees. We have a trust and we are trying our very

best to carry it out as we see it. We are listening to students,

to faculty, to Administration, and indeed we are listening to

the general public as well. And we propose to do this and to

do it as fairly and equitably as we possibly can. But there is

never going to be a time when any Board is going to consider all

of your suggestions and just rubber-stamp them. We are not

going to rubber-stamp those of the public or of the faculty.

We are going to listen, we are going to consider them and then

we are going to make our decision. That is what we have been

doing for the past 8 years and that is how we are going to


Mr. Hug was interrupted by comments from Dr. Adamian who stated

that "perhaps this is an extraordinary situation which requires

an extraordinary response. Just because a thing was done this

way 8 years ago does not warrant continuing to do it in this

same manner. When special situations arise, it seems to me

that individuals ought to be free to respond to them in the way

that they require."

Mr. Hug stated to Dr. Adamiam that he did not consider him a

special situation. He added that he believed that he fell

within the category of any member of the University community

and he would be treated in the same way as any other member.

Dr. Adamian argued with Chairman Hug and with President Miller

until Chairman Hug was able to restore order by insisting that

the meeting return to the agenda. Mr. Hug noted again that

the Board would consider the Adamian case on Saturday.

Dr. Adamian announced that the meeting would be open.

Discussion resumed on Item 18, UNLV Campus Bookstore.

Chancellor Humphrey recommended that (1) the bookstore be

closed immediately; (2) its assets be liquidated to satisy

liabilities; (3) a contract be made with the Nebraska Book

Company to operate the store in conformity with the terms

stated; and (4) any unsatisfied liabilities after liquida-

tion be paid by the Student Union Board out of subsequent

rebates by the Nebraska Book Company. He stated that

these recommendations were developed with President Zorn

and the Student Union Board and endorsed by them.

Motion by Mr. Bilbray, seconded by Mr. Seeliger, carried

without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.

19. Summer School Budgets, UNLV

President Zorn recommended approval of the Summer School

budgets for 1971 as reflected in Ref. I filed with permanent

minutes. Chancellor Humphrey concurred.

Motion by Dr. Lombardi, seconded by Mr. Seeliger, carried

without dissent that the above recommendation be approved.

20. 1971-73 Capital Improvement Program

Chancellor Humphrey recalled that the 1971-73 Capital Im-

provement Program request was approved by the Board in

June, 1970 for submission to the State Planning Board.

Events since that time have caused the Administration to

carefully re-examine the project priorities and the pro-

posed method of funding. Chancellor Humphrey noted that

this has been discussed within the Chancellor's Advisory

Cabinet and although consensus was not reached on the re-

vised priority list, agreement was reached concerning an

increase in the Capital Improvement Fee.

Chancellor Humphrey recommended that:

(1) The Board of Regents approve an increase in the

Capital Improvement Fee of $42 per semester to a

total of $84 per semester, effective Fall semester,

1971 at UNR and UNLV, and a Capital Improvement Fee

of $2 per credit in the Community Colleges;

(2) The Board agree that no increase in registration fee

will be adopted for 1971-73 but that the $100 increase

per semester in out-of-state tuition anticipated in

the 1971-73 budget request be ratified; and

(3) The revised priority list be adopted as reflected in

Ref. J (filed with permanent minutes).

Chancellor Humphrey reviewed the recommended revised list,

noting the inclusion of a new #4, Site Development and

Utility Extension, UNR, and the reason for its inclusion.

He also noted the movement of the Community College Division

projects to priority numbers 8, 9 and 10, placing them on

the list below the first phases of the two Physical Educa-

tion Complexes but ahead of the second phases of these


Chancellor Humphrey emphasized that the revised capital

improvement request did not represent Cabinet agreement

but was his recommendation. He requested the Division

officers to comment.

President Zorn spoke with reference to the proposed increase

in the Capital Improvement Fee, noting that he had consulted

with the CSUN Senate and believed there was understanding

of the need for the increase and no serious opposition was

expressed. With reference to the priority list, President

Zorn said he recognized the need for some provision for

the Community Colleges but questioned the need for 3 proj-

ects located in sequence.

President Miller reported that he had discussed the Capital

Improvement Fee increase with officers of student govern-

ment and receive no opposition to the proposed increase.

He stated also that he agreed with President Zorn and his

reservation with grouping of the Community College proj-

ects. He said he would like to see the second phases of

the Physical Education Complexes placed after the first

Community College building.

Director Donnelly commented on the Community College proj-

ects, pointing out that each College needs its own separate

facility and the Community College System needs to be de-

veloped in order to serve the State equally. He noted the

difficulty in finding existing facilities in Las Vegas and

the importance of a centralized facility in Reno. Dr.

Donnelly also pointed out that the facility presently oc-

cupied by Elko Community College is, first of all, a con-

demned structure, and is further complicated by the fact

that it is leased and there is no guarantee that it will

continue to be available. He emphasized that the Community

College System is only asking for a beginning in each of

the 3 location.

Miss Del Papa and Mr. Myers expressed concurrence with the

proposed fee increase.

Motion by Mr. Bilbray, seconded by Mrs. Knudtsen, carried

with Dr. White opposing, that effective Fall, 1971 the

Capital Improvement Fee at UNR and UNLV be increased to $84

per semester, a Capital Improvement Fee of $2 per credit be

assessed at the Community Colleges and that out-of-state

tuition at UNR and UNLV be increased by $100 per semester.

Mr. Bilbray moved the recommended revision to the Capital

Improvement program be further revised by moving #10 (Elko

Instructional Building) to #8 position, #11 (UNLV Nata-

torium) to #9 position, and #12 (UNR PE Complex, Phase II)

to #10 position. Motion was not seconded.

Mr. Hug expressed concern that the Community College pro-

gram would not get off the ground in all areas if they

were not funded during this biennium.

He said he recognized the importance of the Physical Edu-

cation facilities which have been repeatedly delayed until

the need has become quite severe. However, he stated the

University also has an obligation to the Community College


Chancellor Humphrey recommended that the revised priority

list be approved as he had recommended, pointing out that

it is important that the System move ahead together. He

recalled that the Regents had assumed the responsibility

of developing a Community College Division as one of the

University System. He said that the need for Physical

Education facilities on both Campuses has been recognized

for a number of years and he fully supported the placement

of Phase I of these Complexes above the Community College

projects; however, he stated that he could not justify

placing Phase II ahead of the beginning of the Community

College facilities.

Motion by Mr. Jacobsen, seconded by Dr. Lombardi, carried

with Mr. Bilbray opposing, that the revised priority list

be approved as submitted.

The 17 projects included on the Capital Improvement Program

Request as revised are as follows:

1. UNLV Land Acquisition

2. UNR Flood Control, Peavine Mountain

3. UNLV Site Development

4. UNR Site Development and Utility Extension

5. UNLV Athletic Fields

6. UNLV Gymnasium

7. UNR P. E. Complex, Phase I

8. CCD Instructional Building, Clark County

9. CCD Instructional Building, Western Nevada

10. CCD Instructional Building, Elko

11. UNLV Natatorium

12. UNR P. E. Complex, Phase II

13. UNS & CCD Administration Building

14. UNLV Life Science and Physics

15. UNLV Central Air Conditioning - Chill Water Line

16. UNLV Library and Computing Center Area

17. UNR Addition to Getchell Library

Summary by Division Total Projects

Requested for UNLV $ 20,777,000

Requested for UNR 10,316,000

Requested for DRI -0-

Requested for CCD 3,938,000

Requested for UNS 328,000

Total $ 35,359,000

21. Tenure Policy

Chancellor Humphrey recalled that in June a discussion

was initiated concerning the review and screening process

for tenure recommendations. The Regents requested the

Administration to consider and respond to:

(1) The manner in which tenure is allowed and to whom;

(2) How cases are handled when tenure privileges are


(3) What tenure regulations are at other Universities; and

(4) The legal status of tenure within the University and

the nature of the contract created by awarding tenure.

Mr. Humphrey noted that President Zorn and President Miller

had submitted reports to the November meeting concerning

the procedures following in processing recommenations for

tenure and these reports were again included with the

agenda (reports identified as Ref. K and Ref. L and filed

with permanent minutes). A report concerning tenure poli-

cies of Western State Public Universities was also dis-

tributed at the November meeting and included with the

agenda (identified as Ref. M. and filed with permanent

minutes), and a report from the Attorney General was re-

distributed (identified as Ref. N and filed with permanent


In addition, Chancellor Humphrey noted that a proposed

regulation for the granting of tenure to Community College

Division faculty was submitted by Director Donnelly; how-

ever, Dr. Donnelly has now requested that it be withdrawn

for consideration at a later date.

Chancellor Humphrey recalled that the apparent purpose of

the Board in initiating the review as to encourage action

by the Administration which would result in better pro-

cedures and in response to this understanding he wished

to submit the following report and recommendation:

The granting of tenure to a faculty member is the

equivalent of granting a life-time contract. The

Board has expressed continued concern that the pro-

cedures used in the initial employment of faculty

and the granting of tenure be effective tools to

assist Department Chairmen, Deans, Academic Vice

Presidents, Presidents and the Board in securing

and retaining the highest quality faculty possible.

In addition to this review of tenure procedures

the Board earlier requested a detailed review of

procedures followed before issuance of the initial


Review of these two areas (i. e., initial contract

and award of tenure) has not, in my opinion, revealed

any major Systemwide weakness in procedure. I be-

lieve that in the overwhelming majority of cases the

stated procedures are followed and that quality faculty

are secured and retained.

I believe that the following procedures, which are

followed in some cases, would result in Systemwide

improvement if adopted as policy by the Board of


1. Initial employment be authorized when, in

addition to following existing procedures

outlined in the University Code or by the

College Dean or University President, the

Department Chairman has accomplished the


A. Secured a positive letter of recommenda-

tion from the candidate's most recent


B. Discussed by telephone or in person the

candidate with his most recent employer;


C. Conducted a personal interview with the


If these steps are not completed, a written

explanation by the Department Chairman be

approved by the Dean, the Academic Vice Presi-

dent and the President.

2. The recommendation for awarding tenure should

include, in addition to following the exist-

ing procedures and criteria outlined in the

University Code or by the College Dean or

University President, specific review of the

faculty member's teaching effectiveness, in-

cluding his ability to communicate effectively

with students as evidenced by classroom

visitation, and student evaluation conducted

in a manner approved by both the faculty and

the Administration.

Chancellor Humphrey stated that this statement in draft

form had been discussed with the Chancellor's Advisory

Cabinet and revised in conformity with suggestions made.

He said he believed there was consensus in that group

favorable to this statement. He further noted that Faculty

Senate Chairmen had been present at all discussions in the

Cabinet over a period of several months.

President Miller spoke in support of the above recommenda-

tion, commenting that this recommended procedure adds 2

important steps to existing procedures but does not take

away from present practice.

President Zorn stated that he is in agreement with the

proposed supplemental procedure concerning employment.

However, he stated, he did not see any difference in the

present procedure from that proposed in paragraph 2 and

that he did not see any need for this legislation and

anticipated that it might cause problems.

Vice President Baepler stated that matters such as tenure

are of such importance that this should be run through the

faculty as a Class A Action. He said he did not like to

see pushing student evaluation as a prime device in deter-

mining tenure.

Mr. Hug pointed out that at the Regent's initiation, this

matter has been discussed between the Board and the Ad-

ministration for several months and the Regents have ex-

pressed their continuing concern that the procedures be

improved. He stated that he was reassured to learn that

the present procedures are considered effective; however,

it is vital to insure that teaching effectiveness is

evaluated properly and that its importance is emphasized.

Mrs. Knudtsen said she was concerned that no new procedure

be adopted without faculty review.

Chancellor Humphrey pointed out that he had no desire to

initiate a change in the tenure policy without adequate

opportunity for review by all concerned. He expressed

himself as being surprised at the statements by President

Zorn and Vice President Baepler in that no such concern had

been expressed earlier when the matter was discussed, either

in the Chancellor's Advisory Cabinet or in previous Board

meetings. Mr. Humphrey also noted that his recommendation

was an attempt to bring to a conclusion concerns expressed

by the Board of Regents which had not resulted in a recom-

mendation by the Presidents. He agreed that faculty are

satisfied that the present procedures are adequate and

suggested that if the Regents now determine the present

procedures are satisfactory from their standpoint, the

recommendation not be considered further.

Dr. Barmettler stated that the faculty is concerned about

the quality of instruction and the UNR Faculty Senate is

presently looking at a University-wide system of teaching

evaluation. He agreed with Chancellor Humphrey's state-

ment that the faculty is generally pleasured with the

present procedure used to advance faculty for tenure.

Dr. Vergiels also agreed that the faculty are satisfied

with the present procedure and suggested they be continued.

Chancellor Humphrey suggested that perhaps he had misunder-

stood the Board's expressions of concern which had prompted

him to submit a recommendation for clarification of the

procedure to be used throughout the System. He withdrew

his recommendation.

Mr. Seeliger said he did not believe the Chancellor was

mistaken; the concerns expressed by the Board of Regents

were valid and the recommended additions to existing

procedure were good. He pointed out that this concern of

the Board has existed for a long time and has been vocal-

ized on a number of occasions but no action has been

proposed by the Administration or taken by the Board.

Dr. Zorn stated that he saw no reason for doing something

further that may trigger problems, that this matter does

touch faculty and should be referred to the Faculty Senates.

Dr. Anderson moved that the Chancellor's recommendation be

referred to the Faculty Senates for consideration and

brought back to the Board at a later date, and agreed to

either March or April as an appropriate meeting for further

consideration. Motion seconded by Mr. Jacobsen, carried

without dissent.

22. Administration of Scholarship Programs

Chancellor Humphrey recalled that at the July 1970 meeting

the following motion was made: "Mr. Jacobsen moved that

the recommendations submitted by Dr. Anderson be made a

part of the minutes and be referred to the Presidents for

review with a report back to the Board in October, at

which time they be adopted as a statement of policy. Mo-

tion seconded by Mr. Seeliger."

Dr. Anderson's recommendations are identified as Ref. Q

and are filed with permanent minutes.

Mr. Humphrey noted further that before the motion was voted

upon, Mr. Jon Wellinghoff, Administrative Assistant to the

ASUN President, read an excerpt from a recent Northwest

Accrediting Association report concerning UNR (see Ref. R

filed with permanent minutes). Mr. Wellinghoff asked that

consideration be given to this in the review called for in

Mr. Jacobsen's motion. Mr. Jacobsen agreed and expanded

his motion to provide that it be included in the Presi-

dent's review. The motion then carried without dissent.

In October, the Board agreed to defer the requested re-

ports until December.

Reports by Presidents Zorn and Miller and Director Donnelly

were included with the agenda (identified as Ref. S, T and

U and are filed with permanent minutes). Chancellor

Humphrey submitted an interpretation for Regents' Handbook

use which he had prepared of Regent Anderson's proposal.

However, he noted that consensus on this problem had not

been developed in the Chancellor's Advisory Cabinet and

he recommended that an additional month be allowed and

final action be scheduled for the January meeting.

Motion by Mr. Seeliger, seconded by Mrs. Knudtsen, carried

without dissent that the requested delay be approved.

Dr. Barmettler requested that the Board of Regents reserve at

least 1/2 hour of the following morning and devote that period

to listing to the students who had presented petitions. Dr.

Vergiels joined in the request, suggesting that if granted the

students be required to adhere to established rules.

Dr. Anderson moved that the requested 1/2 hour be granted the

students. Dr. Lombardi seconded the motion.

Dr. Miller suggested that perhaps 1 hour would be more reason-

able and stated that he supported an orderly presentation under

a set of procedures which the Board of Regents would explain in

advance. Dr. Anderson agreed that the time period should be in-

creased to 1 hour.

It was agreed that an hour would be reserved, and the ASUN Pres-

ident, in cooperation with President Miller, would make arrange-

ments for presentation of both sides of the issue; further, that

no new evidence would be presented and the discussion would be

limited only to the Adamian matter.

Motion carried without dissent.

Meeting adjourned at 5:35 P.M.

The regular meeting of the Board reconvened on Saturday, Decem-

ber 12, 1970 at 9:20 A.M. with Chairman Hug presiding.

All members of the Board, officers and staff who were present

the previous day were again in attendance.

Mr. Hug reported that, as agreed the previous day, the next hour

would be devoted to presentation by those persons designated by

the ASUN officers of comments addressed to the matter concerning

Dr. Adamian.

Miss Del Papa reported that she and President Miller had agreed

on the following procedure:

The first 20 minutes would be handled by Kevin Weatherford,

the second 20 minutes would be handled by Neal Artz, and

the final 20 minutes would be devoted to answering ques-

tions. No new evidence would be presented and all partici-

pants must evidence respect for the rights of others.

Mr. Weatherford introduced the following speakers who, in addi-

tion to himself, spoke in support of Dr. Adamian's retention

by the University.

Mr. Tom Myers, Mr. Dan Teglia and Mr. Randy Wright.

(Transcript of statements are filed with permanent minutes.)

Mr. Neal Artz introduced the following speakers who, in addi-

tion to himself, spoke in support of Dr. Adamian's termination.

Mr. Kelly Clark, Mr. Louis Test, Mr. John Kravchonik,

Mr. Rick Elmore, Mr. Don Drake, Mr. Tim Albers, Mr.

Gilbert Weibel, Mr. Bill Cobb. (Transcript of statements

are filed with permanent minutes.)

In the discussion period following, Mr. Hug reviewed the sequence

of events from May 5 to the present in an effort to clarify what

Dr. Anderson termed continuing misunderstanding about the period

of time devoted to the Adamian case.

Statements were made by Regents Bilbray, Jacobsen, Knudtsen,

Mc Dermott and Seeliger in response to the students' presenta-

tion. (Transcript of statements are filed with permanent


Additional statements were made by several members of the

audience including Dr. Adamian (transcript of statements filed

with permanent minutes).

Mr. Hug closed the discussion and expressed appreciation to the

students for their presentation.

23. Interim Rules and Procedures

Mr. Hug commented that discussion of this matter in suffi-

cient depth to permit adoption of a permanent policy state-

ment would take more time than appeared to be available.

Mr. Jacobsen agreed and suggested postponing consideration

until the January meeting. Dr. Lombardi also agreed and

suggested that the 4 faculty groups make an additional

effort to develop a single set of procedures.

Mr. Jacobsen moved that consideration of the Interim Rules

be postponed until the January meeting and the Interim

Rules as adopted in June 1970 remain in effect until that

time. Motion seconded by Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. Seeliger asked that the motion be expanded to include

a recommendation that the 4 faculty groups involved attempt

to develop a single recommendation on procedures.

Mr. Jacobsen and Mr. Bilbray agreed. Motion carried with-

out dissent.

Dr. Anderson moved that this matter be referred to a meet-

ing of the Administration and Personnel Committee, but

agreed that the Committee of the Whole would be more

appropriate, prior to the next meeting of the Board of

Regents and that members of the committees who worked

on the revision to the document be invited to attend.

Motion seconded by Mr. Jacobsen, carried without dissent.

The meeting adjourned at 11:15 A.M.

(Mrs.) Bonnie M. Smotony

Secretary to the Board