A meeting of the Advisory Committee to Examine Locating a 4-Year State College in Henderson (created as a result of Assembly Bill 220 - 1999) was held at 3:30 p.m., on Tuesday, January 4, 2000, at the Henderson Convention Center, 200 Water Street, Henderson, Nevada.




Assemblyman Richard D. Perkins, Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter

Mayor James B. Gibson

Regent Howard Rosenberg

Regent Mark Alden




Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst

Joi Davis, Committee Secretary




John Case, Desert Research Institute

Steve Soukup, University of Phoenix

Regent Steve Sisolak, University and Community College System of Nevada

Bob Kasner, Paragon Asset Management Company

Jane Nichols, University and Community College System of Nevada

Richard Wilkie, City of Henderson

Rick Bennett, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Bob Cooper, City of Henderson

Bob Campbell, City of Henderson

Mark Calhoun, City of Henderson

Bonnie Rinaldi, City of Henderson

Betsy Fretwell, City of Henderson

John Rinaldi, Jr., City of Henderson

James Dabe, City of Henderson

Leigh Ann Monk, Tate & Snyder Architects

Mario Reyes, Tate & Snyder Architects

Shauna Hughes, City of Henderson

David Hare, Henderson Home News

Kathleen Richards

Dan Masarove, City of Las Vegas

Vicki Taylor, City of Henderson

Bristol Ellington, City of Henderson

Mike Gilmartin, R & R Partners


List of Exhibits


Exhibit A         Meeting Notice and Agenda

Exhibit B         Attendance Roster

Exhibit C        Meeting Packet


NOTE:           All Exhibits are on file at the Research Library and Fiscal Analysis Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.


1.         Roll Call


Chairman Perkins called the meeting to order at 3:45 p.m., recognizing the full Committee in attendance.


2.         Approval of Minutes


Chairman Perkins indicated he would accept a motion to approve the minutes of the November 16, 1999, meeting (Exhibit C, Tab 2), if no changes were forthcoming.



            NOVEMBER 16, 1999, COMMITTEE MEETING.




Regent Alden commented that the minutes were good.  Chairman Perkins stated that a typographical error on page 18 was pointed out to the secretary, but the error was not substantive in nature. 


Dr. Jane Nichols, UCCSN, informed the secretary of two changes to the minutes:  Page 7, approximately in the middle of the page, the word “forces” should be changed to “courses.”  Therefore, the sentence should read:  “All courses are interdisciplinary and faculty teach outside their area of expertise in teams within the classroom.”  In addition, the first line on page 14 of the minutes of November 16, 1999, the word “new” should be changed to “few.”  Therefore, the sentence should read:  “Dr. Nichols stated that few colleges built in the country today were built almost exclusively with state dollars.”




3.         Discuss and Approve Contract between the Advisory Committee and the City of Henderson


Mark Stevens, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Fiscal Analysis Division, stated that at the last committee meeting, the Advisory Committee approved and directed staff to develop an agreement between the Advisory Committee and the City of Henderson.  That agreement is included in the meeting packet (Exhibit C, Tab 3).  Mr. Stevens directed the Advisory Committee to Section I(c) of page one of the agreement:  “All deadlines set forth in this agreement may be modified by mutual written agreement of the parties.”  Further, Sections II and III were the more imperative portions of the agreement. 


Mr. Stevens said that Section II provided that on or about March 1, 2000 Henderson agrees to:


(1) Obtain from residents, employers and other interested persons and entities throughout Nevada, via a public outreach program, a sense of:

                        (a) What the mission of the new college should be;

            (b) Degree programs and attendance projections for the first year and over the next ten years at the new college;

(c) What specific services should be provided by the new college in terms of economic development, workforce preparation, specialized training, etc., and

(d) What potential partnerships between the new college and business, industry, non-profit organizations and other entities would benefit the new college and the community.


(2)  Deliver to the Advisory Committee a written report of Henderson’s findings concerning the activities carried out under paragraph (1) above.


Additionally, Mr. Stevens pointed out that the agreement sets forth:


            (B)  On or before March 1, 2000, Henderson agrees to deliver to the Advisory Committee a preliminary report containing:

                        (1) A draft mission statement for the new college;

                        (2) A list of possible degree programs to be offered by the new college with an analysis of the feasibility of implementing each program and a timeframe for the start of each program;

                        (3) A list of services that could be provided by the new college with an analysis of the feasibility of offering the services and a timeframe for implementing each service; and

                        (4) A description of potential partnerships that the new college should develop with business, industry, non-profit organizations and other entities.


Chairman Perkins asked whether the tasks outlined by Mr. Stevens would be performed in conjunction with the Advisory Committee, the Founding President of the new state college, and the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN).


Mr. Stevens directed the Advisory Committee to page 2, Section D of the Agreement:  “Henderson agrees to coordinate with the Advisory Committee, the Founding President of the new college and the University and Community College System of Nevada, in its efforts to accomplish the tasks Henderson has agreed to perform under this agreement.”


Continuing, Mr. Stevens pointed out that page 2, Section C indicated that on or before June 1, 2000, the City of Henderson agrees to deliver to the Advisory Committee a final report for the items discussed.  Therefore, by March 1, 2000, preliminary information will be provided by the City of Henderson to the Advisory Committee, and on or before June 1, 2000, a final report would be presented. 


Regent Rosenberg commented that the schedule outlined in the Agreement was very ambitious.  He was concerned that not enough time was available for the City of Henderson to accomplish the tasks identified.


Mr. Stevens responded that the timeframe was expedited because the Advisory Committee needed to provide information to the Board of Regents that would assist in upcoming budget reviews.  However, he pointed out that under I(C) of the Agreement, any or all deadlines could be modified based on mutual, written agreement of both parties.  Therefore, if a problem arose and additional time was needed, the Advisory Committee could modify the deadlines.


Chairman Perkins reminded the Committee that the next Advisory Committee meeting was February 4, 2000.  At that time, the Committee would get a sense of how the City of Henderson was doing with the timeframes set forth in the Agreement.


Mayor Gibson asked whether there was a sense from the consultants as to whether the proposed deadlines could be achieved. 


Betsy Fretwell, City of Henderson, responded that the City has been discussing the tasks with several consultants to identify available resources.  She opined that with the help of consultants, the City of Henderson should be within the March 2000 timeframe.


Regent Alden asked if the Advisory Committee would be apprised of the names of the consultants working with the City of Henderson.  Ms. Fretwell answered that disclosure of the names of the consultants might be premature at this time.  She asked for clarification on the Agreement, particularly regarding the outreach tasks so the City of Henderson could review various options and develop a workable plan.  She indicated that clarification was needed prior to designating consultants to begin work.


Chairman Perkins restated Ms. Fretwell’s comments to mean that the City of Henderson had consultants available and had discussed various items with those consultants but until the City received direction from the Advisory Committee, it was difficult to say exactly which consultants would be working with the City under the Agreement.  Ms. Fretwell replied that Chairman Perkins’ summary of her concern was correct.  In addition, she relayed that she would like to spend more time with Dr. Moore, the Founding President of the new state college because his leadership would direct many of the tasks.  Ms. Fretwell informed the Advisory Committee that she would be meeting with Dr. Moore within the next couple weeks so by the next committee meeting (February 4, 2000), she would be able to share more information with the Advisory Committee as to the consultants the City hired to complete the tasks outlined in the Agreement.


Regent Alden thanked Ms. Fretwell for her complete response to his inquiry.


Mr. Stevens pointed out that on Section D of page 2 of the Agreement the first sentence indicated that the City of Henderson would rely upon the work of its staff, a consultant hired by the City of Henderson, or a combination of both, to accomplish the work under the Agreement.


Mr. Stevens directed the Advisory Committee to Section III of the Agreement, Plan for Campus Development:


(A) On or before March 1, 2000, Henderson agrees to:


            (1) Evaluate and prioritize potential sites available in the City of Henderson to locate the new college campus;

            (2) Develop a campus master facility plan for the site chosen;

            (3) Identify estimated site development costs, including utilities, etc.;

            (4) Identify the first buildings that would be built on the prospective campus and provide a schematic of the buildings and an estimate of the prospective cost of the buildings;

            (5) Identify other potential buildings that should be built on the campus; and

            (6) Deliver a written report to the Advisory Committee.


Continuing, Mr. Stevens stated that in that same section, the Agreement provided that on or before June 1, 2000, the final information would be reported on the above matters.  Again, the City of Henderson would be relying upon its staff, a consultant, or a combination of the two, and the City of Henderson would be coordinating its efforts in conjunction with the Advisory Committee, the Founding President and the UCCSN.


Chairman Perkins restated that based on the Agreement, the City of Henderson would provide preliminary information to the Committee by March 1, 2000 and final findings by June 1, 2000.


Mr. Stevens said Section IV of the Agreement sets forth that the City of Henderson will provide one or more knowledgeable persons at each meeting of the Advisory Committee to provide an update. 


Mr. Stevens stated that the remainder of the Agreement was standard contractual language and unless the Committee had specific questions, he would direct the Committee to page 5 of the Agreement, Section XIII – Payment Schedule.  He pointed out that (A) of that section allows the City of Henderson to be compensated for any consultants hired by the City to assist in the completion of the Agreement, up to an amount not to exceed $50,000.


Regent Alden said the UCCSN was incurring costs for the development of a new state college but was not billing anyone for those costs.  He asserted that the City of Henderson needed to absorb some costs; recognizing that compensation should be made to outside consultants hired by the City.  He asked whether that was the intention of the Agreement.


Mr. Stevens stated that was correct and that the City of Henderson would not be receiving compensation for staff costs.  The Agreement only covered outside consultants hired by the City of Henderson, up to $50,000.  Further, Mr. Stevens pointed out that Section B on page 5 of the Agreement provided that up to $25,000 in additional funds could become available under the Agreement with the advance approval of the Advisory Committee.


Chairman Perkins said that the Advisory Committee approved the sum of $75,000 at the last meeting when budget issues were discussed, with the understanding that a savings of $25,000 should be attempted.  Mr. Stevens concurred; adding that $75,000 was identified for consultant costs and the Advisory Committee suggested that $25,000 of that could be saved in order to remain within the amount appropriated to the Committee under Assembly Bill 220 of the 1999 legislative session.


Chairman Perkins noted that under Section XI of the Agreement, reference to Section XI in the text should actually be Section X.  Mr. Stevens agreed to have that change reflected in the original Agreement.


Regent Alden acknowledged that Dr. Richard Moore, the Founding President of the new college, would not officially act in that capacity until January 15, 2000, so his time between now and then should be carefully utilized since he was still running the Community College of Southern Nevada (CCSN) and an interim president had not yet been named to replace Dr. Moore at that institution.


Dr. Richard Moore, CCSN, said that he has taken paid leave from CCSN since the time the Board of Regents appointed him as Founding President of the new state college, and he was now donating his time to CCSN and to the new state college.  He stressed that he had no conflict in doing any of the work that was necessary for either institution.


Regent Alden expressed appreciation to Dr. Moore for his generosity in donating his time.


Mr. Stevens went on to relate that the payment schedule under the Agreement showed that payments for the consultants shall constitute the entire compensation for the services rendered and tasks performed by or on behalf of Henderson under the Agreement and no additional payments will be made to cover any of the costs of Henderson and its staff and consultants, including, without limitation, costs for professional services, overhead, travel expenses, etc.

Mr. Stevens said he would be happy to answer any questions regarding the portions of the Agreement he discussed, or to cover any portions of the Agreement he had not addressed. 


Regent Alden asked whether the City would be able to begin work before the Advisory Committee’s next meeting on February 4, 2000.


Mr. Stevens replied that the City of Henderson would be coming before the Advisory Committee to get guidance and specificity on how to proceed.  Chairman Perkins added that if the Committee approved the Agreement, a number of items would be clarified with the City of Henderson under the next agenda item, and whether another committee meeting would be needed prior to February 4, 2000, could be determined at that time.


Regent Rosenberg expressed concern for Section D on page 6 of the Agreement which read:  “No additional charges of any kind will be allowed unless specifically agreed to in writing, in advance, by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee or designee.”  He said that Section should include language that changes to the Agreement would be made in consultation with the members of the Advisory Committee.  Chairman Perkins said he would agree to add the language “. . . by the Chairman, in consultation with the Committee . . .” if that would make the Committee more comfortable. 


Senator Porter asked the City of Henderson to explain what would be included in the public outreach aspect of the work to be performed.  Ms. Fretwell said many ideas have been discussed but the City has identified three major areas:  1) Obtaining the current data on workforce needs, educational needs, potential program and study areas;  2) Establish public forums where the public can share ideas, thoughts, needs and concerns on what an expanded university system could mean to the community and state; and 3) Determine the interest of business and industry, special interest groups and others who might be interested in expanding the educational system and contribute to the state college.


Ms. Fretwell said the City could begin immediately on the data compilation portion because information was available.  In addition, the Nevada Development Authority was in the process of obtaining workforce data and the Lieutenant Governor’s Office has a series of information on workforce needs in the state.  Therefore, the City would like to gather all that information and devise useful questions to be asked at the public forums.  Ms. Fretwell anticipated that the public forums would be held at varied locations and times in order to be accessible to many groups.


Regent Alden asked that the Advisory Committee be noticed of the dates and times of all the public forums that were scheduled.  He asked if the Henderson Development Authority and the Henderson Chamber of Commerce would also be included in the public forums.  Ms. Fretwell confirmed that the Henderson Development Authority and the Henderson Chamber of Commerce would be included in the public forums, and added that the public outreach portion of the work the City would be performing for the Advisory Committee would extend statewide to the business communities, interest groups, and chambers of commerce.  Ms. Fretwell clarified that interest groups also included persons that wished to be supporters or patrons of the expansion.


Regent Rosenberg asked whether some meetings could occur in Reno and Elko.  He said that people in northern Nevada were intrigued with the concept of a new state college.  Ms. Fretwell indicated that those areas could be included in the plan.  In fact, in speaking to Dr. Nichols earlier, she suggested that another approach was to have public forums statewide in places such as Ely, and to take advantage of other system locations. 


Senator Porter recalled that at the last committee meeting, discussions regarding cultural diversity took place.  Some of the challenges that face schools and work places directly related to cultural diversity adjustments, so he wanted to assure that a hearing was held specific to the diversity of the community so that the issue of cultural diversity was maintained as a priority of the committee.


Ms. Fretwell assured Senator Porter that cultural diversity was being considered in the tasks the City was undertaking. 


Regent Alden said all the interest groups and minority groups should receive notification of the public forums the City will be holding regarding the new college. 


Chairman Perkins noted that several people at the Regent’s recent subcommittee meeting to appoint a Founding President, spoke to Dr. Moore’s outreach program at CCSN.  Those comments emphasized how Dr. Moore has created a more diverse community college through public outreach. 


Senator Porter reiterated his previous comments that as KLVX was redesigning their offices with new digital technology, he would encourage a partnership be developed between KLVX and the new state college, and he would like to see the new college built on the KLVX site.


Regent Alden echoed Senator Porter’s suggestion, adding that the state had limited funding so a partnership with KLVX would benefit public television, the Clark County School District, UNLV, the county, and the new college.  He further agreed that the site of KLVX was a perfect spot for the new college.


Chairman Perkins suggested that the Committee conclude comments on the Agreement, and move into the next agenda item, since discussions were already taking place in that area.


Ms. Fretwell commented that if the Advisory Committee chose to add language to section D on page 6, “. . . in consultation with the Committee . . .” that might require the Committee to meet more frequently.


Chairman Perkins said if the Committee was unable to meet more frequently, the City of Henderson could meet individually with Committee members or telephone conferencing could occur.


Chairman Perkins asked whether there were any further comments on the Agreement.










Mr. Stevens said once the minor changes were made, the Agreement could be sent to the parties for signature.  Chairman Perkins said he had been remiss in checking with the City Attorney, who signs the Agreement on behalf of the City of Henderson and asked if she had any suggestions or comments.


Shauna Hughes, City Attorney, City of Henderson, advised that her office worked closely with the Legislative Counsel Bureau and the Agreement represented the contents of those conversations.


4.         Review of Tasks Outlined in Agreement


Chairman Perkins noted that some of the data-gathering tasks set forth in the Agreement could be accomplished with the assistance of the UCCSN since some of that information was already provided.  In addition, the City would be working closely with Dr. Moore regarding the mission statement and the degree programs offered. 


Regent Rosenberg said public forums were important in obtaining input from the public and other special interest groups on what the community wanted in a state college. 


Regent Alden stressed that the system could identify items that are working well for the existing institutions.  The mission of the state college should be clearly defined.  To be specific, he did not envision the state college would be a high technology, remedial education, or research institution.  He stressed that the intentions of the Advisory Committee need to remain in effect when defining the mission of the state college.


Chairman Perkins noted that Dr. Moore, in his role as Founding President for the new state college, was responsible to the Board of Regents and he will receive direction from the Board to ensure that the best interests of the state are met by the implementation of a new state college.


Chairman Perkins pointed out that when he introduced Assembly Bill 220 during the 1999 Legislature, he stressed that the establishment of a state college would allow the two universities to focus on the missions they have and to grow into Research Institutions. 


Regent Rosenberg said that when the mission statement of the state college was completed, a re-examination of the mission statements of the other institutions in the state would likely occur at that time.


Chairman Perkins asked that the City of Henderson send copies of all notices of public outreach meetings to the Advisory Committee members, along with the lists of the groups the City noticed so the members could add to the list if new persons were identified.  Ms. Fretwell said that could be done, and the committee members could e-mail her with the names of people or groups that should be included in the public outreach forums.


Senator Porter said although the Advisory Committee was not making suggestions at this time as to what degree programs would be offered at the new college or the mission of that institution, he noted that the Committee had expressed an interest in the new state college being closely linked to K-12 education.  He stated that whether or not the new college became a teacher’s institution, he would like to ensure that the new college was a partner in K-12 education.


Chairman Perkins said the next aspect of the Agreement dealt with Campus Development, which would be an ongoing process.  He stated that location of the college was a difficult aspect of the development process.  Once a site was located, the entire concept would begin to take shape and provide a level of comfort to those involved in the process.


Regent Alden said the parcel for the new campus should be accessible to all of southern Nevada, meaning freeway access.  Secondly, the parcel should be no less than 200 acres.  He asked whether 200 acres was adequate for a new college.


Bonnie Rinaldi, City of Henderson, addressed the Committee.  She advised that the City has not been dealing with any number smaller than 200 acres when considering sites for the new campus.  Ms. Rinaldi indicated that the City was planning to proceed with the tasks as outlined in the Agreement.  Further, the City was in the process of evaluating sites that were currently available in Henderson or could become available.  The City of Henderson was reviewing all the costs associated with those parcels, as well as infrastructure. 


Regent Rosenberg suggested that the architecture school at UNLV be used to draft plans for the new state college because, in his opinion, the students and faculty do marvelous work.  .  It would be nice to use new architects to design a new college.  He stated that Mike Alcorn, Director, UNLV School of Architecture, was very approachable.  Perhaps some of his students could become involved in the process.


Regent Alden concurred and commented that obtaining contributors throughout the system would be beneficial in the long run.  Ms. Rinaldi stated the City of Henderson would make every effort to use architects from the UNLV School of Architecture; however, there could be a problem in obtaining the product needed in the timeframe identified.


Chairman Perkins asked Ms. Rinaldi to provide to the Advisory Committee evaluations from more than one site.  Ms. Rinaldi said she was uncertain whether all the details from all the evaluations would be brought before the Committee because much of that information was internal and the properties the City of Henderson had to offer was mostly a City decision.  However, they would certainly bring to the Advisory Committee the evaluations and show why a certain site was selected as the best site.  She assured the Committee that the City was working closely with Dr. Moore on site selection as well.


Dr. Moore informed the Committee that he has read Thomas Jefferson’s review of how the University of Virginia was planned.  In addition, he has read the writings on how Stanford University was planned and established.  Dr. Moore said he had a collection of 22 universities—how they were founded, what was done regarding site development, landscaping, and the mistakes that were made.  He indicated that he would be sharing this information with the City of Henderson staff.


The Committee thanked Dr. Moore for his efforts.


Senator Porter asked whether there had been any problems in getting information to any individuals who had requested updates.  He wanted to make sure that concerns were being addressed, especially those concerns that were being brought out by the media.  He acknowledged that the Advisory Committee’s meetings were public, and that the Chairman always allowed for public comment, but wondered if there were any complaints that the Committee was not getting proper exposure to the community.


Steve Sisolak, UCCSN Regent, stated he had been receiving a lot of feedback.  He suggested that the “list” of persons that would be contacted for the public forums include student groups and the Faculty Senate from the institutions.  He stated that those groups were not always able to attend meetings.  Consequently, those groups were only receiving media coverage.  The student groups and high school students would be an integral part of the new college so it was important for these groups to have a voice in the development of the facility.  Although involvement by the chambers of commerce and development authorities was beneficial, students should be brought into the picture as well.


Regent Alden said the school board trustees of the Clark County School District, at a minimum, should be notified of the Committee’s meetings, as well as administration people at the school district.  Regent Alden confessed that he did not know what the best notification process was but getting notice to students in high schools could be difficult.  He surmised that, at a minimum, the Faculty Senate, CCSN and UNLV, and the student leadership at both institutions should be contacted.


Regent Sisolak asserted that notification should not be just in southern Nevada.  In fact, the Faculty Senate at Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) have expressed concerns.  The Faculty Senate at TMCC were not opposed to the concept of a new college, but were receiving little information.  Perhaps the minutes should be sent to the TMCC Faculty Senate or somehow involve them in the process to prevent less resistance in the future. 


Regent Alden agreed with Regent Sisolak. 


Mayor Gibson asked what Regent Sisolak would be telling the Senate Faculty at TMCC.  Regent Sisolak replied that he would clarify that the new college was not “Henderson State College” even though that was the name that was circulated initially.  He opined that the Senate Faculty at TMCC needed to understand that everyone was working toward the same end—to provide education, and that the new state college was simply another tier in the system.  He commented that it would be better to have the Senate Faculty at TMCC part of the process rather than opposed to the process.  In addition, the Senate Faculty at TMCC had expressed concerns about salaries and demands on their campuses, and providing for their students.


Regent Sisolak stated there was a general concern that the new college might detrimentally impact other institutions within the system and those fears should be eliminated.  It might be helpful for someone from the Committee to appear to answer questions, similar to the public forums that were held by the UCCSN to answer questions on the Millennium Scholarship.  Regent Sisolak stated he would attempt to answer questions from the Senate Faculty at TMCC.  In addition, Dr. Nichols would be present to assist him in questions he might not be able to answer.  He said the concerns of TMCC must be genuine for them to ask for two Regents to come and speak.  Regent Sisolak informed the Advisory Committee that originally it began as an opponent/proponent situation, but he has turned that around and he and Jill Derby will be approaching it in that fashion.  Regent Sisolak said he shared some of the same concerns expressed by the Senate Faculty and he simply wanted to address those concerns and accommodate TMCC.  Regent Rosenberg, as a member of the Advisory Committee, offered to attend the meeting at TMCC with Regent Sisolak and Regent Derby.


Senator Porter said although it was not uncommon to discuss complaints, he has received many positive comments from people wishing to be involved. 


Regent Sisolak agreed that there were many positive comments being circulated about the new college and many people wished to be involved in the process.  He said it was helpful during the establishment of the Millennium Scholarship that Dr. Nichols hosted so many public forums to answer questions.  Unfortunately, with the new college issue, there has been much media and many times that was all people saw or heard.  Even though the Advisory Committee was holding public meetings, some people do not believe they can attend and ask questions.  He noted that the Board of Regents made concerted efforts to involve student leaders and faculty leaders in the process. 


Chairman Perkins acknowledged Regent Rosenberg’s earlier comments to hold Advisory Committee meetings in locations throughout the state.


Dr. Nichols underscored the importance of public forums.  The public forums held in conjunction with the Millennium Scholarship served to provide information, alleviate fears, build support, and collect input on important issues.  She pointed out that the public forums on the Millennium Scholarship issue was a positive experience and brought to light many issues that had not been thought of previously.  Dr. Nichols said she was certain that the institutions would offer to host public forums on the new state college process.


Regent Sisolak agreed with Dr. Nichols and expressed the valuable information that was derived from the meetings held on behalf of the Millennium Scholarship.


Chairman Perkins said he would volunteer, and perhaps other Advisory Committee members would as well, to appear at some of the public forums to assist and answer questions.


Mayor Gibson mentioned that the City of Henderson took a position early in the process that in establishing a new college the entire state needed to “buy into” the concept.  In that light, the City of Henderson has spent time developing lists of persons and groups that should be contacted for their input.  He pointed out that Dr. Moore would be an integral part of the public outreach portion of the implementation plan, and the UCCSN should feel free to contact the City of Henderson staff to advise of suggested places to contact public hearings on the issue of a new college.


Regent Sisolak thanked Mayor Gibson for his comments.  He pointed out that many times the student groups or other special interest groups had ideas to share but simply needed to be asked to become part of the process.  Extending such an invitation would go a long way towards making the new state college successful.


Regent Rosenberg said what needed to be done was to “humanize” the process.  He asserted that the Advisory Committee did not need to be at the mercy of the media.  He suggested that the media be used more effectively by sending letters to the editor, invite the public or specific groups publicly, and use television as a source as well.


Regent Sisolak clarified that he has not just received negative remarks about the state college.  He has also heard positive comments from people that were excited about the concept of a new college. 


Chairman Perkins noted that even though it has been termed as “Henderson State College,” Henderson was simply the location.  He affirmed that the new college was a state college; probably one of many to come.


Chairman Perkins thanked Regent Sisolak for his comments.


5.         Review of Advisory Committee timetable and set next meeting date


Chairman Perkins noted that the timetable reflected that the next meeting scheduled for the Committee was February 4, 2000, and Regent Rosenberg had suggested that the meeting be held in the northern portion of the state.  Chairman Perkins asked Dr. Nichols if she could secure a location for the meeting. 


Regent Alden suggested that a good location that provided easy parking and access was the new College of Education at the University of Nevada, Reno.  Regent Rosenberg said there was no parking there presently due to the construction of a new building at that site.


Chairman Perkins suggested the meeting be held at TMCC.  The Committee agreed.  Regent Alden stated that a 10:00 a.m., meeting time would allow for the proper amount of travel for those coming from the southern part of the state.  The Committee agreed that the next meeting would be on February 4, 2000 at 10:00 a.m., in Reno.


Regent Alden asked if a meeting could be held telephonically should the Committee need to meet prior to February 4, 2000, regarding the Agreement with the City of Henderson.  Chairman Perkins noted that the Committee had already approved the Agreement so there would be no reason to meet regarding that contract; however, should something come up, he would be happy to meet with the Committee beforehand.


6.         Discussion of planning and implementation of the new college


Chairman Perkins stated that this agenda item allowed Committee members to bring forward any items that needed more discussion or direction to the City of Henderson or the UCCSN or LCB.  He asked if the Committee had anything further that needed clarification or discussion.


Regent Alden said teachers across the country would like to have a place that was accessible and affordable to continue professional development.  Teachers are required to conclude six hours of professional development training annually to maintain their teaching certificate.  Therefore, he would like to look at the potential of acquiring federal funds to establish a national teacher development center at the site of the new state college.  Regent Alden urged that concept become part of the planning process.


Public Testimony


Chairman Perkins opened the meeting to public testimony on any agenda item.  Seeing none, he closed the meeting to public testimony.




There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.





                                                            Joi Davis, Committee Secretary






Assemblyman Richard D. Perkins, Chairman


Date:  __________________________, 2000.