Arizona Board of Regents-January 2005 Minutes

A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held January 27 and 28, 2005, in the Alumni Lounge, Arizona State University Memorial Union, Tempe, Arizona. President Stuart called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. on Thursday, January 27. Regent McCalley led the Pledge of Allegiance.

Also present were: President Michael Crow, Dr. Milt Glick, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Dr. Juan Gonzales, and Dr. Kathleen Church, Arizona State University; President Peter Likins, Dr. George Davis, Ms. Edith Auslander, Mr. Dick Roberts, Dr. Randy Groth, Mr. Greg Fahey, Dr. Patti Ota, Dr. Richard Powell, Mr. Dick Davis and Mr. Joel Valdez, University of Arizona; President John Haeger, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, Dr. Fred Hurst, and Dr. John Burton, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director Joel Sideman, Board Counsel Paulina Vazquez-Morris, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Art Ashton, Ms. Cathy McGonigle, Mr. Ted Gates, Ms. Stephanie Jacobson, Dr. Mark Denke, Ms. Kathy Bedard, and Ms. Stella Galaviz, Central Office; and Dr. Frances Bernat, Arizona Faculties Council.

All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the January 27 and 28, 2005, Documents File.

President Stuart recognized Easton Gardner, an ASU Senior, who has started her own real estate business while maintaining a 4.25 grade average and graduating in 4 years. She is a Dorrance scholar and was selected as the Arizona Student Athlete of the Year. She has been awarded many scholarships. President Stuart said he just wanted the Regents and the public to see one of the many outstanding scholars that attend the universities. Ms. Easton thanked the Board for recognizing her.

President Stuart recognized Board Secretary Judy Garza for her 18 years of service with the Board of Regents; Ms. Peggy Martin for 15 years of service; Executive Director Joel Sideman for 17 years of service; and Ms. Gale Tebeau for 16 years of service He thanked the 4 staff members for their help and service to the Board through their tenure with the ABOR staff.

The Honorable Joseph C. Donaldson, Mayor of Flagstaff, said he is pleased to report Ms. Mary Jo Waits has agreed to allow elected officials an opportunity for input to the Feasibility and Planning Study of the Proposed Redesign of the University System. The Arizona League of Cities and Towns has agreed with the Association of County Supervisors to facilitate a meeting of county and city officials to review the restructure proposals that will be considered by the Board of Regents and to provide feedback to Ms. Waits for the Work Group’s consideration. He thanked the Regents for this opportunity as the entire educational system is critical to insure rural sustainability and economic development.

Danae Robinett, an ASU student, spoke against the proposed mandatory meal plan for students who live in the ASU residence halls. She believes the mandatory plan will not provide choices for vegetarian meals or students with dietary issues.

Michael Martin, Tri-University Classified Staff Executive Board, said the issue of cost of living increases and regular step increases is a constant concern of state employees. The Arizona classified staff representatives will be making trips to the offices of state legislators in the coming months to present the needs of the universities for funding. If more of the burden of meeting the cost of health care and the needs of retired employees was assumed by the legislature, it would be of more assistance than mere salary increases. He thanked the Board for recognizing its own staff members as this shows the Regents do appreciate those who work below the headlines.

Sophie O’Keefe-Zelman, ASASU President, and Vice President Julie Johnson, spoke in support of the concept of a mandatory meal plan. Ms. O’Keefe-Zelman explained, however, the students would like to be guaranteed the consideration of an on-campus grocery store, additional improved dining facilities, and maximum flexibility to meet the diverse needs of the students. In addition, students would like assurance that profits from the meal plan sales will be put back into the residence life living-learning community. If the concept is approved, students would like a student committee formed to be a part of the design process. The committee should include a diverse base of students who will have input into facility design, food options, and pricing. Following concept approval of the meal plan, the students would like for members of ASASU, the Residence Hall Association, student affairs, and student development to put in writing, via a Memorandum of Understanding, a detailed outline of how student involvement will proceed to insure that any meal plan reflects the needs and wishes of the students. This should be done within a month of concept approval of the meal plan.

Ms. Johnson expressed concern that specifics regarding what the actual plan would look like were not made available to student leadership until after the Fall 2004 semester ended in December, even though administrators made clear in September they would seek such a plan. This has allowed very little time for discussion with students. In addition, the time line for Regent approval concerns students due to the precedent it sets for setting student fees out of the tuition and fee process which includes a public hearing. While specific costs will not be established today, it will be established that there will be an additional cost to students in the future. Even though students have concerns with the process this far, they are confident that student involvement in implementation will produce a meal plan that will eventually benefit all students on campus.

Dr. Larry Mohrweis, NAU Faculty Senate President, suggested the Board place a ceiling on tuition hikes that would be the top of the bottom third and the floor would be to keep pace with other public universities in the nation.

Alex Pasco, Associate Director of Campus Affairs for the ASU Residence Hall Association, spoke in support of the McAllister Academic Village. He spoke in support of the proposed mandatory meal plan if it included an on-campus grocery store, 24-hour dining, a larger variety of meal plans and meal plan costs, an efficient and clear process of appeals to exempt students, and much student involvement in the planning process. He believes all the students should take part in the planning process, but the Residence Hall Association should take the lead as they are the only group that represents the students that live in the residence halls.

Tyler Mott, a recent graduate of the UA, spoke on behalf of an initiative called “Operation Angel” to place American flags in every University of Arizona classroom. Privately donated monies would be used to purchase and install the flags. Perhaps this project could eventually become a statewide project. He is trying to get a bill passed in the legislature to allow flags in every classroom. He would like the cooperation of the university presidents or the Regents in this matter.

President Stuart said Regent Graff will go before the Senate Education Committee on Wednesday, February 2, as part of his confirmation process. Any Regents whose schedules would permit were invited to come for this hearing.

Professor Arthur Blakemore, Chairman of the Economics Department, Professor Ed Prescott, and W. P. Carey School of Business Dean Bob Mittelstaedt joined the meeting for this discussion. Dean Mittelstaedt explained the importance of being a recognized business school. Professor Blakemore explained the importance of the writings of Professor Prescott who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics. Nobel Laureate Prescott explained why he left Minnesota to come to ASU and what he hopes to do at ASU.

Items on the Consent Agenda, which are marked in these minutes with an *, were considered as consent maters and were adopted upon the motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla. There was no discussion of these items.

The Board authorized Arizona State University to plan a Ph.D. in Construction; implement the Master of Laws (LLM) in Tribal Policy, Law and Government; establish a minor in Social Welfare; establish the Institute for Humanities Research; establish the Institute for Social Science and Research (ISSR); and establish the Southwest Interdisciplinary Research Center (SIRC).

The Board authorized Northern Arizona University to implement the Master of Science in Applied Geographic Information Science and authorized the University of Arizona to implement the Bachelor of Science in Crop Productions and plan the Ph.,D. In Transcultural German Studies.

The Board received the Mid-Year Status Report on Action Plan objectives that described progress toward meeting each of the Action Plan objectives.

The Board authorized Arizona State University to enter into a multiple-year employment contract with Patrick Murphy as Head Baseball Coach, extending his current contract through June 30, 2008. His salary will remain the same, $277,887.

The Board authorized Arizona State University to enter into a multiple-year employment contract with Charli Turner Thorne to serve as Head Women’s Basketball Coach, extending her current contract through April 15, 2008. Her salary will remain the same, $207,900.

The Board authorized Arizona State University to enter into a multiple-year employment contract with Melissa Luellen as Head Women’s Golf Coach, extending her current contract through June 30, 2008. Her salary will remain the same, $77,175.

The Board authorized Arizona State University to enter into a multiple-year employment contract with Joseph Kenn as Head Sports Performance Coach, extending his current contract through June 30, 2008. His salary will remain the same, $105,525.

The Board authorized the University of Arizona to permit Dr. Man Ramaswami to establish and maintain a substantial interest in Q Therapeutics, Inc., while continuing his employment at the University of Arizona. Q Therapeutics, Inc, is a biotechnology company founded to develop glial progenitor stem call therapeutics for the treatment and possible cure of glial-mediated diseases in the central nervous system.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Science Foundation, #0135526, for support of an ASU East American Indian Program. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $134,444 for a new total award of $4,634,444.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the Salt River Project, #98153C, for support of a Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Fulton School of Engineering research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $94,408.92 for a new total award amount of $1,804,232.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01HL070300, for support of a School of Health Management and Policy, W.P. Cary School of Business research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $253,765 for a new total award amount of $1,183,215.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the U.S.Department of Education, #P336B990064, for support of a Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education instructional project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $2,810,136 for a new total award amount of $13,842,637.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the U.S. Department of Education, #T195E000022, for support of a Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education, scholarship/fellowship project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $224,275 for a new total award amount of $1,089,828.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the University of Pittsburgh, #4004882, for support of a Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $735,871 for a new total award amount of $2,284,287.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Ames Research Center #NCC 2-1051, for support of a Department of Geological Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $471.246 for a new total award amount of $6,627,284.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the Delphi Automotive Systems for support of a Center for Solid State Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $50,200 for a new total award amount of $1,267,945.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the U.S. Department of Education, #S363A02013, for support of an Education Leadership and Policy Studies, College of Education public service project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $581,623 for a new total award amount of $1,842,262.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from Cornell University, #39361-6455, for support of a Department of Geological Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $228,118 for a new total award amount of $2,222,316.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01GM050202, for support of a School of Life Science, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $262,873 for a new total award amount of $1,774,332.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the U.S. Department of Education, #P066A020092, for support of an Educational Development, Student Life, Office of Vice President of Student Affairs service project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $630,207 for a new total award amount of $1,878,264.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept an award from the National Science Foundation, #0216560, for support of an International Institute for Sustainability, Office of the Vice President for Research and Economical Affairs research project. The proposed amount of the award is $1,792,440 federal funding with $219,654 cost sharing from non- federal sources.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01CA090441, for support of a Cancer Research Institute, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $757,353 for a new total award amount of $2,899,605.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01DC00654, for support of a Speech and Hearing Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $189,851 for a new total award amount of $1,491,226.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01NS33173, for support of a Department of Kinesiology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $365,618 for a new total award amount of $2,577,920.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01HD39666, for support of a Family and Human Development, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $378,340 for a new total award amount of $1,766,544.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the Whitaker Foundation for support of a Harrington Department of Bioengineering, Fulton School of Engineering research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $250,000 for a new total award amount of $1,994,580.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01AR041687, for support of a Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $758,739 for a new total award amount of $1,984,886.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01AR046034, for support of a Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $672,560 for a new total award amount of $1,834,386.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the Department of Defense, #N66001-01-C-8015, for support of a School of Life Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $220,329 for a new total award amount of $1,555,035.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01DA05227, for support of a Family and a Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $551,353 for a new total award amount of $2,670,227.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01MH049155, for support of a Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $699,495 for a new total award amount of $2,604,321.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5U01A1057303, for support of a School of Life Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $932,553 for a new total award amount of $5,439,006.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01NS39352, for support of a Department of Kinesiology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $305,000 for a new total award amount of $1,575,000.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01MH064829, for support of a School of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $386,582 for a new total award amount of $1,110,124.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01DA013649, for support of a Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $315,022 for a new total award amount of $1,675,964.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the Department of Defense #F4962001 10317, for support of a Department of Industrial Engineering, Fulton School of Engineering research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $344,413 for a new total award amount of $1,914,856

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #3R01MH064707, for support of a Department of Psychology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $797,235 for a new total award amount of $3,089,531.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #N01-HD-3-3353, for support of a Harrington department of Bioengineering, Fulton School of Engineering research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $1,018,436 for a new total award amount of $1,517,139.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from Motorola, Inc. for support of a School of Accountancy, W.P. Cary School of Business instructional project The proposed amount of the continuation award is $33,255 for a new total award amount of $3,457,731.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01CA073857, for support of a School of Life Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $1,386,814 for a new total award amount of $2,373,414.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept an award from the Dysart Unified School District for support of an Arizona Prevention Resource Center and Department of Psychology in Education, College of Education public service project. The proposed amount of the award is $1,004,025.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the U.S. Department of Education, #P047A031111, for support of an Educational Development, Office of the Vice President of Student Affairs public service project The proposed amount of the continuation award is $550,286 for a new total award amount of $1,100,572 federal funding. The projects anticipated total funding is $2,201,144.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01MH68920, for support of a Family and Human Development, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $737,047 for a new total award of $1,373,108 federal funding. The projects anticipated total funding is $3,559,238.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01HD45906, for support of a Family and Human Development, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $528,574 for a new total award amount of $ 1,056,393 federal funding. The projects anticipated total funding is $2,641,301.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a cooperative agreement from the National Science Foundation, #0410269, for support of a Department of Anthropology, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the agreement is $1,499,996 federal funding.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R24DA013937, for support of a School of Social Work, College of Public Programs research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $373,746 for a new total award amount of $1,062,468 federal funding. The projects anticipated total funding is $1,809,960.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Science Foundation, #0086465, for support of a School of Life Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and International Institute for Sustainability scholarship/fellow- ship project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $158,000 for a new total award amount of $1,775,137 federal funding.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Science Foundation, #9987612, for support of an International Institute for Sustainability, Office of the Vice President for Research and Economical Affairs research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $156,000 for a new total award amount of $2,423,795 federal funding.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Institutes of Health, #5R01DC01376, for support of a Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $277,550 for a new total award amount of $1,264,052 federal funding. The projects anticipated total funding is $1,541,602.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the Salt River Project Agricultural and Power District for support of a Center for the Advanced Control of Energy and Power Systems, Fulton School of Engineering research project The proposed amount of the continuation award is $270,634 for a new total award amount of $1,689,417 non-federal funding.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the Environmental Protection agency, #CX82689701, for support of a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Fulton School of Engineering research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $987,800 for a new total award amount of $3,387,800 federal funding.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the University of Maryland, College Park, #Q327305, for support of a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Fulton School of Engineering research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $101,177 for a new total award amount of $2,080,382 non-federal funding. Prime sponsor is The National Academies.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from Honeywell International for support of a Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Fulton School of Engineering research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $1,107,830 for a total award amount of $4,390,943 non-federal funding.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the Kellogg Foundation for support of a Center for Non-Profit Leadership and Management, School of Community Resources and Development public service project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $1,147,000 for a new total award amount of $2,021,700 federal funding. The projects anticipated total funding is $5,140,700.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, #1230449, for support of a Department of Geological Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $166,101 for a new total award amount of $3,469,137 federal funding.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, #1228404, for support of a Department of Geological Sciences, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $709,200 for a new total award amount of $12,501,800 federal funding.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the Kellogg Foundation for support of a Center for Education Equity and Language Diversity, Education Leadership and Policy Studies, College of Education public service project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $375,000 for a new total award amount of $1,500,000 non-federal funding.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Science Foundation, #9987619, for support of a Harrington Department of Bioengineering, Fulton School of Engineering research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $180,000 for a new total award amount of $3,183,931 federal funding.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept an award from the National Science Foundation, #0119999, for support of a Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $22,646 for a new total award of $2,424,370 federal funding.

The Board of Regents authorized ASU to accept a continuation award from the National Science Foundation, #9978868, for support of a Hispanic Research Center, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences public service project. The proposed amount of the continuation award is $500,000 for a new total award amount of $2,500,000 federal funding with $529,473 cost sharing from non-federal sources.

The Board approved the appointment of G. Marie Swanson, PhD, MPH, as Arizona Area Health Education Center (Arizona AHEC) System Director. Dr. Swanson holds a faculty appointment with the College of Public Health at the University of Arizona. She will replace the late Dr. Andrew W. Nichols.

The Board received the universities’ FY 2004 technology transfer reports. The following technology transfer activities were reported during FY 2004.

FY 2004	ASU	NAU	UA	Total
Invention Disclosures	94	2	95	191
US Patent Applications	99	1	91	191
Patents Issued	19	1	18	38
Licenses/Options Signed	20	1	25	46
Licensing Revenue	$1,421,835	$0	$1,008,621	$2,430,456

Mr. Fred Hurst, Dr. Mark Searle, Dr. Kathy Church, Mr. Dan Anderson, and Ms. Mary Jo Waits joined the meeting for this discussion.

Regent Herstam said this report completes Phase I of the Feasibility and Planning Study. It is a collection of data that has been collected over a seven month period. Phase II of the Feasibility and Planning Study is to assess the proposals that have been submitted as regard to redesign and to make recommendations. It is hoped that Phase II can be completed in the next three months and perhaps the final recommendations from the Work Group can be delivered to the Board at the April meeting.

Ms. Waits said representatives of each of the three subcommittees that collected the data would make a presentation. She gave an overview of the Phase I Report. She presented maps, prepared by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) that showed demographics and demand, the state that will see significant losses, those that will see manageable losses, those that will see manageable growth, those looking at significant increases, and the two that will see over 51% growth, Arizona and Nevada.

Ms. Waits said the question that will be heard over and over again in Arizona will be, “Got talent?” You can get talent two ways. You can be a magnet by having the amenities that attract highly educated talent or you can be a pipeline for talent by having a high quality education system. For a long time, Arizona has thought of itself as a magnet for talent with degreed baby boomers moving here. However, Arizona is now close to the bottom ten for 25 to 34 year-olds with four-year degrees. Population growth in itself does not guarantee you will have talent. However, because Arizona does have an explosion in the K-12 student pipeline, it does have a competitive advantage.

Ms. Waits said subcommittee reports from the Needs Assessment, the State Experiences, and the Evaluation Criteria groups would be presented today. Ms. Waits said Phase I is ending. The proposals that have been submitted will be considered in Phase II, using data and information from Phase I to put together one or two proposals to take out to the public in March. They will go to the stakeholder groups first, then to public forums.

Dr. Bernat asked if the information from the special session on February 7 would be integrated if Phase I is finished. Ms. Waits said most of the stakeholder groups had submitted their reports, but there were still a few that had not finished. The proposal committee will not meet until February 12 and all the information submitted by then will be considered. It will be an on-going dialogue through February and March.

Mr. Anderson presented a look at traditional enrollment forecasting, using the projection model that was developed for the Governor’s Task Force on Higher Education in 1999 in which an enrollment forecasting model was developed for the next two decades.

Mr. Anderson said he had updated that model with more current enrollment, Census data, WICHE high school graduate projections, updated student enrollment patterns, student continuation rates for 1999-2004, and updated community college enrollment forecasts.

The most aggressive assumption was that college-going rates will rise until 2010 and than become flat. The moderately aggressive assumption was that the increases in college-going rates will be half that size until 2010, then will become flat. The trend assumption was that there will be no increase in college-going rates. The final assumption, which has already been proven false, was that there will be a slowdown in off-campus education.

Mr. Anderson said the population of the State of Arizona had grown by 700,000 people in four years. In a state with 5M people, that is almost enough to populate the City of Tucson. Between the years 2000 and 2020, the growth will be 3.5M people. Mr. Anderson presented a chart showing the actual enrollment numbers are higher than the most aggressive projected enrollment numbers.

Mr. Anderson presented the ethnic racial distribution of the Arizona resident undergraduate students for 1993-94 to 2003-04 and compared it to the total population of the state 18 years of age and older. Regent Calderón asked if the statistics show the universities are recruiting less Hispanics now than 10 years ago. Mr. Anderson said there had been an improvement in recruiting, but they were not keeping up with the huge percentage increase in the Hispanic population. President Crow said this was a time of rapid growth in the universities and they are unprepared to deal with in the present financial model. Regent Calderón said the universities were not being equipped to keep up with the population growth.

Mr. Anderson showed the projected enrollment and the capacity before any redesign. ASU is looking at a capacity of 95,000 with 50,000 on the main campus and 15,000 each on the East, West, and Downtown campuses. NAU has a projected capacity of 22,000. The UA has a projected capacity of 40,000 on the campus in Tucson.

President Likins said UA South in Sierra Vista has infinite growth capacity. President Herstam pointed out the same could be said for NAU in other locations than the Mountain Campus. President Likins said these numbers are for campus capacities but NAU and UA South team with community colleges and provide services. The only limitations are dollar limitations, not physical campus limitations.

Mr. Anderson said adding all the campus capacity and comparing it with the trend projections, there is a gap of little over 12,000 to 24,000 students in 2020, depending on which model you use. Mr. Anderson said the models stop at 2020, but for planning purposes, the following years should be considered. Also, this takes a statewide perspective and there is a need to determine where capacity should be developed within the state. He showed what the institutional enrollments are in the largest private universities in Arizona.

Mr. Anderson looked at Needs Assessment from the standpoint of the employer or the labor market. What will be the demand for occupations needing postsecondary education. Occupational employment projections for Arizona were released by the Department of Economic Security for ten years beginning in 2003 with updates due in the Spring. Occupations were grouped by educational requirements. There is a significant growth in the demand for all educational categories from Associate degrees through Doctorate degrees. There will be new jobs and jobs created by a large number of people retiring.

There will be a need to grow the educated work force in order to bring companies to the state. To compete with the nation’s work force, Arizona will need both the migration of knowledge workers to the state and with the development of the state’s intellectual capital.

President Likins said there was another way to measure the state’s capacity to meet these needs and that is to make an estimate about the economic wealth indicators of the state. He believes the capacity problem is not about campus facility, but about financial capacity and those projections should be considered as well.

Mr. Fred Hurst talked about population demographic projections using state and county aged census data for 2004-2009. NAU has been using some sophisticated Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping approaches to understand current and future needs.

The ages considered during his presentation were 15 to 24, the closest census numbers near the traditional student, and 25 through 39, the nontraditional student age group. He also considered ethnicity. The GIS also provides data on educational attainment from high school diplomas through college degrees, income levels, occupations, and hundreds of other demographic things that can be mapped.

Mr. Hurst presented maps describing population growth, growth in the 15 - 24 age group, growth in the 24 - 39 age group, ethnic diversity, and growth by counties. The data clearly shows the large population increases are in Maricopa and Pima Counties. Rural areas are growing at a high rate in percentage, but the numbers suggest an incremental response.

National student trends indicate that the new student capacity should be provided where potential students live and work. Nationally, only 17% of college students attend traditional residential universities like ASU, UA, and NAU.

Dr. Kathleen Church described demographics and other facts about comparison states complied by the State Experiences Subcommittee. The basic information on demographics about the comparison states was complied from the Chronicle for Higher Education 2004-2005 Almanac and QuickFacts from U.S. Census Bureau (2000).

Dr. Church explained the Carnegie Classification of Higher Education for the organization of 4-year public universities in the study states and she explained the classifications. They are grouped according to type and do not have anything to do with quality. Information was also obtained from the WEB pages of the individual universities.

Ms. Church reported Arizona ranks 7th in population (2000 census) of the 11 states investigated, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Washington, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and California. The western states tend to be more diverse than the other study states with California and Arizona leading the way. Hispanic/Latino students make up the largest minority group in each of the western states.

Washington, California, and Arizona have fewer students per 1000 population attending 4-year public institutions than the other study states. Arizona, California and Washington have more students per 1000 population attending 2-year institutions than the other study states. The Midwestern and Eastern Study states tend to rely on private education more than the western states.

Regent Calderón asked why the participation in Colorado is so much higher. Dr. Church said she wasn’t sure, but Colorado does have a population of about 3.8M and has 11 four-year public institutions which might make the difference. Regent Herstam said participation is higher in states that have more colleges spread throughout geographically. It is easier for people to enroll as they are closer to their homes and they have differentiated tuition levels. President Likins noted that Colorado does not have many community colleges or private institutions; so that concentrates their higher education enrollment in public four-year institutions.

Dr. Church said the conclusions reached about the organization of study states shows Arizona students are partitioned into fewer public four-year institutions than are students in all other study states regardless of whether they have larger or smaller populations than does Arizona. Most of the study states (including Arizona) have a diversity of Carnegie typed institutions. The distribution of students among the types of institutions in Arizona deviates significantly from the norm. On average, roughly 50% of the undergraduate students who attend a public four-year university in the study states attend a research university. In Arizona, approximately 90% of undergraduates attend a research university.

Dr. Church gave examples of the most complicated state, Pennsylvania. Examples of the least complicated states are Wisconsin and Arizona.

Dr. Church reported the conclusions reached by the Subcommittee on financials and enrollment. On average, doctoral research extensive (DRE) universities have the largest enrollments followed by doctoral research intensive (DRI), then master’s (M), and baccalaureate. On average, DRE universities are more expensive to operate than DRI, Masters, and Baccalaureate institutions. This extends to faculty salaries. In the majority of study states, the state investment is greater than the student investment. However, four states have crossed the 50% threshold and are closer to privatization.

Dr. Church reported the Subcommittee’s conclusions on tuition patterns and differentials.

Arizona resident tuition rates remain a good buy at all universities, but especially for DRE universities. In all of the study states, students had greater choices in tuition levels than in Arizona. The generalities learned from the tuition study are that all universities in all states have a large differential between resident and nonresident tuition rates. The vast majority have differentials between undergraduate and graduate tuitions. Several have differentials between lower division and upper division. Differentials among graduate programs almost always include Law and MBA, but many others were also encountered. Differentials among undergraduate programs, when they occurred, usually included allied health, nursing, business, and engineering. Most states had significant differentials among Carnegie classifications.

Dr. Church reported the information on enrollments and 1997 cohort graduation rates came from the National Center for Education 2003-2004, using the Peer Executive Tool. The percent of minorities in the population come from the U.S. CensusQuick Facts 2000, and the information on minority graduation rates were calculated form the NCAA graduation rate data base.

American Indian, Hispanic, and African American students are underrepresented in the majority of the four-year, public institutions, whereas Asian students tend to be overrepresented. Underrepresented minorities are concentrated more in masters institutions. This is especially true for Hispanics. Graduation rates for underrepresented minority students have not reached parity with Asian or majority students in any of the study states. DRE universities on average have higher graduation rates for all students than do other universities. Arizona’s universities need to concentrate energies on improving graduation rates for all students.

Regent Herstam thanked Dr. Church and all the subcommittees’ members for the work they have done on the Feasibility and Planning study.

Dr. Mark Searle presented the Evaluation Criteria Subcommittee Report to the Board. He said the strategy was to use a consistent set of strategic questions to identify elements of the proposals that best address the overall purpose of the higher education redesign which is to increase access, quality, and choice for Arizona residents.

The Subcommittee designed six strategic questions with elements to help guide the process. They are: “To what extent do elements of the proposal enhance affordable access and opportunity for all of Arizona’s citizens?”; “To what extent do elements of the proposal provide an economically feasible plan?”; “To what extent do elements of the proposal foster university and other collaborations, resource sharing, economies of scale and other efficiencies?”; “To what extent do elements of the proposal facilitate collaborations between and among Arizona’s university and community college systems and institutions?”; “To what extent do elements of the proposal ensure the university system complements the different economic and workforce development needs and opportunities for Arizona’s various geographical areas and economic regions?”; and “To what extent do elements of the proposal enable the universities to recruit and retain the faculty and staff necessary to achieve their mission?”

Dr. Bernat said she was glad to hear that quality is something that goes throughout all the characteristics as certainly the faculty are concerned about the quality of education in all the state’s institutions. In regard to enhanced and expanded 2 + 2 programs, the faculty would like to be involved in the development of these programs.

Ms. Waits said the work groups have been busy and she thanked everyone for doing such an incredible amount of research, done on their own time in additional to their regular duties. She said an eight-member subcommittee, called the Proposal Subcommittee, has been appointed from the Work Group to look at the information gathered from all sources and present one or more options to the Work Group on February 23. The Committee will be composed of Dr. Kathy Church, Ms. Edith Auslander, Dr. Mark Searle, Dr. Pat Haeuser, Dr. David Longanecher, Dr. Jory Hancock, and Dr. Rufus Glasper. The Work Group will then decide which options will be recommended and the result will be presented to stakeholders across the state.

On February 7 there will be a special meeting specifically to deal with issues of underrepresented populations. Dr. Patricia Garbana from UC Davis will be present to lend her expertise to the meeting.

Regent Jewett expressed gratitude to everyone who has been involved in this effort. He said he believed all the work and the very public process will lead the Board to some solid conclusions. Regent Boice thanked everyone for an excellent job, but said he found it hard to believe the money would be available to implement a proposal. Regent Bulla said the trends were not surprising. He believes many of the differences between Arizona and the other states can be accounted for because Arizona is a very urbanized state and because of the way the education system is organized. He is really interested in the economics of the proposal. He would like to see economic models or financial proformas for the different alternatives.

Regent Herstam said the eight-member Subcommittee is charged with delivering one or more options that meet all the criteria and that price tags will then have to be attached. That will be a major part of whether the proposal will be feasible. The Work Group will then present one option that includes a price tag and political feasibility. Until the proposals are put together, it is hard to price.

President Crow said the ASU College of Business would be happy to work with Mr. Dan Anderson on pricing issues.

President Stuart reported this item covers three topics, the Focused Governance Work Group including the establishment of a new Capital Committee, the status of the review of policy changes proposed by the universities, and the information technology enhancements. The new Capital Committee will help the Board in reviewing and approving the unprecedented number of capital improvements that are occurring on each campus and the anticipated future capital proposals that will be coming to the Board. There are three models already in place by which this new Capital Committee, a standing committee, can be developed–the ARU/IT SubCommittee, the Audit Committee, and the Assessment and Compensation Committee.

Regent Boice has agreed to chair the new committee. The members will be Regents Bulla, Jewett, and McCalley. They will take a new approach. Jurisdictional limitations will have to be determined. One of the challenges of the Focused Governance initiative is to differentiate between decisions that need to be made by the full Board (including both policy decisions and major operational decisions) and those operational decisions that can be delegated to a Board committee, to the university presidents, or to the Executive Director. The Capital Committee will develop a proposed charge that includes scope, delegations, meeting schedules, and other protocols deemed appropriate for endorsement by the full Board. President Stuart said he had asked the Committee to meet as soon as possible so they can begin their work.

As part of the process stated above, there have been one hundred policies identified by all three universities to be evaluated to see if they should be changed, eliminated, or adopted. The Focused Work Group will review the policies before they come to the Board.

The Focused Governance information technology enhancements have begun. Computers and Blackberry devices have been received and are being distributed to Regents and staff. The video conferencing, additional telecommunications bandwidth and wireless communications equipment is ordered, and staff training is proceeding. Once the hardware and software is in place, the focus will be on using it in creative ways to reduce travel time and costs and increase productivity. There is an external consultant working on ways to modify the existing ABOR Website.

President Stuart said this is still in the preplanning and negotiating phase. The LCME Team visited in early January and the concept of dual-tracks that can be differentiated in part was accepted. Now, with faculty direct participation, the problem of creating dual tracks (the existing track of the UA College of Medicine in Tucson and the Phoenix track) is being studied.

The Arizona Commission on Medical Education and Research has met twice and will meet for the third time on February 1. PBCAUSE, which involves ABC 1 and 2, is proceeding with the linkage of TGen, healthcare, medicine, and research. There has been a lot of discussion about the critical link in an academic health center involving hospitals.

Dr. Bernat asked that several things be kept in mind as the discussion continues. Where faculty tenure or job specifications will be–solely at the UA as part of the medical faculty or close collaboration and joint appointments. President Stuart said the faculty of the UA College of Medicine in the Phoenix track in years one, two, three, and four will be made up of a lot of individuals, all of whom will be appointed members of the faculty of the University of Arizona. They will come from ASU, NAU, TGen, and maybe from places that haven’t yet been identified. Many of the faculty members that will be identified and put into place as UA College of Medicine faculty will be clinical physicians delivering instructional teaching in the existing teaching hospitals in Phoenix. Many of them will have joint appointments and tenure decisions will most likely not change.

President Likins said medical faculties across the country have faculty that are employed by other organizations, usually hospitals. This pattern will take place here as well as with UA College of Medicine faculty that are employed primarily by ASU or TGen.

The meeting recessed at 4:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:20 a.m. on Friday, January 28.

President Stuart said the Board would discuss financial aid, tuition, and the policy framework within which fees are set. He said he would like the audience to focus on the intersections among the three topics because that is where Arizona is both at risk and has an enormous opportunity to advance. Yesterday the Board learned that, over a ten-year period, a decreasing share of the universities’ costs were born by state appropriations.

President Stuart distributed the Arizona University System FY 2004 Financial Ratio Analysis. He discussed the importance of the ratio of state appropriations to total educational and general expenditures and mandatory transfers and the ratio of tuition and fees to total educational and general expenditures and mandatory transfers.

Dr. Mark Denke, M. Craig Fennell, Dr. David Bousquet, Mr. John Nametz, and Mr. Rick Kroc joined the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Denke said this is an annual report that is provided to the Board in advance of the tuition setting process. He introduced Mr. Nametz who presented a brief history of financial aid from the pre 1980's to the present time. More of the burden is currently on the students and families and loans are taking the place of decreasing gift aid. There are also tax credits and pre-paid tuition/savings plans.

Mr. Nametz said student financial aid comprises financial assistance to students in meeting the customary expenses of attending college. The criteria for Federal aid is a high school diploma/GED, a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, a social security number, ½ time enrollment, admittance as a degree-seeking student, and satisfactory academic progress towards a degree. Funds may be used only for educational purposes. Need based aid is based on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) that is based on family income (parent/student), number of people in the household, the number of people attending college, and assets (excluding home). Merit based aid is given in the form of gift aid (waivers and scholarships), Regents waivers/scholarships, and institutional responsibility (academic index) and is based on academic preparation or talent. The new concept is to perform a holistic review to find students with characteristics that provide a sense of predictability of success.

Mr. Nametz said Cost of Attendance is tuition, books, room and food, transportation, and miscellaneous costs. Currently the cost of attendance in Arizona is $15,000 per year. He presented examples of award packages. Regent Calderón asked if there was a capitation on Pell Grants and was told yes, but based on many factors, not just income levels. President Likins said it was often more advantageous for a middle class family to use a low-cost student loan than it was to take money out of investments to pay for college expenses. President Crow said it is the costs beyond tuition that drive the processes as Arizona tuition levels are the average for universities of their class for the year 1990. President Stuart asked the Regents to read all the material that was provided on this subject in the Board book.

Regent Bulla said he would like to have a better understanding of unmet need so he could tell if there was progress on unmet need over time. President Likins said the introduction of low interest student loans makes it very hard to know what unmet need is because universities don’t know why families take loans or when they are eligible for loans and don’t use them.

Regent Boice said he would like to see a higher academic requirement for need-based aid. It is currently 2.0 and it should be higher than the minimum, at least 2.1 or 2.2 to receive state dollars.

Upon motion of President Stuart, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board approved the tuition setting calendar for the 2005-2006 academic year. The public notice of the tuition hearing will be Monday, February 14, and there will be public disclosure by each university of all proposed tuition and fee increases. The tuition hearing will be via interactive video on Wednesday, March 2. The Board meeting to set regular resident/nonresident undergraduate/graduate tuition and university-specific mandatory fees will be March 10-11. Residence hall rates will also be set at that meeting. Graduate program fees, class fees, and other fees requiring Board approval will be set at the April 28-29 Board meeting.

Regent McCalley said he believed it is time for the Board to begin discussing how it could aid families to become more knowledgeable about financial aid since families and students are paying more of the cost of education. President Stuart agreed and said it would also be important to let families and students know how much of their education is still being subsidized. He also thought it would be important to let the public know the level of advancement accomplished by past tuition increases.

President Stuart said there were three new issues to discuss: a guaranteed tuition plan to give students some predictability in tuition increases, differential tuition by university, and differential tuition within one university by college, department, or class. Indexing is also part of the discussion. The Board needs to give guidance to the members of the Council of Presidents before they make their tuition recommendations.

President Crow reviewed the principles ASU is operating under relative to tuition and the new concept proposals ASU has considered. He said ASU is a very large, fast growing, educationally adequate performing institution. They are making substantial improvements in performance, but are only adequate at this time in graduating students. They are funded well below cost in both state investment and tuition. This is made worse by the fact ASU is growing faster than they have the money to build new facilities or renovate old ones. That inadequate educational support network contributes to the low graduation rate.

Dr. Crow said, after two large increases in tuition the last two years, ASU has admitted the largest freshman class, the highest quality freshman class, students from the largest number of families below the poverty line, the largest rate of increase of minority students, and the largest number of financial aid recipients. He believes the reason 2,000 freshman did not return from last year is an inadequate living and learning environment to enhance their chances of success, class sizes that are too large, and a faculty-to-student ratio that is too small.

President Crow said ASU’s first driving principle is to do all they can to make the cost of instruction as nearly free as possible. The second driving principle is to focus on student success through quality. The third driving principle is to provide communications, outreach, services, and support to both acquire a diverse student body and graduate a diverse study body.

The Regents decision two years ago to raise tuition to the top of the lower third has given ASU the means to move forward to hire new faculty, to put online new facilities, to expand the library hours, and to expand all of the services the students need for success.

Dr. Crow suggested some form of guaranteed tuition could be considered as an alternative method of paying tuition. However, to implement this would require making the initial set point of the tuition very high. He does believe differential tuition is a useful tool to deliver the resources necessary to differentiate schools and ASU intends to approach differential tuition as a mechanism within ASU to give tuition flexibility.

President Haeger talked about the practicalities of setting tuition and some of the broader issues. Tuition is an important step in setting what a university’s total budget will be for the coming year and what, in fact, it can do in terms of quality programming and support of faculty and student services. Arizona is the state with a college going rate in 2000 of 50%, the college graduation rate is just under 50%, and only 14 of every 100 9th graders will graduate from college. This is not a state prepared to compete in the modern world. Whatever tuition policies have been followed in the past haven’t worked. He believes the Board’s action, under Changing Directions, to try to get to the top of the bottom third is absolutely correct.

Dr. Haeger said the tuition debate today is not the tuition debate of 5 or 10 years ago. The reality is the percentage of state money that is going into public higher education institutions is going to decline. Part of the burden is being transferred to the students and their families. However, a fundamental shift of philosophy in this country is essentially from viewing tuition as a cost to viewing tuition as an investment by the state and by the students.

When setting tuition in any university, you have to look fundamentally at what it costs to produce high quality programs. The list of things NAU will be facing this year includes skyrocketing costs in technology, maintaining physical plants where the average price of building materials and labor is up considerably, and running behind other states in salaries. NAU is dead last among its peers in faculty and staff salaries. That is despite the fact that last year, with the tuition increase plus a good state budget, a significant investment in faculty and staff salaries was made. The problem is other states are moving faculty and staff salaries up much faster than we are.

President Haeger discussed differential tuition and its various possibilities and problems. He asked if undergraduate education should be subsidized at the expense of graduate education. He agreed with President Crow that the cost of guaranteed tuition would be very high. When students determine where to go to college, low tuition will not necessarily be the determining factor. Convenience, location, and quality will be important. He believes people will chose quality over cost.

President Likins said we are in a period of very rapid change in the fundamental premises of the financial support structure for university education. He presented the history of universities offering financial aid and how it has changed over the last 40 years. He explained how merit-based aid is used, especially to encourage the brightest students to stay in Arizona. The cost continues to shift from state tax payers to tuition payers. Financial aid has shifted from the needy to those for whom financial inducements are necessary to secure enrollment and that means a shift from the needy to the more affluent. This is a trend in American society that creates a danger of a divided society.

President Likins said net tuition revenues are what really matter as the universities discount tuition. Resident undergraduates are discounted by 60% and nonresidents are discounted by 30%. That is accomplished both through the set aside and by the university policy to help the needy and to attract high quality students. It is a very complex mix of behaviors.

The universities know tomorrow may not look like today. If these trends continue, the percentage of the universities expenditures coming from the state can be expected to further decline. That means increasing pressure on tuition. The highly discounted low price tuition for residents generates about 4% of the money used to operate the institution every year. So tuition is carrying a larger percentage of the cost, but still a very small percentage of the total cost.

Dr. Likins said Arizona decided a couple years ago to remain, as a state, low cost-low price institutions and determined we will not only stay below the medium, but will stay in the bottom third. It was the presidents’ understanding we would move at some steady rate toward the top of the bottom third. We are now 41st among 50 public senior public universities. In order to get to the top of the bottom third of this year’s prices, we need to jump by 11%. If we want to go to the top of the bottom third of next year’s prices, we ought to go by 19% or 20% and those numbers are not sustainable. However, Dr. Likins said he hopes we don’t fall next year to 43rd or 44th. There is a very real danger that will happen as other institutions continue to raise tuition. Because our base is still low, a 10% growth for Arizona universities is a lot less than a 10% growth for the University of California or for Michigan.

We must maintain and improve the quality of the enterprise to keep from driving people out of state, at least those that can afford to leave the state. We also must increase the diversity of the student body, improve the graduation rates, and the success rates of our students. It is very difficult to do that without money. And so the presidents have made a commitment to enrollment management, an information based process that uses very complex computer systems in order to project the consequences of any actions taken. One thing that is surprising is that if there is no tuition increase, with the anticipated growth, revenue will fall by $4.6M. Dr. Likins explained it is the consequence of resident versus nonresident mix, financial aid, and retention of students.

President Likins said program fees, library fees, health center fees, recreation fees, and information technology fees are a different way to accomplish the objective of differential tuition. For example, students are more excepting of another $200 if they understand it is for information technology. The are more willing to accept program fees than an elevated tuition because they expect the financial benefits of the fees to be captured within the college or program.

Dr. Likins agreed a guaranteed tuition price could be done; however, he believed it would be very dangerous and very expensive to predetermine tuition price. If that were done, it would be impossible to simultaneously predetermine financial aid. Regents will have to make the difficult decision as to whether there will be differential program fees, differential tuition, a tuition raise, or none of the above which would starve the system.

President Stuart said the presidents needed guidance from the Regents so they would know how to present their tuition models at the next meeting. He said the two Regents who couldn’t be present would like to know if there is a plan to increase the tuition for non-resident undergraduates and how much closer to the top of the bottom third we can get. He asked the presidents to include those questions in their modeling.

Regent Jewett said financial aid continues to be a policy lever that guides the tuition increase for him. He said the political reality is some legislators, while not giving any additional money for financial aid, would like to restrict the tuition dollars that can go to financial aid. He would like to see a model that shows what it would like if the state invested in financial aid in a meaningful way.

Regent Calderón said he tried to put himself in the shoes of the working person who has expenses like a mortgage and car, etc., and a 60% to 69% tuition increase over three years has an impact on the family. He said raising tuition may not be the wrong thing to do, but he wanted people to realize there is a direct dollar impact on families. He would like to see any tuition increase be accompanied by a plea to the legislature for the tuition increase to be augmented by a scholarship fund of some sort or an appropriation for financial aid. He does believe differential tuition is the answer, especially on different campuses. He said he knew non-resident tuition was very helpful to the universities, but he believes the legislature and most Arizonians want a large resident student population in Arizona’s universities. He said he would like to see the legislature, the business community, and the redesign all contribute to the support of the universities, not just a tuition raise.

Regent Palacios said she did not believe tuition guarantees would be a good thing as there was the potential of the need to increase freshman tuition so high we would price ourselves out of the market. She did like the idea of differentiating tuition and she would like to see some of these in a proforma to see what they would accomplish. It is a multi-faceted problem and she believes differentiated tuition and asking the legislature and the community will all be necessary.

Dr. Bernat said the faculty is mindful about the quality of education throughout the state so they are concerned about the library system. They would like to see integration of the library system so students all around the state could access the best research, literature, and materials available. In addition, as the new campuses, such as UA South, grow to their capacity, what are their needs to provide for a high quality education? Many of these will be minority and place-bound students.

Regent McCalley said he agreed with Regents Calderón and Palacios that differential tuition should be explored. However, he also said he would not like tuition to increase 1% one year and 39% the next year. There should be some kind of range or guaranteed process, not a guaranteed number, so students will have a closer idea of what tuition will be than they have now.

Regent Bulla said he was not optimistic there would be any change in the current trend anytime soon. Therefore, he did not believe anyone else would come to the rescue of the system. Somehow, creative thinking needs to be used to do all that is possible. He would appreciate more than one number being presented in the models. He would like to know what could be done with an extra percent, or two percent, etc., as far as quality is concerned and financial aid. How much more financial aid or how much could be given to faculty and staff salaries, or how much could be donated to smaller class sizes or more classes. Or, what would suffer with less money? He said he had had personal experience with guaranteed pricing and it was a nightmare; so he did not support a guaranteed tuition plan.

Regent Frank said she believed something cataclysmic needs to happen to get more funding from the legislature and the community. She suggested donors of large gifts be asked to contribute toward tuition. She does not believe the constitutional provision requiring education to be as nearly free as possible means the universities need to provide all their own funding.

Regent Boice said he did not like to see a crisis every year at tuition time. He also believes financial aid should only be given to those would are qualified enough they will stay in school longer than one year. He believes differential tuition is absolutely important and he agrees students are more willing to pay extra money if they know what their money will buy. He would like to see an effort toward stability rather than going from crisis to crisis.

Regent Graff agreed with Regent Calderón’s statements. He said many lower income families do not understand or are not comfortable with the theory of investing in education for a larger return later. Some do not have the money to invest. He said he would like to hear more about using fund-raising dollars for financial aid. He said differential tuition should be tracked so one or two degrees don’t become unaffordable because of additional fees. He did not think a guaranteed tuition would be a good idea if financial aid could not also be guaranteed.

President Crow said ASU had already run a market survey to determine the market price for non-resident students and it is higher than is currently being charged. He said ASU would be prepared to talk about what more or less money would buy or lose for the students. Dr. Crow said ASU only admits qualified students, but they are required to take any qualified student, regardless of the money available.

Regent Calderón asked that something above 14% be included for non-Pell eligible students in the modeling.

Dr. Mark Denke joined the meeting for this discussion. President Stuart said he thought the material in the book fully explained this item. Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent McCalley, the Board approved the common format for request for special class fees, special program fees, special program fee ranges, and common surcharge fees. Regent Palacios questioned whether the form would inform Regents about all the fees that already exist. President Stuart asked any Regent who had an idea for change to work with Dr. Denke to change the form.

The meeting recessed at 12:00 p.m. Regent Jewett left the meeting at this time. President Stuart reconvened the meeting at 1:50 p.m.

Ms. Stephanie Jacobson, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, and Dr. George Davis joined the meeting for this discussion. Ms. Jacobson said the tenure post tenure track report answered three main questions. Are the standards for awarding tenure to faculty rigorous enough. Are they applied fairly? Are tenured faculty held accountable and monitored closely enough?

Universities hire faculty into one of three tracks: hired with tenure, hired tenure eligible, or non-tenure track. Tenure is an employment status awarded by a president to a faculty member who has demonstrated excellence in teaching, research, and service based on criteria established by each university. Tenured faculty are entitled to continued employment unless he or she is dismissed or released in accordance with Board policy on tenure review. This report is about accountability.

Ms. Jacobson presented statistics from the current and past reports. Over the last few years there has been a small but steady increase in the percent of faculty leaving prior to a tenure decision. Women continue to leave in greater numbers than men; however, the gap is closing. Minorities leave in greater numbers than majority, but that gap is closing, too. Regent Boice asked if it was worth the trouble to go to all the effort for such small numbers. Provost Davis said is it definitely worth the effort, especially when salary differentials are given. It also helps the universities meet their missions. He said the presence of post-tenure review helps some faculty realize it is time for them to retire or move on. Regent Frank called attention to the fact the tenure rate of all groups dropped except white males.

Regent Calderón reported the JCC discussed joint articulation issues, especially ABOR’s relationship with non-metropolitan community colleges. The rural community colleges believe Pima and Maricopa Community Colleges have closer relationships with ASU and UA at the expense of the rural community college districts. Some of these relationships are inadvertent. Mr. Bob Salmon is the new Interim Director of the Community College Association.

Dr. Frances Bernat said the AFC believes the key to understanding the issues facing higher education in Arizona is access, quality, and the role of the university and its faculty. The faculty places great importance on the state understanding what it takes to provide a high quality education and a high quality educational environment. It is important to understand that research plays an important role in educating students.

She said the AFC is pleased the faculty senates are working with their universities to develop clear salary guidelines and to address compression inversion. It is important for faculty to understand salary at the department level. The AFC hopes the universities will ask the legislature for salary resources foir both faculty and staff. The AFC would also like to see models of how plus or minus percentage changes in tuition will affect the university system.

Mr. Ted Gates, Mr. Scott Cole, and Dr. Mernoy Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Bulla said ASU and NAU were requesting revisions on previously approved FY 2005 CDP’s. He said ASU’s five additional projects were: Infrastructure Improvements Phase IV, $1.4M; Sewer Systems Expansion, $6M; Memorial Union Upgrades, $15.5M; Arizona Biomedical Collaborative (ABC), $10M; and Women’s Gymnastics Practice Facility (donor financed). NAU’s three additional projects were: NAU Yuma, $6M; Health Professions Renovation and Addition, $15M; and a New Parking Structure, $6M.

Regent McCalley asked if new projects using tuition money to pay debt service were current dollars or future dollars and was told it was an estimate of enrollment growth dollars during the years the debt would be incurred. Regent Boice asked why the NAU parking garage was so expensive and was told the prices came from the consultant, based on the site and the geo-technical work. President Haeger said an older parking structure did not take weather into account and it would have to be redone. NAU is trying to recapture some of their land through the use of parking structures. Regent McCalley asked if the new parking structure would raise parking fees more than $30 per year. President Haeger said probably not for two or three years; but they would probably float with the market after that.

Upon motion of Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Calderón, the Board approved the FY2005 Capital Development Plan Updates for Arizona State University and Northern University as presented.

Regent Bulla reported the ARU/IT Subcommittee met on Wednesday and presented certificates of appreciation to the ARU Project Management Team. A Memorandum of Understanding has been signed between the Board and NAU for NAU to manage ARU on a daily basis. Mr. Fred Hurst presented an update on NAU’s progress on this issue. Each university gave a presentation on issues facing them. Mr. Fred Estrella gave an on-line demonstration on the new student quarterly. The UA presented an ambitious telecommunications plan for the next ten years. The first of three presentations on the tri- university plan to achieve greater central coordination of IT responsibilities was given and the Subcommittee believes progress is being made at all three universities. The Subcommittee looked at projects falling between $100,000 and $500,000 on each of the campuses and their approval processes.

Regent Bulla said Arizona State University was asking for approval for an upgrade to the Information Technology Telephone Services’ Avaya Communications Architecture with IP Technology Solutions at a cost of $728,000 over a five-year period funded by user fees. This project was thoroughly reviewed by the ARU/IT Subcommittee.

Upon motion of Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Palacios, the Board approved an upgrade to ASU’s Information Technology Telephone Services’ Avaya PBX to the newest release of technology and components.

Regent Bulla said this is a request by the University of Arizona for an advanced financial system for the Colleges of Science and Medicine, which will meet special management and decision-making needs, for a five-year total of $1.535M. He said they were asking for retroactive approval as this slipped through the cracks. The Subcommittee reviewed the system and the approval process and has been assured this will not happen again. The Subcommittee also reviewed the portability of the system, especially to Phoenix. Upon motion of Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Palacios, the Board approved an advanced financial system for the University of Arizona’s Colleges of Science and Medicine for $1,534,832 for software purchase and maintenance.

Mr. Greg Pivirotto, UMCC CEO, and Mr. Kevin Burns, UMCC CFO, joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said this was an information item presenting audited financial statements for UMCC. Mr. Burns described improvements made over the past year including improving its financial performance with the driver being increased volume. It is rapidly approaching the capacity of its structure. Operating performance has steadily improved. Debt has been refinanced when possible. A new Intensive Care Unit was constructed. They have been able to keep their work force intact. He said the bottom line is running at about a 3% profit margin. He explained the revenue required to effectively serve the community. They are slightly ahead of the bottom line compared to the budget. He said they would be going to the bond market soon to refinance debt and to provide for future growth.

Mr. Dick Roberts and Ms. Kathy Bedard joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said the Board was being asked to approve the Mid-Year Update of the FY 2005 All Funds Operating Budget. This Update reports no significant changes since the Board approved the initial All Funds Operating Budget. Regent Boice said the names on the tops of the columns were different among ASU, UA, and NAU and he would like to see conformity so it can be more easily understood. Mr. Roberts provided a primer on the All Funds Budget. He said things are handled at moments in time and it is difficult to bring them all together in one place. The term for all fund sources is called All Funds. In the structure of the All Funds, the first grouping is state funds or general funds from the state plus the tuition collections remitted to the institutions. The first column is what was last reported, the middle column is what has changed, and the last column is where we are currently. The encumbered and unencumbered funds are updated. This shows dollars are being spent on programs. Dollars from tuition that are retained locally are recapped.

Finally, local fund budget units that have fund balance conditions of greater than negative $100,000 are reported. Mr. Roberts said there are no new entities in that category in this report which is data since November 30.

Regent Boice asked for an explanation of UA Presents as it is in the negative category. President Likins said it is an organization within the university that provides cultural performances for the larger community. It operates as an auxiliary enterprise so is not incorporated into the academic programs in the College of Fine Arts. Since 2003, it has been running a deficit. The Director that had done a superb job of developing a high aesthetic profile left that year. His successor was left with some financial problems to manage. There was a deficit of approximately $440,000. The UA was unable to find a successor that would take on those responsibilities given the financial fragility of the organization. That year there was a recurring problem of a comparable magnitude. The financial manager became the Interim Executive Director in 2004 and has been working on ending the deficit by FY 2007. At that point, it is expected this program will be reconnected with the College of Fine Arts. The Board of Advisors has become very active in trying to save the program.

President Crow was asked if his program was self-supporting and he said Public Events has not only become self-supporting, but is now creating a surplus that is used for some K-12 programs related to its mission. Regent Boice moved that the Board approve the Mid-Year Update of the FY 2005 All Funds Operating Budget. The motion was seconded by Regent McCalley. President Crow asked why the term “state funds” was used for a column he believed included other money. President Likins agreed the more appropriate title would be “state appropriations” as it includes the tuition money the state appropriates back to the universities. Regent Bulla said he thought the process of parents and students paying tuition that has to be remitted to the state and then the state gets credit for remitting it back to the universities was a bad process . President Crow said he would like to see the funds called “general funds” which are a combination of state appropriations as legally appropriated and tuition and other dollars. Maybe this would lead to awareness of new approaches to funding the universities such as allowing the universities to earn interest on tuition dollars they receive. President Likins said he believed the precise money in the column called state funds is the state general fund allocation and that portion of the tuition revenues the state collects and remits back to the universities. A portion of the tuition revenues are retained by the universities for debt service.

Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. Dick Davis, and Mr. Ted Gates joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said the University of Arizona was requesting permission to sell 205 acres of land currently used as the Marana Agricultural Center. Development of an adjacent residential subdivision now inhibits the nature of research activities performed at the Center. Therefore, relocation of the research and sale of the land are desirable. Regent Boice asked where the university intended to relocate the Center and was told at the Red Rock facility where the university already owns the land. There is activity there now, but when this land sells, a master plan will be developed for the Red Rock land. The money from the sale will go into the Agricultural Endowment and will be used for the Red Rock site.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted permission to the University of Arizona to advertise and sell at auction approximately 205 acres or any portion thereof, of real property known as the Marana Agricultural Center in Marana, Pima County, Arizona, at no less than the fair market value as determined by appraisal, subject to approval of legal documents by university counsel.

Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. Dick Davis, and Mr. Ted Gates joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said the University of Arizona was requesting project approval for a $1.2M budget increase for the Architecture Expansion Building project at a revised cost of $9.4M.

Regent Palacios asked if material costs had started to come down and was told no, the Southern part of the state has been hit with high material costs and the university has been forced to value engineer and use some contingency funds to keep the projects moving. They are hoping in the next several months construction costs will start to come down. Mr. Davis told the Board how high various construction components had grown. Regent Boice asked if this increase would house more students this will consolidate the program into one facility and provide much better educational facilities for the students, some of whom have been sitting on the floor.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted the University of Arizona Project Approval and a Budget Increase of $1.2M for the Architecture Building Expansion project.

Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. Dick Davis, and Mr. Ted Gates joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said the University of Arizona was requesting Project Implementation Approval for the Deferred Renovation, Building Renewal and Infrastructure Project at an estimated cost of $20M. This master project consolidates a number of smaller projects including many that fall below the Board of Regents $1M threshold and are spread out across the campus.

Regent McCalley asked if the tuition that will be used to pay off the debt is tuition that iscurrently in the system or anticipated tuition. Mr. Valdez said it is anticipated tuition. Regent McCalley said he was sympathetic to the university’s needs, but he hated to see the upward pressure on tuition dollars. Mr. Valdez said if building renewal money would become available in the future, it would be substituted for tuition dollars. Regent Bulla asked what percentage of the IT Closets would the $1.9M for IT Closets Upgrades represent as he has seen pictures of dozens and dozens that are really safety hazards. Mr. Valdez said he wasn’t sure. President Likins said this demonstrates the change of university support from the state to the students and their families. Regent Boice said it was a said day when the three universities had to bond in order to maintain the campus infrastructure.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted Project Implementation Approval to the University of Arizona for the Deferred Renovation, Building Renewal, and Infrastructure project.

Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. Dick Davis, and Mr. Ted Gates joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said the University of Arizona was requesting Project Implementation Approval for Phase II of the Residence Life Building Renewal project at an estimated cost of $6.5M. This project will replace the plumbing systems in Maricopa and Sonora Residence Halls.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent McCalley, the Board granted Project Implementation Approval to the University of Arizona for Phase II of the Residence Life Building Renewal Project.

Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Mr. Scott Cole, and Mr. Ted Gates joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said Arizona State University was requesting Project Implementation Approval for the Infrastructure Improvements Phase IV Project at an estimated cost of $14M. This master project consolidates a number of smaller projects, including many that fall below the Board of Regents $1M threshold and are spread out across the campus. This project was described in ASU’s presentation of its Revised Capital Development Plan earlier in the meeting.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted Project Implementation to Arizona State University for the Infrastructure Phase IV Project.

Mr. Hank Traeger, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Mr. Scott Cole, and Mr. Ted gates joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said Arizona State University was requesting Project Implement Approval for the Sewer Systems Expansion Master Project at an estimated cost of $6M. ASU also was requesting approval for entering into one or more Intergovernmental Agreements with the City of Tempe relating to this project. Mr. Traeger described to the Board the area covered by this agreement. The sole purpose of the IGA is to document this arrangement with the City. The City will construct these sewer improvements. From the beginning, ASU committed to pay for the improvements and has made a proposal to the City asking for assistance in absorbing the cost of the project.

Regent Boice asked if ASU would have to pay user fees if it paid for the project and was told they will pay water and user fees. Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Palacios, the Board granted Project Implementation Approval to Arizona State University for the Sewer Systems Expansion project; and authorized Arizona State University to enter into one or more Intergovernmental Agreements with the City of Tempe relating to the Sewer System Expansion project; and further resolved that the President of the University, the Chief Financial Officer, or the Deputy Executive Vice President for University Services, are each separately hereby authorized to take all appropriate actions to negotiate, execute, and deliver the Intergovernmental Agreement or agreements on the terms described herein with such modification of such terms as the President, the Chief Financial Officer or the Deputy Executive Vice President for University Services or any of them acting alone determines to be necessary or advisable or convenient and proper.

Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Mr. Scott Cole, and Mr. Ted Gates joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said Arizona State University was requesting Revised Project Implementation Approval for the Academic Renovations and Deferred Maintenance Phase I project at an estimated cost of $10M. Dr. Harrison said there are a couple of new aspects to this project. An elevator code upgrade was necessary due to legislation requiring all elevators with single pistons be replaced with double piston elevators.

Regent Palacios asked what happened to the seven projects that dropped off this list and was told they were being reprioritized for the next series. President Crow said they had to drop other projects to pay for the elevator upgrade. Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board granted Revised Project Implementation Approval for the Academic Renovations and Deferred Maintenance Phase I Project.

Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Mr. Scott Cole, and Mr. Ted Gates joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said Arizona State University was requesting Revised Project Implementation Approval for the Instructional/Research Laboratory Renovations Phase II project at an estimated cost of $20M. Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board granted Arizona State University Revised Project Implementation Approval for the Instructional/Research Laboratory Renovations Phase II Project.

Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Mr. Scott Cole, Mr. Ted Gates, Mr. John Snyder, and Dr. Juan Gonzales joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said Arizona State University was requesting approval of the actions necessary for the development of the McAllister Village. President Crow said this is part of ASU’s desire to move student success and enhance graduation rates through the building of living and learning environments within the university. This is the first phase of the South Campus Village Initiative which will add many additional student sleeping and gathering places. This is a move to fully integrate living and learning at all levels. This project is independent of the other South Campus Village projects. It will be financed based on revenues from the living and learning environment itself, such as the meal plan and housing revenues.

Dr. Gonzales said this was never intended to be just a place for students to sleep. This is an environment that will facilitate learning at all hours, both in the class room and out of the classroom. ASU will highly recommend to freshmen that they live on campus once this facility comes on line. ASU does currently have a waiting list for freshmen who would like to live on campus.

President Crow said students from student government and the Residence Hall Association endorsed the plan and said they would like to be a part of the design of the meal plan food configuration and planning a campus grocery store. As this project moves forward, it will have increasing levels of student participation in its design, particularly in the meal plan.

Regent Graff said students have been concerned with the procedure for the meal plan as authorization for the McAllister Academic Village will essentially authorize the meal plan. He said students are in favor of the McAllister project. He said he believed the Board would be approving a fee without specific numbers, the mandatory meal plan, prior to the April Board meeting when university fees are considered. He said passing this project essentially means the Board has put a floor on tuition for the March meeting.

Regent McCalley said he shared many of Regent Graff’s concerns. He would like to see students and families more involved and educated on the fee process. President Stuart said the action to be taken on the Meal Plan today is a conceptual approval rather than the approval of a specific plan; therefore, he is willing to vote on the Village before the Meal Plan; however, his problem with the Village Plan is the revenues generated by the inclusive meal plans will fund the debt service of the dining facilities and the Learning Resource Center. This means the Meal Plan will not be limited to the cost of the meals. Even though he supports this project, he will reluctantly vote for it only because he knows the students understand this and support the project. Regent Calderón asked for Board Counsel’s opinion as to whether this process is legal under current law. Ms. Paulina Vazquez-Morris said since it is a concept, the Board can approve it today. If the Meal Plan fee does not pass when it is brought forward, ASU will have to find another way to fund the project.

Regent Bulla said he supported the strategic direction of the McAllister Village. Regent Boice asked the university to address who can eat at the Village when the Meal Plan fee is brought forward. Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted Arizona State University approval (i) for the formation of the Academic Village Complex, LLC, (ii) for a ground lease of approximately 8 acres of real property, (iii) for the issuance of Revenue Bonds, (iv) a lease by ASU of the completed Academic Learning Resource Center and food/retail portions, and (v) a contingent commitment to cover any deficiency as presented in the Executive Summary.

Mr. Ted Gates, Dr. Mark Denke, and Dr. Juan Gonzales joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said Arizona State University was seeking conceptual approval to initiate a required meal plan program for all students living in the Tempe Campus residence halls beginning in 2006. Dr. Denke said, as discussed earlier, if this is approved the review and approval of the actual meal plan rates will occur during the usual Board process in the Spring of 2006.

Dr. Gonzales said there would be tremendous flexibility in the Plan. He said student input would be invited and encouraged. ASU would develop a Memorandum of Understanding which will refine how and when students will be involved, and what timelines and decisions will be solicited from students. They will review the budget with students so they will be clear on the cost of the Plan. They will review the renovation designs with students and will engage them on exemptions to the Plan and the process for appeals. Students will participate in the process of negotiating for food providers. This will involve the Residence Hall Association as well as student government.

Regent Calderón said he understood no student would be denied entrance to the university because they could not afford the meal plan and the upperclass students will be able to have a minimal plan. Dr. Gonzales said he was correct. He asked if there would be late night dining and was told it was expected to be extended from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. Regent McCalley expressed his appreciation to President Crow for his pledge of student involvement. Regent Frank said this is a very exciting project. She asked what would happen to the revenue stream if the undergraduate students take the seven meals a week plan and the upperclassmen take the five meals a week plan. Dr. Gonzales said the student focus groups as well as national data suggest students are currently spending something in the neighborhood of $3,000 per academic year on food. More importantly, the parent of freshmen are eager to buy meal plans.

Regent Graff asked what the purpose was for this item to be an action item as opposed to an information item. President Crow said ASU was seeking approval to launch a new conceptualization of the residence hall enterprise. Regent Graff asked if the motion could be amended to include a memorandum of understanding be made between ASU and the students. President Crow said Dr. Gonzales had already pledged the memorandum.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Frank, the Board granted Arizona State University conceptual approval to initiate a required meal plan program for all students living in Tempe Campus residence halls, commencing Fall 2006, as presented in the Executive Summary.

Mr. Ted Gates, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, and Dr. Jonathan Fink joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said Arizona State University was requesting approval for the acquisition of a $1.3M Thermal Electron Mass Spectrometer by means of a lease-purchase agreement. The Spectrometer will support the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Metabolic Biology initiative to develop a state of the art Protenomics facility. The annual estimated lease payment of $286,800 will be funded by user fees and indirect cost recovery funds.

Regent Boice asked who would use the instrument and was told the primarily the faculty member and his staff and the payments would come from his grants. Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted Arizona State University approval to acquire a Thermal Electron Mass Spectrometer by means of a lease-purchase agreement as presented in the Executive Summary.

Ms. Kathy Bedard, and Dr. Jonathan Fink joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said the universities and the Central Office were presenting the FY 2005 Mid-Year TRIF Report. Arizona State University was requesting approval of a $4.8M revision

PRESENT:	Regent Fred Boice Regent Robert Bulla Regent Ernest Calderón Regent Lorraine Frank Regent Benjamin Graff Regent Chris Herstam Regent Jack Jewett Regent Wes McCalley Regent Christina Palacios Regent Gary Stuart Superintendent Tom Horne (Thursday Only)
ABSENT:	Governor Janet Napolitano

	MINUTES

MINUTES