8.1 Governing Board.

Composition and Constitutional Organization. The governing board for the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) is the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) Board of Regents. By state constitution, the Board of Regents sets policy and governs all public higher education in Nevada-- two universities, four community colleges, and a research institute. The board has constitutional authority and does not report to any other organization. The board approves budgets and capital construction projects for each of the seven institutions, approves new programs and degrees, and submits requests for state funding to the governor and state legislature biennially (see Standard II, Finance). The presidents of the seven institutions, who are officers of the system, attend and participate in all board meetings but neither sit on the board nor have voting power.

The Board of Regents consists of eleven members, each elected by registered voters within a district in the state. By statute, "A member of the board of regents shall not be interested, directly or indirectly, as principal, partner, agent or otherwise, in any contract or expenditure created by the board of regents, or in the profits or results there of" (NRS 396.122; see also NRS 281.230). Regents have no personal financial interest in UCCSN institutions, other than possible donations to institutions' foundations or specific activities. Districts are reapportioned every ten years by the state legislature after the national census. Regents serve a six-year term and receive travel expenses and per diem as set by the State Legislature. Regular meetings are currently held seven times per year, on the campuses of the UCCSN institutions. Additionally, the board has five standing committees: Academic, Research & Student Affairs; Campus Environment (dealing with gender equity, safety and diversity); Finance & Planning; Investment; and Audit. These committees meet with the board meetings. Names of current board members, their occupations, and their terms of office are listed below.

The Chancellor of the UCCSN, an employee of the Board of Regents, is responsible for systemwide management and coordination among the member institutions.

BOARD OF REGENTS 1997

Board Member Occupation Term of Office

Recent Accomplishments. Since the 1988 accreditation review, the Board of Regents has taken several actions designed to increase coordination within the UCCSN and within its institutions. In 1994, the Board hired Richard S. Jarvis as Chancellor, with mandates to strengthen the Chancellor's office and to clarify the distinctions between policy-setting (the Board's appropriate function) and internal campus operations (in which Board members wished to diminish their involvement). Chancellor Jarvis has streamlined the Board's activity, moving many items off its agendas or to its consent agendas in order to reduce its involvement in issues specific to internal operations.

In 1991-92, after consultation with administrators, faculty senate chairs, and system staff, the Board adopted a set of Strategic Directions, including emphases on undergraduate education, financial accountability, research, and diversity (among others). This document (included as Appendix VIII-1: UCCSN Strategic Directions) was revised in 1996, following a workshop with presidents, senate chairs, regents, and system staff, to add specific goals and performance indicators. Three areas of Board activity emerged from the creation of Strategic Directions. First, the Directions inaugurated a Board effort to require academic master planning at all member institutions, a process that UNR had already begun. The Board now approves institutions' academic master plans, after review by its Academic, Research, and Student Affairs committees. In 1992 the Board mandated that all programs at each institution undergo Program Review on a five-year cycle. UNR subsequently developed "a comprehensive format and extensive criteria to be used for a five year self-study of all programs" (BoR minutes, 12/93). Second, the Directions evidenced an interest in assessment within the institutions, another effort in which UNR had pioneered. The Board began to enforce an existing requirement, for biennial reports from all system institutions of their assessment activities and findings. Third, the Directions clearly articulated the Board's support for affirmative action and for diversifying the student bodies, faculties, and staffs of the UCCSN. In 1996, after the California Board of Regents voted to eliminate affirmative action in the University of California, the UCCSN Regents voted to uphold Nevada's commitment to affirmative action.

A selection of other Board actions with effect upon UNR includes the following:

1. The adoption of a system wide grading scale, with "plus" and "minus" grades (1993). UNR's grading scale had previously included only the letter grades A, B, C, D, F. This policy was adopted after discussions with presidents and faculty senate chairs, including a joint meeting of senate chairs and the UCCSN Academic Affairs Council that achieved language satisfactory to representatives of both groups. Follow-up study by the Chancellor's office (1995) indicated that the new scale did not significantly affect grade distribution at the university.

2. The elimination of "revolving contracts" (1993). Revolving contracts provided security for non-tenure-track employees, by annually offering a new multiyear contract. The Board took its action to limit coaches' and administrators' long-term contracts. However, the wholesale elimination of such contracts also affected a number of UNR non-tenure-track faculty whose academic freedom was preserved by the security of revolving contracts. (See Standard VII, Instructional Staff.)

3. The change in the UCCSN's "Good Neighbor" and out-of-state student admission and fee policies (1995). The Board adopted increased fees for students from "Good Neighbor" counties in adjacent states, which would eventuate in Good Neighbor students paying fees equal to those charged by a "home" institution. (For California students attending UNR, the University of California, Davis, is considered that home institution. The revised policy eliminated Utah as a Good Neighbor state because its residents can attend UNR under the WICHE Undergraduate Exchange Program.) The Board also increased tuition for out-of-state (non-Nevada, non-Good Neighbor) full-time students and adopted a per-credit fee for out-of-state part-time students (those enrolled for six credits or fewer). The Board tightened the requirements for Nevada residency, specifying that nonresident students living in Nevada primarily for the purpose of higher education may not become Nevada residents during their enrollment. This decision, which brought UCCSN policy closer to that of other Western states, altered the previous policy in which nonresident students could become reclassified as residents after a year of continuous residence in the state (while enrolled in UCCSN). The decline in California students attending UNR in 1995-96 should, at least in part, be attributed to these new Board policies.

4. The requirement that the universities and community colleges create comprehensive articulation of Associate degrees (1996). The Board mandated that comprehensive articulation of the Associate of Arts degree occur by fall 1996, and of the Associate of Science degree by fall 1997.

Analysis. The Board's emphasis on systemwide academic planning coincided with the development of UNR's initial Master Plan for the 21st Century, and these two efforts (system and campus) have clearly focused attention on the need for long-range academic master planning. Similarly, the Board's statements in the area of diversity have coincided with the University's work in diversifying its faculty, staff, and student body. As a Board, the regents have recently made significant strides toward concerning themselves with systemwide policy-setting, rather than micromanaging internal operations.

In the period evaluated by the 1988 self-study and accreditation, the Board of Regents had implemented a new Code that significantly limited the security of faculty, especially non-tenure-track faculty. Although the offensive provisions of this Code had been alleviated slightly, its negative effects on faculty morale and the lingering concern that faculty had not been consulted in its creation were evident in the 1988 Institutional Self-Study report. Since that report, the Board has not attempted actions of comparably widespread threat to faculty, but neither has it modified those sections of the Code that restrict faculty rights (see Standard VII, Instructional Staff).

Communication between the Board of Regents and the faculty, identified in the 1988 report as a central problem, remains a problem. On many issues (including the Good Neighbor and out-of-state admission policies and the recent articulation policy), UNR faculty have had little advance opportunity to provide adequate feedback about the potential outcomes of Board decisions. Faculty Senate chairs often receive regents' agendas too late to have meaningful input about relevant items. The Chancellor has recently established a Council of Senate Chairs, designed as a consultative body on all issues of faculty concern. This Council, potentially a positive step, needs to be recognized as a vital arm of systemwide shared governance, and to be consulted as issues emerge rather than be informed after policies have been created. Faculty members could also serve as valuable resources to standing committees of the System Administration (such as the Academic Affairs Council), as they have to several ad hoc committees. Faculty senate chairs should also be involved in training for new regents, especially on the concept and practice of shared governance. (See also Standard VII, Instructional Staff.)

Overall Organization. Table VIII.1 (Administrative Organization) shows the overall administrative organization of the University. It takes into account several changes since the 1988 accreditation, including the creation of the positions Special Assistant for Diversity (1994), Associate Vice President for Information Resources and Technologies (1995) and Vice President for Research (1995), as well as the newly re-titled Advancement division (formerly Development). The names, titles, professional training, experience, length of service, duties, and authority of the principal administrative officers at UNR are included as Appendix VIII-2: Information on Principal Administrative Officers.

Most, but not all, administrators (Deans and above) are hired with tenure and have appointments in the academic department of their discipline. This is particularly true of Deans. Appendix VIII-2 notes the academic rank, if any, of the principal administrative officers. Some of these officers continue to teach a course or two annually, without additional compensation as they have full-time administrative contracts.

The development of academic master planning at UNR since the last self-study provides an invaluable opportunity to address an ongoing problem. Since the 1988 self-study, the university has had four Vice-Presidents for Academic Affairs (VPAA)--two permanent and two interim (the latter of whom became permanent VPAA in March 1997). Each gave his own stamp to the office, and those stamps were significantly different from each other. The lack of academic master planning encouraged each to define the job in his own terms. Interim Vice-Presidents might be seen to lack a mandate for progressive action. As a result, no long-range consensus about the role of the VPAA office or the direction of academic affairs existed. (See also Standard VII, Instructional Staff.) The maturity of our Academic Master Planning process, in which new plans build upon existing ones, allowed us in winter 1996-97 to search for a new VPAA using our academic master plan to evaluate candidates' strengths and will offer direction to the individual ultimately hired.

A long-serving President (19 years) is UNR's converse of turnover in the VPAA position. The President's long service often provides the needed continuity for long-term objectives, as exemplified by the core curriculum (instituted and developed through the regimes of several VPAAs). In several cases, the President has given important support to improving processes within administrative units and across campus: the red tape review process that has simplified paperwork in several areas; the efforts of the Vice President for Administration and Finance (VPAF) to run many administrative processes along the principles of total quality management. However, a long-serving President may also have encouraged stasis in other areas: administration continues to do "business as usual" without questioning whether we do business in the most cost-beneficial ways.

Accountability of administrators, notably at the Dean level, is the chief example of this problem. Faculty perceive little or no formal structure of expectations for administrators. Rather, only an informal process between the president, vice presidents, and Deans seems to exist to delineate responsibilities and expectations, and to evaluate and reward vice presidents and Deans for the performance of those responsibilities. In 1995 the Faculty Senate recommended and the president approved a proposal that all vice presidents develop role statements, as all faculty are required to do, with those role statements to be filed in the Faculty Senate office as well as the president's office. To date, despite repeated assurances from the president, this action has not been implemented. It is further recommended that all Deans be required to prepare role statements, in conjunction with the president and VPAA and after consultation with their faculties, and that these role statements also be filed in the Faculty Senate office.

Further, the process by which Deans (and, to a lesser extent, vice presidents) are evaluated needs review. Most colleges' and units' bylaws specify the frequency of Deans' evaluations by faculty; the Faculty Senate (through its Campus Affairs Committee) maintains a calendar of these evaluations (Appendix VIII-3: Deans' Evaluations). However, faculty in many colleges have grown cynical about these evaluation processes. In some cases, cynicism results from failure to follow bylaws requiring evaluation. More frequently, faculty in colleges and units that do conduct Deans' evaluations sense that those evaluations lead nowhere: that they have little impact on the administrator evaluated because central administration is disinclined to use them, and that, worse, problems identified by evaluations are allowed to fester until bitter confrontations occur and drastic solutions become necessary. It is unclear how, or whether, faculty's evaluations play a role in the VPAA's and president's evaluation of Deans (See also Standard VII, Instructional Staff). Although the confidentiality of evaluations remains an important principle, its practice (especially when combined with the lack of clear, written statements of responsibilities and expectations) only increases the perception that evaluations serve little purpose, a perception that erodes faculty trust in shared governance at the local level, where it is often most critical.

It is therefore recommended that the central administration, Deans, and faculty collaborate to develop a process of systematic, regular evaluation of Deans that (1) employs role statements whose contents are known to faculty in the college or unit, (2) employs evaluation by faculty (as specified in bylaws and/or by consultation between the VPAA and college faculty in years between evaluation thus specified) in evaluation by central administration, and (3) provides feedback of some sort to faculty in that college/unit about the results of that evaluation and consequent expectations of the administrator.

An additional recommendation stems from the perception that UNR's administration is handicapped by the inadequacy, real or perceived, of its current system of legal representation: UNR needs its own legal counsel. The UCCSN Counsel also represents UNR, a circumstance that has become less workable as both have grown in complexity and activity.

Administrative Faculty. The university also has a substantial corps of employees defined as "administrative faculty." These faculty, most of them within the units of Academic Affairs, Administration and Finance, Advancement, Athletics, and Student Services, are defined as "persons who perform office or non-manual work directly related to forming and implementing managerial policies or general operations" (Faculty Handbook, p. III-2). Unlike academic faculty, they are clustered by level of responsibility rather than by rank, and are placed within one of seven salary ranges. Placement depends upon a comparison of the position with other positions within a given salary range, in terms described in the Faculty Handbook (III-4). In 1996-97 an ad hoc Faculty Senate committee is examining issues related to administrative faculty personnel policies and procedures. At one time administrative faculty could receive tenure; since this policy was discontinued, the university has had a mixture of tenured and non-tenurable administrative faculty. Between 1991 and 1995, the number of administrative faculty at the university grew by 39.1% (from 266 to 370), while the number of academic faculty grew by 11.7%. However, the contrast is somewhat misleading: much of the growth in administrative faculty results from self-supporting grants and contracts activity, and is thus a happy by-product of our increasing research enterprise.

Some confusion exists within the University community about the category of "administrative faculty." The recurring concern at UNR about the growth of "administration" results in large part from the growth in the number of administrative faculty, even though many administrative faculty perform support functions (e.g., counseling; advancement) not generally considered administrative. It results, too, from the fact that since 1988-89 several administrative officers formerly known as "Director" have been titled "Assistant Vice President." In all, the following titles have been created, some to describe new positions but others to describe retitled existing ones: Associate VP for Instruction and Undergraduate Programs (formerly Assistant VP for Academic Affairs), Assistant VP for Academic Affairs (new position, concerned largely with budget); within Administration and Finance, Assistant VPs for Facilities Management, Planning Budget & Analysis, and Administrative Services; within Student Services, Assistant VPs for Enrollment Services and for Student Development.

The lack of a category besides academic faculty, administrative faculty, or classified staff means that support faculty are considered "administrative faculty" by default. The 1997-2001 Academic Master Plan has recommended the creation of a new category, "technical staff," to meet a need that will only grow as our instructional and research activities become increasingly technologically sophisticated and demanding (see Standards II and VII). The numerical growth of our "administrative faculty," combined with the inadequacy of the term to describe the functions of some people who fall within it, suggests that this is the time for discussion of this category.

Formulation of Institutional Policy. The University is organized to provide opportunities for faculty, classified staff, administrators, and undergraduate and graduate students to participate in the formulation of institutional policy. The Faculty Senate, Staff Employees Council, Associated Students of the University of Nevada (ASUN), and Graduate Student Association (GSA) are the recognized representatives of these constituencies. The Faculty Senate represents both academic and administrative faculty and reports directly to the President. The Staff Employees Council also reports officially to the President, who has delegated reporting-line responsibility for it to the VPAF. The Council of Deans, advisory to the VPAA, is scheduled to meet biweekly and involves itself with all policy issues that come before the university.

The Faculty Senate maintains six standing policy committees, which receive charges each year related to University policy. In many cases those committees' work leads to policy action (through Senate recommendation to the President); recent examples include the revised Academic Dishonesty Policy (1996). In cases such as the dishonesty policy, where a proposed policy affects another constituency, that group's representative organization is also consulted. Approximately once each year, the Faculty Senate appoints an ad hoc committee to make recommendations on a major policy issue: advising (1994), academic personnel policies and procedures (1995-96; report referenced in Standard VII: Instructional Staff), administrative faculty policies and procedures (1996-97). Other faculty committees report to the President or to a vice president or Dean; many of these committees (such as the Merit Policy Committee, composed jointly of faculty and administrators) also help shape institutional policies. Appendix VIII-4: Faculty Committees lists all faculty committees that report to the Faculty Senate, the President, and the vice presidents.

Much institutional policy is made at the college level, and faculty satisfaction with self-governance is largely a function of the communication between Dean and faculty. In recent attempts to address problems of communication and give faculty a greater voice in policy formulation, the College of Education has established a college faculty senate, and the School of Medicine has created a faculty council that reports to its Dean. As the university grows, it may become necessary for other colleges to create such local governing bodies to ensure that faculty are informed of and have a voice in drafting new college-level policies.

Acquainting Faculty with Overall Organization Plan and Institutional Policies. The University publishes several documents in an effort to acquaint faculty members with the overall organization plan and the provisions which affect faculty. These documents include the Faculty Handbook, the University Administrative Manual (UAM), and the University of Nevada, Reno, Bylaws. The UCCSN also publishes the UCCSN Code, the definitive governing document for the System.

The Faculty Handbook, maintained by the University's Personnel Services Office, outlines policies, bylaws and other information necessary to faculty. It is organized into the following sections: University and Community College System of Nevada Governance and Organization; University of Nevada, Reno Governance and Organization; Personnel Policies/Benefits (including the UNR Bylaws and the UCCSN Code); Resources for Students; Services; Grants and Contracts; Emergency/Safety Information; Sources of Information and Where Available. All new faculty members are given a copy of the Faculty Handbook at their new employee benefits orientation. Every few years this handbook is updated, and the revised pages are sent to all faculty to update their handbooks.

The UAM describes the responsibilities and details the procedures required of administrative units in numerous areas of university operations: accounting, payroll, travel, purchasing, gifts and fund raising, budgets, affirmative action, personnel services, employee benefits, classified personnel, academic and administrative personnel, student services, admissions and records, services to faculty and departments, operations and maintenance of university properties, courses and curricula. This document is available in all departmental offices (a fact verified in response to the 1988 self-study) and at the university library reference desk. Like the Faculty Handbook, the UAM is updated periodically, usually upon implementation of new policies in the areas it describes; updates are sent to all departments.

The UNR Bylaws briefly discuss the organization of the university, and include specific information regarding faculty contracts, responsibilities, rights, and privileges. In 1995-96, the Bylaws and Code Committee of the Faculty Senate began a comprehensive review of the Bylaws, with the objective of clarifying their language and bringing their provisions into line with current university practice (e.g., deleting references to an "Administrative Council" that has not existed for over a decade) and recent Code changes.

Other sources of information include the semi-annual Faculty Senate Newsletter (which includes updates on benefits and other policies), the Chancellor's Update (for UCCSN activity and policies), the periodic newspaper of the Nevada Faculty Alliance (the state arm of the AAUP), and the Board of Regents Handbook (for Board procedures and system policies). Memoranda from central administration and various administrative units also announce new policies and revisions of organization (e.g., the 1996 revision of the academic dishonesty policy; annual revisions of the merit policy; the establishment of the Associate Vice Presidency for Information Resources and Technologies).

Currency and access remain the two central challenges in acquainting faculty with the organization plan and university policies. Although the Faculty Handbook is updated regularly, some faculty consider it difficult to find relevant information, and it tends not to keep pace with changes in the UAM and the Code. On issues related to office management (budgeting, personnel, payroll, etc.), the UAM seems to be updated frequently and well. However, in many areas the UAM has not been updated since the early 1990s or even the mid-1980s. In some of these areas (for instance, committees and boards) its information is out of date. It is also not apparent that new policies and organizational changes announced by memorandum always and speedily become incorporated into these handbooks. It is recommended that all sections of the UAM be sent to the appropriate offices for review in order to check their currency, and that such review thereafter occur on an established, periodic basis.

Since 1995, the Campus Affairs and Salary and Benefits Committees of the Faculty Senate have been investigating putting the Faculty Handbook on the university's World Wide Web site. Taking this step for both the Faculty Handbook and the UAM is recommended (in the case of the UAM, extending a recommendation of the 1988 self-study), in order to make their information more accessible and to keep them more current at all times. The Chancellor's Office has recently placed Board of Regents' minutes, dating back to the 1960s, on the UCCSN website; it is in the process of doing the same for the Board handbook.

A related area of concern involves administrative organization and policies below the level of central university administration and university-wide administrative units. Although all faculty receive copies of the UNR Bylaws and UCCSN Code in the Faculty Handbook, it is less clear that faculty members have copies of their colleges', units', or departments' bylaws. In units where officially approved bylaws do not exist, the Faculty Senate has recommended and the President has mandated (1995) that such bylaws be developed within three years (see Standard I). The offices of the President, VPAA, and Faculty Senate are tracking the progress on this mandate. It is critical that all officially approved bylaws be available in all of these locations, as well as at the library reference desk. Because college/unit and department bylaws generally describe personnel processes (promotion, tenure, evaluation) in greater specificity than do the UNR Bylaws, it is equally important that all faculty possess copies of officially approved bylaws relevant to them.

Faculty Attitudes toward Administration. At a special meeting of the Faculty Senate, members of the self-study subcommittee on Administration interviewed senators (in focus groups) about attitudes toward administration. Senators were asked to identify strengths and weaknesses of UNR administration and the opportunities and threats that the University faces, as well as to respond to specific questions about accessibility and accountability of administrators, faculty members' opportunities to influence institutional policy, and the information and assistance provided by administration to faculty.

This interview identified significant strengths in UNR's administration. Above all was its commitment to shared governance. Perhaps because most UNR chief administrators are former faculty members at the university (including several former Faculty-Senate chairs), they generally recognize the importance of faculty in university-level policymaking, particularly through the Faculty Senate. Administrators are viewed as accessible to faculty, fiscally responsible, and particularly successful in external relations with the legislature and in the Capital Campaign. The emphases on community outreach and on redefining the university's historic land-grant mission for the 21st century were cited as important administrative efforts, because they attempt to envision UNR within its changing social context and because they help to articulate the distinct land-grant mission of UNR within the UCCSN. Central administration was also praised for being responsive to the recommendations of the 1988 self-study and accreditation, as well as to the faculty-driven academic master planning that began in 1991.

Senators believe that several areas of opportunity flow from these strengths. As the UCCSN grows, and particularly as growth in southern Nevada continues to outpace that in northern Nevada, it becomes increasingly important for UNR to develop and publicize the strengths that distinguish it from UNLV. The recent emphasis on outreach and the land-grant mission provide an excellent avenue for such distinction. As the process of academic master planning becomes more regularized, and especially because the new master plan covers the four years 1997-2001 (rather than just a single biennium), administration and faculty should collaborate to develop methods of implementing the recommendations in the master plan, including processes of setting priorities among proposed new programs and of allocating resources to new and existing programs in accordance with the plan (see also Standard I & Standard II).

8.3 Financial Program.

Overall Organization and Budgeting. The chief finance/budget officer is the Vice President for Administration and Finance. This position reports directly to the President of the university. The duties are to provide financial and administrative services in the most economical, efficient and effective manner, to serve the teaching, research and public service mission for a land grant institution. The VPAF participates with the President, Vice Presidents, Deans, Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, and the Board of Regents in developing financial policies and procedures that best ensure appropriate levels of fiscal control and accountability. For a detailed description of the budgeting process see Standard II.

Individual departments may request additional funding from their respective Dean or vice president; should he/she approve the request, funds must be transferred from a budgeted account. Hence, we are limited by the overall appropriation budget, but not by the departmental budget. The President or his designee has final approval on all transfer of funds between departments. The vice president, Dean or director must also approve of all budget transfers.

Budgetary Actions Based on Objective Data. The state-appropriated budget is built on a funding formula, which is based on full-time equivalency of student enrollment. Thus, the starting point for the University budget is entirely based on objective data. However, actual distribution of these funds to the departmental level is made on a discretionary basis by the vice presidents. The vice presidents are given all funds, and they then disburse those to the colleges and other units that report directly to them. The vice presidents may hold back funds to use as needs arise throughout the fiscal year. This discretionary method allows for more flexibility, and the ability to respond to enrollment pressures in various departments. Its development, since the 1988 self-study, has also meant that a greater proportion of the university's money is held by the Vice Presidents (particularly the VPAA, given the formula-funded instructional budget) for funding their priorities (see also Standard II).

Perhaps inevitably, tension exists and will continue to exist between allocating new money to new priorities and using it to enhance existing programs. In periods of relatively flat budgets (such as 1991-1995), the seeming proliferation of new programs has meant that needs within existing departments have gone unmet even longer than otherwise might have been the case. Historically, budgetary allocations have not been made on the basis of objective data because the university has had very little objective data from which to make them. However, two changes will increasingly provide more objective standards for budget priorities: the Academic Master Plan (which is designed to be used as a blueprint for academic affairs, and which cannot succeed if budgets are not devised in accordance with it), and the increasing efforts to collect data for assessment and program review purposes.

Controls over Purchases and Expenditures. (See also Standard II, Finance.) The controls that are operative over expenditures differ by types of funds, as follows:

State Appropriated Funds and Self-Supporting Budget Accounts: The system will not allow transactions to be processed in excess of the current uncommitted amount in specific expense budget lines. Self-supporting budget accounts will also be monitored for overall account balance to assure that sufficient revenues are being realized to cover budgeted expenditures. The overall account balance of self-supporting budget accounts will continue to carry forward each fiscal year. State appropriated fund accounts have to be expended or committed prior to the end of each fiscal year and will not carry forward.

Grants and Contract Funds: The system will not allow transactions to be processed in excess of the current uncommitted amount in specific expense budget lines. Grants and contract accounts will continue to be budgeted and accounted for on an inception-to-date basis.

Non-Budgeted Accounts: The system will not allow transactions to be processed in excess of the current uncommitted overall account balance. The overall account balance of non-budgeted accounts will continue to carry forward each fiscal year.

Statements of expenditures and balances are furnished to department heads in writing at the end of each month. However, this information is now available on a daily basis on-line through our College & University Financial System (CUFS), which is updated daily.

Before 1995, there were significant problems with the purchasing process, which was considered unduly restrictive by those involved. In response, in 1995 the University created the Small Dollar Purchases Quality Service Team, which was charged with simplifying and streamlining the various processes used to make small dollar purchases. Through a survey of campus users it was found that the Limited Purchase Order (LPO) did not meet campus needs. The three primary problems were a cumbersome accounting process, end-users' lack of awareness of the appropriate policies and procedures, and a need for alternative methods for making small dollar purchases. The Team made four recommendations, which were implemented in 1996:

1. Increase the dollar threshold of small dollar purchases (currently the LPO) from $500 to $2,000;

2. Revise the LPO form, to become the Departmental Purchase Order (DPO) to reflect the higher limit and incorporate a number of additional transactions;

3. Encourage the use of petty cash for very small purchases (limited to the amount of the petty cash fund or $50.00, whichever is less); and

4. Provide detailed training to all purchasers.

The most significant recommendation was the creation of the Departmental Purchase Order. This simple form replaced five previous forms - the Request for Check, Limited Purchase Order, Intra-Institutional Voucher, Central Stores Supply Requisition, and Printing Services and Copy Center Work Order. As a result, dissatisfaction with the purchasing process appears to have diminished significantly.

8.4 Physical Plant. (See Standard III, Physical Plant, for detailed description of these areas.)

Overall Organization. The control and maintenance of the physical plant is under the control of the Director of Facilities Management, who reports to the VPAF. The Director has full responsibility for plant maintenance, including repairs. In addition, the Director is responsible for new construction, Parking Services Department, Motor Pool Operation and Garage Operation. The Director is authorized to make direct purchases of supplies and repair materials required for maintenance of the physical plant, up to a contract limit of $250,000. Contracts above that amount must be approved by the Board of Regents. The Director of Facilities Management and those staff members who have been delegated authority are responsible for the selection and supervision of workers in the physical plant. An organizational chart for physical-plant responsibilities appears as Table VIII.2: Physical Plant Organization.

Note: Information on Physical Plant operating staff and plant utilization studies can be found in Standard III, Physical Plant. Further recommendations regarding physical-plant upgrades and maintenance can be found in Standard VII.

Studies of Building and Maintenance. The State Public Works Board administers most major new construction projects on campus and maintains historical construction cost comparison data. Projects contracts are awarded based upon the low bidder. Construction costs are compared to historical data throughout the state. Costs per square foot for building maintenance, custodial maintenance, and grounds maintenance compare favorably with the Pacific Coast Region average costs and the national average costs for all institutions with enrollments of 5,000 to 11,999.

Building Custodial Grounds Total

Maint Maint Maint

*Pacific Coast Region Public Institutions 1.117 1.013 .440 2.56

*Nationwide Enrollment 5,000-11,999 .846 .991 .284 2.121

University of Nevada, Reno .946 1.051 .483 2.49

* Source: COMPARATIVE COSTS AND STAFFING REPORT (Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers, 1994).

Operating Hours. In 1994-95, facing anticipated shortfalls in utility budgets, UNR modified its operating and utility hours during breaks, weekends, and summer. The most dramatic of these modifications was the change in the University’s operating hours in the summer (from the week after classes end in May until mid-August), to a 7:00am-3:30pm business day. These modified summer hours have been continued in 1996 and 1997.

While the modified summer hours were perhaps a noble experiment in financial management, it is now time to end them. Most clearly, the wider community and our students expect the University to be open during traditional business hours; it can be seen as unprofessional and detached to have answering machines (or worse, nothing at all) answering phones after 3:30, when most businesses--and UNR during the academic year--are open until 5:00. Indeed, the modified summer hours seem to fly in the face of our own academic planning, which emphasizes moving toward more student-centered scheduling of services as well as classes.

All of the Deans and the Faculty Senate have expressed strong opposition to continuing the modified summer hours. Apparently, the classified staff is the one campus constituency with considerable support for these hours. But that support should not be sufficient to sustain a policy at odds with our academic purpose. (See also Standard XI, Graduate Program.)

8.5 Public Information/Public Relations Program.

Activities and Organization. UNR's Office of Communications (which oversees the public relations program) directs its efforts toward several publics, including the state community at large, the media, University alumni, opinion leaders (business people, legislators), supporters and potential supporters of the University Foundation, students and potential students and their parents, and UNR faculty and staff. Over the past eight years many steps have been taken by this office, by the Foundation, and by other units of the University to enhance communication and relationships with these publics.

The Century Campaign (1990-1995) raised over $124 million, most of it earmarked for new buildings and major renovations, student scholarships, equipment, and other enhancements to the campus and academic programs (see also Standard II, Finance). In conjunction with this campaign, the University began aggressively "telling its story" through paid media campaigns (airport billboards, print and television advertising) and hired a new public-relations firm (Rose-Glenn Advertising) in 1994. A 1994 series of community forums brought local business leaders and legislators to campus to learn about UNR initiatives, technologically "smart" classrooms, and needs for future funding. As part of the effort to increase awareness of UNR, a telephone and mail survey ("Perception and Image," 1994) was commissioned "to gather perceptual image data from University of Nevada, Reno alumni and Nevada residents." The results of that survey help to guide current public-relations efforts. In addition, most colleges and schools now have development directors who work jointly with the college/school and the Division of University Advancement in fund-raising and community relations.

The Office of Communications has significantly increased contact with local media, notably the Reno Gazette-Journal: through frequent "QuickFacts" releases drawn from relevant faculty expertise, through a kit for new local reporters, and through a guide that enables Communications and local media to locate faculty expertise on specific issues. This office produces several publications. Silver and Blue, the bimonthly alumni magazine, has been revamped from its earlier format as the "UNR Times." Its circulation of 32,000 includes all alumni, as well as faculty, staff, and friends of the University. Campus Connections (formerly the Item-Miser), the campus newsletter, is distributed weekly (27 times each academic year) to 2300 people. The Annual Report to Donors is published for the University Foundation.

The Office of Communications, with a staff of 13.5 FTE, is divided into three divisions. Creative Services (formerly Publications and Graphics), has 1 full-time professional and 4 full-time classified employees, and provides design and editorial publication services (approximately 250 jobs per year) to the campus community on a recharge basis. Public Relations, which has 5 professional and 2 classified employees, works primarily with the media, to disseminate University information to local, state, and national media. Silver and Blue has 1 1/2 professional employees (half-time Editor and full-time Managing Editor). These divisions report to the full-time, professional Director of the office. The Office of Communications is part of University Advancement. Decisions about the University's media messages and target audiences are made at the vice-presidential level, with implementation by the appropriate divisions (for instance, Student Services on issues of recruitment, etc.).

Analysis. The UNR public relations program has been very successful in the last eight years. The Century Campaign, which exceeded its goal by nearly $20 million, was enormously successful both in raising funds for the University and in raising UNR's profile with several publics (business, alumni, legislators, Nevadans at large). The Campaign also raised the level of annual giving from roughly $6-8 million to $15-20 million, a level that the University hopes to maintain even after the formal campaign has ended (see also Standard II, Finance). Positive coverage in the local media has significantly increased as communication with those media has been enhanced (a recommendation of the 1988 self-study). The image survey indicated that both alumni and Nevadans at large have positive feelings toward UNR, even if (particularly for non-alumni) familiarity with UNR is relatively limited. Of respondents who have "witnessed any significant changes in the university" over the past five years (28.2% of those surveyed), 86.1% responded that the university has improved over that period. The work of the University Foundation, in the Century Campaign and in projects like the Silver Scholars Program (which awards dictionaries to outstanding students in rural and Clark County high schools), has also increased UNR's visibility around the state, particularly in Las Vegas and Clark County. It will be important to conduct follow-up studies of the University's image, in order to track the effectiveness of our public relations efforts.

One perceived weakness in the public relations program involves the community's "access to expertise": that is, the ability of community groups, organizations, and businesses to find relevant faculty expertise quickly and efficiently. Several participants in the 1994 community forums (business people, legislators) identified the need for a central source of information about faculty expertise: whom to call for information, or for a speaker, on particular topics. Addressing this need will require enhanced formal communication between the Office of Communications and departments and colleges within UNR. Because "public relations" occurs in many units of the University (colleges Advancement officers, Student Services' work with potential students and their parents), stronger internal coordination should improve communication with UNR's external public.

A second area of opportunity concerns UNR's image in Nevada's rural communities, which is weaker than in the Reno and Las Vegas areas. Efforts should be directed toward enhancing that image, particularly because the University contributes greatly to Nevada's rural well-being and because the rural counties represent an important part of the University's historic land-grant mission.

The Office of Communications is now using fax technology to spread UNR's messages rapidly and is evaluating the use of newer technologies to increase the number of persons and institutions reached and the speed of communication. It is recommended that the Office of Communications evaluate its current capabilities to incorporate technology further into its daily work, as well as seek more opportunities to reach more widely in public-relations efforts. The evaluation report could then be used to seek support for staff training, identify any desirable reorganization of Communications departments, illuminate ways to cement cooperative ventures with other University departments, or indicate needs for additional resources.

8.6 Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Program.

Mandates for Action: Ad Hoc Committee Report; Conciliation Agreement. Responding to campus-wide concern about the effectiveness and visibility of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity programs on campus, the President appointed an ad hoc Committee to Evaluate the Affirmative Action Office (AAO) in August 1992. That committee's report, completed in 1993, emphasized fostering a campus climate that welcomes diversity, creating a more visible, proactive role for the AAO, and offering more informal avenues for resolving conflicts. That report has been the basis of substantial change in the AAO, and in the processes of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity on campus.

In August 1996, UNR signed a Conciliation Agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor/ESA Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). This Agreement, the product of an extensive federal audit, identified ten violations of statute. Most of these violations concern insufficient documentation, notably of "the specific reasons minorities or females were not considered or interviewed for job openings, or were not selected for positions once they were interviewed." (CA p.11) In most cases, the documentation of good-faith efforts rather than a lack of good-faith efforts was at issue. The fact that the University has two personnel offices, its own responsible for all faculty and administrative positions and that of Business Center North (responsible for all positions in the state classified system) also contributed to some of the problems. The provisions of the Agreement, including remedies, are now "part of the University of Nevada's Affirmative Action Program." The task of providing materials for the audit resulted in an updated University Affirmative Action Plan, which will be updated annually and monitored by OFCCP. Fulfilling the conditions of the Agreement is a top priority of the AAO and the University.

1. Reorganization of the AAO, including several new positions. As recommended by the ad hoc committee report, a Special Assistant to the President for Diversity (SAPD), reporting directly to the President and "functionally equivalent to vice president," now oversees affirmative action as well as diversity efforts. This position was established in spring 1994. Two new professional positions, with "division of labor" to be "partly mapped out" by the SAPD, are to report to the SAPD. One of these positions has been filled by an Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Coordinator as of October 1996; responsibilities include implementation of a system to monitor, report, and enforce EEO/Affirmative Action processes for the Classified staff through Business Center North. The other position remains to be filled, as of October 1996. The Director of Affirmative Action and two classified employees also report to the SAPD.

2. Advisory Boards. The ad hoc committee recommended creation of an Affirmative Action Advisory Board (AAAB), to consist of faculty and staff from across campus. That Board was established, as was a Gender Relations Advisory Board, in 1993. Members of the AAAB serve on search committees for key positions (including all at the level of dean or above) as representatives of the AAO. Other functions of the AAAB still to be developed include establishing an evaluation and assessment process for the AAO and the SAPD, conducting exit interviews with departing minority faculty and classified employees, and "assisting the AAO staff in developing materials setting out consistent office procedures" (such as an AAO administrative manual and "straightforward checklists for such procedures as searches, grievances, and sexual harassment complaints"). The Gender Relations Advisory Board's charges include establishing a network of faculty and staff on campus who can "provide advice and assistance on University policies and procedures for handling sexual harassment." These advisors provide "a less-formal entry point for women who need to have a knowledgeable advisor help determine whether they have a justifiable complaint and if so, how to deal with campus procedures." Both the AAAB and the Gender Relations Advisory Board seek to foster all three primary objectives identified by the ad hoc committee: a more open campus climate, more visibility for AA and diversity objectives, and multiple means of resolving conflicts. However, as of November 1996, the Gender Relations Advisory Board had not met in more than one year.

Two other advisory boards, established in 1995, seek to foster closer connections between UNR and minority constituencies in the Reno-Sparks community. The Alliance Group, composed of K-12 and campus representatives with particular expertise and/or interest in minority issues, works "to assess and solve some of the problems that affect students of color and their families in both communities." The UNR Ethnic Advisory Board (formerly the Alumni/Community Recruitment and Retention Advisory Board), composed of representatives from community groups and agencies as well as interested university personnel, provides support to students of color on campus and in the community. Its "broad objective is to assist in the retention and graduation of ethnic minority students." The SAPD works with both of these boards. In addition, a Community Development Specialist, reporting to the Vice President for Student Services, was hired in August 1996 to develop and facilitate supportive relationships between campus and the wider community.

3. Searches. (See also Standard VII, Instructional Staff.) The AAO has become proactive in assisting departments with searches. The AAO has organized workshops for search secretaries, and all members of search committees are now required to attend training sessions sponsored by the AAO. However, this requirement has not been enforced university-wide, with the result that many search-committee members do not attend the training. The AAO provides complete documentation of the proper recruiting process in search packets that include a checklist of procedures and reports to be filed at specified stages of the search, and it welcomes consultation with search committees, secretaries, and chairs at every stage of a search. The AAO has also, admirably, become more restrictive with regard to "no-search hires," hires for which routine requirements are waived. Such hires are often perceived as attempts to evade equal-opportunity requirements or to hire predetermined candidates. When routine requirements are waived for a position, the AAO now requires that departments initiate a national search for that position within six months. The AAO also now places a one-year limit on searches, in order to prevent dormant searches from yielding hires long after potential candidates could have learned of the positions.

While the University and the AAO have made significant progress toward more open and fair searches, a larger problem remains: many departments do not consult with the AAO during the hiring process, thus involving AAO only in ostensibly punitive ways--as a watchdog at the end of a process, sometimes forced to reject the work of the search. Several solutions are possible.

1. Beginning the search. As part of the university effort to reduce paperwork and decentralize the hiring process, the P1 process--the formal request to open a search, which required approval of the VPAA as well as the appropriate dean and the AAO--was discontinued in 1995. This action has had mixed results. With a reduction in paperwork has come a lack of necessary information, as the P1 form provided important initial information about the nature of the position being sought. A revised version of the P1, with AAO consultation and approval required before the dean's approval, would provide important information both to the AAO and to the units seeking to search. Moreover, the AAO should be involved early in all searches to assist units and search committees in recruiting most widely (by drafting inclusive advertisements and considering ways to expand their applicant pools). The requirement that search-committee members attend training sessions should be enforced across the university.

2. Training search secretaries. Just as search-committee members must receive training, it should be mandatory that every search secretary receive formal training by the AAO. The SAPD and the Director of Affirmative Action have suggested that a trained cadre of search secretaries (approximately twenty) be established, so that every campus search is assigned a secretary experienced both in AA procedures and in the general area (college, constellation of disciplines) of the positions involved. This proposal could be implemented by using current classified employees, who would need appropriate release time (a potentially difficult prospect for their home departments) or by hiring new classified employees dedicated to this function. In any event, it is recommended that a formal, mandatory process for training search secretaries be developed.

Particularly troubling, the federal audit revealed that on some occasions when the AAO asked department reasons for selecting non-minorities and men, instead of qualified minority and women applicants, those department heads were "initially unresponsive to her requests" or "made statements to her indicating they were resentful and resistant to provide" the requested information. Even though the selections were "nondiscriminatory," these responses to the AA officer bespeak an ongoing problem: some faculty view the AAO as an antagonist to faculty and academic values, rather than an office necessary to our compliance with statute and--more important--potentially valuable in broadening the diversity of our applicant pools. The AAO must continue to position itself clearly not as a source of professional academic judgment seeking to influence the outcomes of searches, but rather as an office asking academic units to document their professional judgments about candidates.

These lingering difficulties notwithstanding, campus climate regarding diversity and equal opportunity has improved noticeably since the report of the ad hoc Committee to Evaluate the Affirmative Action Office. The AAO, especially since the hiring of its new Director in 1995, can be congratulated for its efforts to reach out to campus constituencies proactively, as well as performing its compliance functions. At the same time, both the AAO and academic units bear the responsibility of further enhancing the climate. The SAPD and/or the Director of Affirmative Action should make annual reports and maintain ongoing conversations with a wide variety of campus constituencies, including but not limited to the Faculty Senate, the Staff Employees Council, and the UNR Network. Deans have the power to set the tone within their colleges for good or ill and must be encouraged--by central administration, through incentives and evaluations--to convey and champion the principles of equal opportunity and diversity.

4. Diversity Goals and Retention. In 1993, the UCCSN Board of Regents required each system institution to adopt goals and timelines for the inclusion of ethnic minority faculty and staff. UNR took that opportunity to develop diversity goals for women faculty and staff, as well as students of color. Our diversity goals for the period 1993-2000 are as follows: 50% of all academic and professional hires should be women; 20% of all academic and professional hires should be minorities; the University should make a 50% increase in minority students over the base year of 1993 (requiring an annual net increase of 87 minority students). In the first two years of these goals (October 1, 1993-September 30, 1995), the University came close to meeting them: of 292 faculty hires, 141 (48.3%) were women and 47 (16.1%) were minorities. Our minority student population has increased by 170 students in those two years, or 97.7% of the goal.

Efforts to recruit and hire minorities and women in academic and professional positions will come to naught if those hires leave the University shortly after arriving. There is no reason to believe that retaining minority and female faculty is currently a problem. Because the faculty hired since the adoption of diversity goals have been at UNR only three years at most, current data on retention are inconclusive. It will be important to continue to monitor faculty retention.

5. Informal Avenues for Conflict Resolution. Like retention, conflict resolution involves far more than issues of equal opportunity and diversity. The University Appeals Committee (through Faculty Senate) has established a mediation option for faculty grievances, but numerous other sorts of disputes would be well handled by an impartial campus resolution process. The ad hoc Committee recommended establishment of an Ombudsman's Office, as well as a network of informal dispute resolution officers on campus. These proposals should be explored further, through discussions among the Faculty Senate, Staff Employees' Council, and central administration.

1. All vice presidents should develop role statements, as recommended by the Faculty Senate and approved by the President; moreover, all deans should also develop role statements. These role statements should be filed in the Faculty Senate office as well as the President's office.

2. Central administration, Deans, and faculty should collaborate to develop a process of systematic, regular evaluation of Deans and the outcomes of these evaluations should be made known in appropriate formats.

3. The Special Assistant to the President for Diversity and/or the Director of Affirmative Action should make annual reports and maintain ongoing conversations with a wide variety of campus constituencies, including at least the Faculty Senate, Staff Employees' Council, and UNR Network.

4. Central administration should be reorganized in such a way as to give primacy to the chief academic officer, perhaps by means of a provost model. Such authority would facilitate implementation of the priorities set by the academic master plan and accompanying evaluative tools, such as program reviews.

5. UNR should engage its own legal counsel, distinct from UCCSN counsel.

6. Faculty, through the Faculty Senate, should become more involved in system-wide shared governance and this in particular should involve participation in budget planning and resource allocation.

7. All faculty should possess copies of all officially approved bylaws relevant to them (including college or unit and department bylaws).

8. The Office of Communications should work with departments and colleges to develop a central source of information about faculty expertise.

9. The University should initiate discussions about the category "administrative faculty," with specific attention to terms that better describe the various functions of those who are now so categorized.

10. All sections of the University Administrative Manual should be sent to the appropriate offices, to be reviewed for currency and accuracy; such review should occur thereafter on an established, periodic basis.

11. The Faculty Handbook and the University Administrative Manual should be put on the university's world-wide web site.

12. The experiment in modified summer operating hours (7:00am-3:30pm) should be discontinued, and regular operating hours (8:00am-5:00pm) reinstated year-round.

13. Efforts should be made to enhance the University's image in Nevada's rural communities.

14. The Office of Communications should evaluate its current capabilities to incorporate technology further into its daily work, as well as seek more opportunities to reach more widely in public-relations efforts.

15. The Affirmative Action Office should be involved in all searches as early as possible, to assist units and search committees in recruiting most widely. The requirement that all search-committee members attend training sessions should be enforced across the university.

16. A formal process for training search secretaries should be developed; once it has been developed, no individual should serve as a search secretary without formal training by the Affirmative Action Office.

17. The University should explore possibilities for informal dispute resolution, through discussions among the Faculty Senate, Staff Employees Council, and central administration.