Regents briefs for March 19, 2004

Friday, March 19, 2004 | 9:46 a.m.

Tuition hikes approved

University regents voted 11-1 to approve new tuition increases at all of the state's institutions.

The increases, which range from 3.6 percent at the community college level to 10.1 percent at the graduate level for residents, created little debate among regents.

The hikes, which go into effect in 2005 and 2006, are necessary to prevent future double-digit increases, Chancellor Jane Nichols said. Fifty percent of the increase in revenue will also be set aside for need-based financial aid.

The increase averages out to $1.75 more per credit at the community college level, $4.50 at the state college level, $7 more per credit at the university level and $12.50 at the graduate level.

Only Regent Mark Alden voted against the tuition increases, arguing that tuition should be raised only when needed.

Evaluations postponed

University regents unanimously approved a request by Chancellor Jane Nichols to postpone the evaluations of several institution presidents and to extend their contracts for one year until the board can approve a new format for the evaluations.

Nichols said she is concerned that the current format may be in violation of the new attorney general's opinion on what may be said in closed session. Personnel evaluations for presidents have always been conducted in closed session to protect their privacy rights.

University and Community College System of Nevada staff will bring a proposal for a new evaluation process at the June meeting, Nichols said.

System attorney revision OK'd

In one of the few contentious debates at an otherwise peaceful Board of Regents meeting Thursday, university regents voted 8-5 to change the authority over the University and Community College System of Nevada attorney.

The system attorney will continue to report to and undergo personnel evaluations through the chancellor, but if a conflict of interest arises the system attorney will report to the chairman or chairwoman of the regents board.

The five regents who voted against the revision said they wanted the system attorney to report directly to the board because the board is the system attorney's main client.

"When we're the client, the attorney should report to us, not the chancellor," Regent Steve Sisolak said. "It gives the chancellor an immense amount of control over lawsuits."

The regents who voted in favor of the revision said it was appropriate for the system attorney to report to only one person, the chancellor, and that this revision made allowances for when there was a conflict of interest in the reporting line.