December 11-12, 1970
12-11-1970
Pages 93-125
BOARD OF REGENTS
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM
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
(UNR)
Dr. Don Fowler, Faculty Senate Chairman (DRI)
Mr. Bernard Sadowsky, Faculty Senate Chairman
(ECC)
Dr. John Vergiels, Faculty Senate Chairman
(UNLV)
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
Education
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,
and
WHEREAS, Nevada State Law, as cited below, requires
an open hearing on the request of the individual
concerned:
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-
noon.
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
minutes.)
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
act.
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
follows:
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
exonerated.
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
request.
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-
sity.
Chancellor Humphrey recommended acceptance.
Motion by Mr. Jacobsen, seconded by Dr. Lombardi, car-
ried without dissent that the above recommendation be
approved.
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
acknowledged.
Motion by Mr. Seeliger, seconded by Dr. Lombardi, car-
ried without dissent that the above recommendation be
approved.
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
approved.
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:
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE JUDGES
Frank Dell 'Apa, Adjunct Associate Professor of Judicial
Administration, 8/1/70-6/30/71 - (new appointment)
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS
COLLEGE OF ALLIED HEALTH PROFESSIONS
Leon Harry Steinberg, Adjunct Professor of Radiology,
7/1/70-6/30/71
COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS
Harold F. Stewart, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Biology,
9/1/70-6/30/71
SYSTEM COMPUTING CENTER
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-
paper".
Of special interest to the Regents are the following
sections of the By-Laws that pertain to the Sagebrush
Editor:
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
Sagebrush.
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
publication.
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
language.
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
newspaper.
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-
versity.
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
demands:
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-
pretation.
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
society.
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
committee.
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
instituted.
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-
ate.
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
$1720.
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
concurred.
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
Legislature.
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-
ination.
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
building.
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
applications.
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-
cellent.
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
him."
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
way."
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
opportunity."
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
requested."
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
heard."
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
proceed.
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
continue."
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
projects.
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
System.
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
abused;
(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
minutes).
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
contract.
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
Regents:
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
following:
A. Secured a positive letter of recommenda-
tion from the candidate's most recent
employer;
B. Discussed by telephone or in person the
candidate with his most recent employer;
and
C. Conducted a personal interview with the
candidate.
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
minutes.)
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
12-11-1970