April 2003 Minutes/Arizona Board of Regents

A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held April 24 and 25, 2003, in the Catalina Room, University of Arizona Student Union Memorial Center, Tucson, Arizona. President Jewett called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. on April 24.

PRESENT:	Regent Fred Boice Regent Robert Bulla Regent Chris Herstam Regent Jack Jewett Regent Matthew Meaker Regent Kay McKay Regent Danelle Kelling Regent Christina Palacios Regent Gary Stuart Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne (Thursday Only) Governor Janet Napolitano (Thursday Only)
ABSENT:	Regent Donald Ulrich

Also present were: President Peter Likins, Dr. Saundra Taylor, Dr. Elizabeth Ervin, Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Patti Ota, Dr. Randall Richardson, Ms. Judith Leonard, Mr. Dick Roberts, and Mr. Greg Fahey, University of Arizona; President Michael Crow, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, and Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Arizona State University; President John Haeger, Dr. M. J. McMahon, and Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director Linda Blessing, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Tom Wickenden, Dr. Art Ashton, Ms. Louise Houseworth, Ms. Cathy McGonigle, Mr. Dave Harris, and Ms. Norma Salas, Central Office Staff; and Dr. Wanda Howell, Arizona Faculties Council.

All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the April 24 and 25, 2003, Documents File.

Paul Mackey, spoke concerning the proposed University of Arizona Campus Plan on behalf of the neighbors in the area. They believed the capping of parking spaces will have a negative impact on the universities. He asked that the transportation proposals in the Plan be forged into a focused plan with priorities.

Mr. Mackey said the neighbors are also concerned with student housing as the Plan does not call for enough dormitories to meet increased student housing needs. This means more students will be living in the neighborhoods which causes a huge increase in noise, litter in the yards, especially alcohol bottles and cans, and police calls.

Mr. Mackey asked the university planners and staff to develop an implementation proposal to go along with the Plan. He also asked for an annual report to show what progress has been made and what the obstacles are for further progress. The neighbors would like to know exactly what the policy means when it says the university can go outside the planning area. They would like a defined boundary. He asked the university to take the lead in convening meetings with the neighbors, the City of Tucson, and the university itself to discuss the entire area of student housing.

Keith Bagwell, representing Pima County District 5 Supervisor Richard Elías, spoke in support of the proposed UA Campus Plan. He would like to be kept informed of the planning process and how it will impact the neighborhood as it progresses.

Laura Burge, representing the Sam Hughes Neighborhood residents, asked the university to consider the southeast corner of Campbell and Sixth separately from other possible changes. She said the corner is part of the state-recognized historic Sam Hughes Neighborhood and is part of the Sam Hughes Neighborhood Plan that was passed by the Tucson City Council.

Dorian Hyland, representing the Iron Horse Neighborhood, spoke on the proposed UA Campus Plan. She said the Plan addresses the neighborhood issues better than any plan has in the past. She asked that the guidelines incorporate implementation accountability for the proposed actions, or a firm commitment to preserve neighborhoods. She asked the university to commit to buffers and to helping solve the parking problem.

Richard Shenkarow, representing the Blemonan Elm/Catalina Vista neighborhood, spoke on behalf of the UA Campus Plan.

Doug Hartz, UA Student Body President, introduced J. P. Benedict, the new UA Student Body President. Mr. Hartz said the Associated Students of the University of Arizona oppose any “Academic Differential Fee” that is not waived for those students currently holding need or merit-based tuition waivers. Additionally, ASUA does not support any differential academic fee not restricted to professional, graduate professional, and graduate schools and colleges, objects to the Eller College Fee, and does not support any academic fee that is not discussed in a public hearing prior to the meeting where the vote is scheduled to occur. He distributed a resolution in opposition to the fee.

Michael Leingang, ASU Student Body President, spoke in support of the proposed ASU business school fee. He distributed a resolution in support of the fee.

President Jewett introduced Student Regent Designee Wesley McCalley. Mr. McCalley’s term will run from July 1, 2003, until June 30, 2005. He will be the voting Student Regent during FY 2004-2005.

Sandra Katz, a graduate of the UA law school and eye surgeon, spoke about concerns the neighborhoods have with students who live off campus. She told how the students disrupt neighborhoods and cause people to move away. She suggested a policy requiring freshmen to live on campus and expressed concerns with proposed vertical housing units that would concentrate large numbers of students in one area.

Janolyn Lo Vecchio, a former UA employee who is on long-term medical disability, spoke on proposed tuition wavier policy changes. She requested tuition waivers be continued for employees who are involuntarily terminated due to long-term medical disabilities as long as they cannot work due to medical disabilities.

Michael Komenda, Delegate of the Arizona Student Association, thanked the Regents for the way the tuition increase was handled. He said ASA appealed to the Board to consider the spirit of its procedures and determine whether or not average students support the proposal for an increase in fees for undergraduate business students. President Jewett thanked Mr. Komenda for his testimony before the Senate Appropriation Committee.

Items on the Consent Agenda, which are marked in these minutes with an *, were considered as consent matters and were adopted upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Meaker. There was no individual discussion of these items. President Jewett announced that Item 19, Proposed New Board Policy 6-607, “Voluntary Separation and Retirement Incentive Program”, Second Reading, had been removed from the Consent Agenda to be discussed under the Resources Committee Agenda.

The Board approved the January 23 and 24, 2003, Executive Session, and the March 6 and 7, 2003, Regular Meeting Minutes.

The Board approved the proposed amendment to Board Policy 4-105 B 5., “Procedure for Establishing Special Class Fees and Deposits.” There were two proposed changes to the policy regarding definitions pertaining to special class fees or requests. Supervisory instruction for in-context training classes and musical accompanists for dance classes are added to the definitions pertaining to special class fees or requests. This will allow course fees to cover the costs of live accompanists for music and dance classes and mileage costs for supervisors traveling to off-campus sites to oversee practice-based instruction.

The Board approved the Second Amendment to the Cash Balance Pension Plan as proposed and authorized the President of the Board to execute this Amendment subject to review of documents by the Board’s Legal Counsel. This amendment updates the mortality table as prescribed by the Internal Revenue Code; the compensation definitions are changed as required by the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000, effective July 1, 2001; the contribution amount made on behalf of Dr. Likins will be updated to be consistent with his employment contract; the in-service distributions at and after normal retirement age are allowed; and the minimum distribution rules are changed to comply with the proposed treasury regulations.

The Board approved the Fifth Amendment to the Arizona Board of Regents Cafeteria Plan and authorized the Executive Director to execute the necessary documents. This amendment changes the definition of employee to include any person not required to pay Federal Income Contributions (FICA) tax, thus allowing all eligible employees to participate in the benefits offered by the plan, effective October 1, 1998. It also conforms the document to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 that requires employers to limit access to protected health information. The HIPAA provisions are effective April 14, 2003.

The Board approved the Second Amendment to the Arizona Board of Regents Health Care and Dependent Care Cafeteria Plan and authorized the Executive Director to execute the Second Amendment. The definition of employee will be amended to include any person not required to pay Federal Income Contributions Act (FICA) tax, thus allowing all eligible employees to participate in the benefits offered by the plan. This provision is effective January 1, 2003. It also conforms the document to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. The HIPAA provisions are effective April 14, 2003.

The Board approved the Second and Third Amendments to the Arizona Board of Regents Optional Retirement Plan and authorized the Executive Director to execute these Amendments. Most of the proposed changes are technical.

The Minimum Distribution Requirements Amendment (Second Amendment) is required by the Internal Revenue Code. It clarifies what the required minimum distribution of retirement benefits to a participant are and in the event of the participant’s death, what the required minimum distribution of benefits to the beneficiary are. The effective date of the Minimum Distribution Requirement Amendment is January 1, 2002.

The Third Amendment includes changes to the definition of compensation as required by the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000; clarifies the term compensation to include any elective deferrals as defined in the Internal Revenue Code and any amount contributed or deferrals not includible in the gross income of the employee by reason of the Internal Revenue Code. The effective date of these changes is July 1, 2001.

The Third Amendment also changes the requirements for immediate vesting in the ORP to include two new categories–participants enrolled in a defined benefit retirement program of a college, university, or higher education organization located in a state other than Arizona, and participants enrolled in a retirement plan similar to a defined benefit or defined contribution plan of a college, university, or higher education organization located in any country other than the United States. The effective date of these changes is January 1, 2003.

The Board granted permission for Northern Arizona University to enter into a 10-year lease agreement with the Arizona State Land Department for approximately 200 acres located within the 47,000 acres of the Centennial Forest, an area of Arizona State Trust Lands. NAU is proposing to use these acres for a field campus. The lease application indicates a rental of $1000 per year for five years, then reassessment by NAU and the Arizona State Land Department. In addition, NAU is asking the Land Department to consider the funding raised by NAU for forest stewardship activities as rent.

The Board granted Project Implementation Approval to Northern Arizona University for Modular Swing Space Phase II and authorized NAU to proceed to complete design and construction documentation. This project involves the second phase of construction of steel modular facilities to serve as temporary swing space for the many building renovations planned across campus and the estimated cost is $2.6M.

The Board granted a scope change, budget increase, and Project Approval to Arizona State University for the Student Union Building at ASU East. The total project square footage has been reduced from 39,000 gross square feet to 27,119 gross square feet and the cost has increased from the approved Project Implementation budget of $5M to $5,404,000. The ASU Bookstore has agreed to fund the $404,000 shortfall for construction as well as the FF&E related to the bookstore operation.

The Board granted Project Implementation and Project Approval to Arizona State University for the 94,000 square foot USB Backfill Phase II renovation project with an estimated cost of $3.8M. This project will renovate the recently vacated Administration Building A and B Wings for use by the administrative units and academic units for the College of Public Programs, the College of Extended Education, the College of Fine Arts, and university academic/research support units.

The Board granted Project Implementation and Project Approval to Arizona State University for the Memorial Union Renovation and Expansion Phase la (Union Square). This will renovate the first floor food court (approximately 10,400 square feet) and dining areas with an estimated project cost of $2,725,000.

The Board granted authority to Arizona State University to initiate litigation for contract and other damages estimated at $126,887 against Dillards, Inc. and any other party necessary and appropriate for a just adjudication of this matter, as determined by the ASU Office of General Counsel. ASU has a claim for the amount owed under a ticketing contract with Dillard Ticketing Systems, Inc.

The Board approved the sale to Biltmore Development Corporation, an Alberta Corporation, in substantial accordance with the terms and conditions described below, of approximately 59.91 acres of the former Cowden Estate Property located in Tolleson, Arizona. The Board also authorized the execution of all legal documents by the Board’s President, Secretary, or Executive Director, subject to review of all documents by Board Counsel.

The purchase price for the 59.91 acres is approximately $2.9M ($1.13 per square foot for the property). Seller shall, at its cost, provide buyer with an ALTA survey of the Property. If this transaction closes, seller shall be entitled to recover from Buyer at closing ½ of the actual cost of the survey up to $4,000. Grubb & Ellis, who has represented the Seller, will receive 1.5% of the gross purchase price and 3.5% of the gross purchase price will be paid to Colliers International, who has represented the Buyer. Buyer has forty-five days from the opening of the escrow to inspect the property. The Board’s share of the net proceeds will be approximately $1,135,325 which will be divided among the universities.

The Board authorized the University of Arizona to receive a grant from the National Institutes of Health to support the Cancer Center Support Group Project. The proposed amount is $5,752,155 for the first year of the project with a total anticipated funding amount of $30,704,729 for the life of the project. The proposed grant period is July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2008.

The Board authorized the University of Arizona to receive a grant from the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparity to support Project Export-Excellence in Partnerships for Community Outreach, Research in Health Disparities, and Training. The proposed amount is $1.2M for the first year of the project with a total anticipated funding amount of $6M for the life of the project. The proposed grant period is February 4, 2003, through January 31, 2008.

The Board extended for five additional years, from May 2003 through May 2008, the refundable fee of $1 per semester for University of Arizona student radio station KAMP as approved by a student-initiated and run referendum.

The Board approved changes and amendments to Board Policy 2-208, “Academic Program Review,” and Board Policy 2-204, “Academic Program Changes.” The amendment to 2-208 incorporates the 5-year system-wide degree productivity and program duplication review into the 7-year academic program review. The amendment to 2-204 B brings requests for discontinuation of academic programs before the Board for action to better inform the Regents about the rationale for disestablishing or merging programs and to improve oversight.

The Board authorized the University of Arizona to promote Professor Vickie L. Chandler, a leader in the field of plant genetics; Professor Muriel Saville-Troike, a distinguished senior scholar in anthropological linguistics, sociolinguistics, and applied linguistics; Professor David S. Alberts, an award winning member of the American Society of Oncology; and Professor Lynn Nadel, a behavioral neuroscientist, to the rank of Regents Professor, effective July 1, 2003, and to award the $5,000 salary increase that customarily accompanies these appointments.

The Board received a written summary of spring semester enrollment. ASU Main has a headcount of 44,773 and an FTE of 40,459. ASU West had a headcount of 6,426 and an FTE of 5,118. ASU East had a headcount of 3,150 and FTE of 2,003. NAU had a headcount of 18,715 and an FTE of 16,289. US had a headcount of 34,221 and an FTE of 30,862. (The UA figures include UA South students.)

The Board approved adding data mirroring capability to the ASU Infrastructure at an estimated cost of $625,000 to prevent a repeat of a major failure experienced in March of 2003. This infrastructure upgrade will be spread over five years.

The Board received a written update on activities implemented to carry out its 2002-2003 Public Awareness Plan including an inventory of recent events that have occurred in support of Changing Directions. A copy of the op-ed piece written by President Jewett and printed in the Arizona Daily Star and the Tribune was included. A list of improvements to the ABOR Website was also listed.

Regent Stuart chaired this portion of the Agenda. Regent Horne joined the meeting at this time.

Ms. Louise Houseworth joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said the Board was being asked to approve the Spring Update of the FY 2003 All Funds Operating Budget for the universities and the central office. Regent Stuart reminded the Regents it reflects the 5.4% mid-year budget cuts.

President Jewett thanked Governor Napolitano for holding the line on budget cuts for the universities and the central office in her recommendations for next year. Regent Herstam contrasted the Governor’s budget recommendations with the legislative recommendations.

Governor Napolitano said the FY 2004 budget discussion is entering a more serious phase. She said the universities and the education community would need to be very vocal in their support of education as budget negotiations continue.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board approved the Spring Update of the FY 2003 All Funds Operating Budget. The university presidents updated the Board on HB 2529 that would, beginning in FY 2007-2008 and for the following 23 years, provide money from the General Fund for debt service on research buildings with the promise the universities commit to building those facilities now.

Regent Stuart said the Board was being asked to consider a policy revision that would expand the availability of tuition waivers to the children and spouses of Arizona Military Service Personnel killed in the line of duty in response to a Presidential Executive Order, as well as to severely disabled combat survivors. The Governor thanked the Regents and the presidents for their fast response to her request this issue be considered.

President Likins said the University of Arizona had been able to integrate faculty from various colleges doing similar work within the Institute for Science and Biotechnology. Dr. Likins introduced Dr. Fernando Martinez, Director of the Arizona Respiratory Center and Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Arizona. His major research interest includes the natural history of childhood asthma, the genealogy of asthma and related conditions, and early development of the immune system as a risk factor for the development of asthma.

Dr. Martinez explained his work with genetic markers, the attempt to differentiate genetic markers among different people, and the use of different medicine for different people.

Cynthia Jewett joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said this amendment would permit full-time eligible university employees and their spouses to register for up to 9 credit hours at reduced tuition rates and to expand the qualified tuition reduction program to include those classified staff employees whose employment is terminated due to budget reductions or program reorganizations.

Ms. Jewett said this would give full-time employees the same benefits as part-time employees. In addition, this extends this benefit for twelve months to employees who have been laid off as described above. Regent Palacios asked the cost of these changes and was told it is not anticipated there would be a significant cost increase. Regent Bulla asked if the policy could be made to address the issue raised at the Call to the Audience concerning employees placed on long-term disability. Mr. Sideman said the policy has been changed to address that issue; it is now necessary to see if it can be applied retroactively.

Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. Bob Smith, and Mr. Dave Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said this is one of several projects that were presented to the Board in detail with each university’s Capital Development Plan.

Regent Stuart said this request was for a 170,000 square foot facility with an estimated cost of $65.7M that would house the laboratory and office space for research faculty and staff working in five centers of excellence providing critical support to interdisciplinary molecular life sciences research. Mr. Valdez said this project is under design with Federal funds.

Mr. Harris explained a chart that displayed the debt ratio the Board approved in all three universities’ Capital Improvement Plans this year. All of the projects before the Board today were included. In the future, this will be included with every project involving debt financing. Regent Stuart said it would be helpful to see a revision of this chart at every meeting showing a matrix of all the construction projects. Mr. Harris said staff would like to inform the Board if any new project exceeds the approved debt ratio; if not, the Board would be informed of the incremental piece of the project of the debt ratio already approved.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted Project Implementation Approval to the University of Arizona for the Institute of Biomedical Science and Biotechnology Project.

Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. David Harris, and Mr. Bob Smith joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said the University of Arizona was requesting Project Implementation Approval for the expansion of the Chemistry Building. The 88,500 square foot project, with an estimated cost of $45M, will expand and integrate critically needed instructional, research, laboratory, and faculty office space. This project also includes the relocation of the adjacent, outdated Insectary and Agriculture Greenhouses, which will allow the highest and best use of available land resources. Regent Boice asked about differences a specialized building would have and was told this project has requirements for separate access for researchers and other people in the building, mechanical and plumbing requirements for clean-room spaces, and the need for many clean hoods. It is an expensive building due to the requirements for research labs. Regent Boice asked if this building can be built for the projected cost and was told the university is working with a construction manager and designer within the parameters of the given budget.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted Project Implementation Approval to the University of Arizona for the Chemistry Building Expansion Project.

Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. David Harris, and Mr. Bob Smith joined the meeting for this discus-sion. Regent Stuart said the University of Arizona was requesting Project Implementation Approval for the construction of Drachman Hall. The 105,000 square foot facility, with an estimated cost of $30M, will co-locate in one facility the College of Public Health and office and instructional space for the College of Pharmacy and the College of Nursing, and it will directly address the mission of the Arizona Health Sciences Center to educate and train healthcare professionals.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board granted Project Implementation Approval to the University of Arizona for the Drachman Hall Project.

Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. Dave Harris, and Mr. Bob Smith joined the meeting for this discus-sion. Regent Stuart said the University of Arizona was requesting Project Implementation Approval for the construction of the Infrastructure Phase VI project. This project, with an estimated cost of $30.8M, will support the planned research projects at the Arizona Health Sciences Center by extending steam, electric, sewer, telecommunications, and other utilities to immediately meet the needs of IBSB, Drachman Hall, and the Medical Research Building, as well as meeting long-term campus development needs north of Speedway Boulevard.

Mr Joel Valdez, Mr. Dave Harris, and Mr. Bob Smith joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said the University of Arizona was requesting approval to purchase four properties, 1334-1336 North Cherry Avenue and 1604-1606 East Drachman, 1614 East Drachman and 1620-1622 East Drachman, 1628-30-32-34 East Drachman, and 1628 East Mabel, within the University Planning Area in Tucson. The university was further requesting approval to utilize eminent domain procedures, if necessary.

Mr. Valdez said the Executive Summary related the possibility of four properties being purchased under eminent domain. However, since last week the university had reached agreement with one of the property owners. One of the properties is under the amount that requires Board approval. The two remaining properties are still under negotiation, but eminent domain may be required. He said eminent domain has only been used twice in twelve years as the university prefers to be able to work out a negotiated settlement.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board granted permission to the University of Arizona to purchase subject properties exceeding $250,000, and/or, in the alternative, to initiate eminent domain proceedings to acquire the properties located at 1334-36 North Cherry Avenue/1604-06 East Drachman Street, 1614-16 East Drachman Street/1620-22 East Drachman Street, 1628-30-32-34 East Drachman Street, and 1628 East Mabel Street, subject to approval of legal documents by University and Board Counsel.

Mr. David Lorenz and Mr. Dave Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said Northern Arizona University was requesting Project Implementation Approval for the renovation of the College of Engineering and Technology Building, approximately 70,000 gross square feet, to include replacing all major building systems and reconfiguration of space to accommodate changing program needs, at an estimated cost of $13.2M.

Mr. David Lorenz and Mr. Dave Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said Northern Arizona university was requesting Project Implementation Approval for the construction of approximately 85,000 gross square feet of instructional and research laboratories to replace existing laboratories in facilities coded red by the Facility Condition Index. The estimated cost of this building is $25M. This project entailed the construction of a new building, as opposed to the previous plan to renovate the Chemistry and Biological Sciences buildings.

President Haeger said there would need to be a discussion with the Joint Committee of Capital Review (JCCR) as this is a change from the original bonding plans that were submitted by NAU. Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board granted Project Implementation Approval for the new Laboratory Facility and authorized NAU to proceed to complete design and construction documentation.

Mr. David Lorenz and Mr. Dave Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said Northern Arizona university was requesting Revised Project Approval with a budget increase of $900,000 for the School of Communication Renovation Project. The budget increase would add additional square footage due to enrollment trends. The estimated cost of the project is $13.9M.

Regent Boice asked where NAU was with the $60M of bonding authority they were granted and was told the first $31.5M has been sold. As NAU moves through the next series of projects, the second $31.5M will be sold, probably within the next 2 or 3 months. The current bill in front of the legislature for research funding could have an impact on the funding of some of the projects. These projects will use up the remainder of the $60M bonding authority, subject to the impact of the research funding bill. Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board granted Revised Project Approval with a budget increase for the School of Communication Renovation project to $13.9M.

Dr. Mernoy Harrison and Mr. Dave Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said Arizona State University Main was seeking Project Implementation Approval for Parking Structure 7 (1,500 spaces) with an estimated project cost of $15M. The project will support new construction on North Campus.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board granted Project Implementation Approval to Arizona State University-Main for Parking Structure 7.

Dr. Mernoy Harrison and Mr. Dave Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said Arizona State University Main was seeking approval of a lease agreement with BYVT Holdings, L.L.C., and combined Project Implementation and Project Approval for the Brickyard Tenant Improvement project. This will be a renovation of approximately 130,000 square feet with an estimated cost of $7M, including renovation costs of $2.8M and furniture, fixtures, and equipment costs of $2M. Under the terms of the lease, the annual lease payment for the first five years will be $23 per square foot, or $2.9M annually. The lease further grants two five-year renewal options at market rate.

Dr. Harrison said this would be a new home for the computer sciences and engineering department. It allows ASU to utilize 130,000 square feet of space approximately two years faster than if the project had to be built and at approximately the same cost. ASU is seeking both Project Implementation and Project Approval at this time in order to complete the project prior to the start of the Fall semester. The tenant improvement project cost is estimated at $7M.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board authorized the Arizona State University President, Executive Vice President for Administration and Finance, Associate Vice President for Administration, or their designees to take all appropriate actions to negotiate, sign, and enter into a lease agreement with Lessor for approximately 130,000 square feet of space in the property known as The Brickyard on Mill located at 699 South Mill Avenue, Tempe, on the terms summarized below, with such modifications as the President, Executive Vice President, and Associate Vice President or any of them determine to be necessary or desirable and appropriate. The Board also granted Project Implementation Approval and Project Approval for this project.

The lease will be for 5 years with two 5-year options to extend at ASU’s election. The rental rate will be $23 per square foot, full service rent, fixed for the initial term, except that Landlord may pass through operating cost increases after the first year. Any increases will be based upon Review of actual operating costs from the previous year.

ASU will receive a $1.9M tenant improvement allowance, free parking for the first year for 375 spaces ($25 per space monthly thereafter), and monument (building top) signage rights. Landlord will provide ASU with a three-month free rent period during the first lease year.

Dr. Mernoy Harrison and Mr. Dave Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said Arizona State University Main was requesting Project Implementation Approval for the Infrastructure Improvements Phase II, with an estimated cost of $10M, to upgrade utility services for current and future development. Dr. Harrison said this will allow expansion of utilities where new residence halls and the Arizona Biodesign Institute will be built. In addition, it will start the infrastructure enhancement on the other side of the campus to allow redevelopment of the Tempe Center area for the new W. C. Carey School of Business. Regent Palacios asked why there were no projected costs for operations and maintenance and was told it was not expected there would be, for the most part, additional costs. In some cases, the more efficient equipment will reduce costs.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board granted Project Implementation Approval to Arizona State University for the Infrastructure Phase II Project.

Dr. Milt Glick, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, Dr. Elizabeth Ervin, and Ms. Tonya Drake joined the meeting for these discussions. Regent Stuart said the Board was being asked to Review and approve several requests for special class fees, special program fees, and fee ranges. Program fees are charges to the student that are added to regular tuition.

Provost Glick said the ASU request was for two nursing courses. The fees are to pay for lab supplies. Dr. Ervin said the UA request was to cover lab supplies for the Biochemical Laboratory Techniques course. Provost Grobsmith said the NAU requests were for programs in Construction Management, Environmental Science, Geography, and Parks and Recreation Management for field trips and lab supplies. Regent Herstam asked how long the fees for nursing had been in effect and was told they had been in effect for a number of years, but had just exceeded $50.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board, by unanimous roll call vote, approved the Special Class fees as requested.

Dean Larry Penley joined the meeting for this discussion. Provost Glick said last year the Board approved the setting of fee ranges for certain professional programs with the understanding they would be brought back to the Board for the specific fee within the range. The requested fees are in the MBA Program and are meant to be competitive and at market rates.

Dean Penley said there were two sets of graduate program fee issues at ASU. The first one is the establishment of a new range and a specific fee associated with a new program which is the on-line MBA, an expansion of the corporate program. The proposal is for a range of $15,000 to $20,000 and the establishment of the specific fee of $17,300 for next year.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board, by unanimous roll call vote, approved the ranges for selected graduate programs as requested.

Dean Penley said this request was for a special program fee intended for business students. He told the Regents how ASU had publicized the proposed request. He said they had not received any negative feedback from students. The intent of the fee is to raise the quality of the experience, both at the University of Arizona and at Arizona State University. He said 15% of this fee would be set aside for financial aid.

Provost Glick said nursing was the most expensive program in the university in spite of the fact nursing faculty salaries are far off market. This year the three universities are working with Dr. Ray Woosley to secure the funds needed to address these issues. There has been a signal from the Hospital Association that they would be willing to cover the cost of a fee that would go entirely to the nursing colleges to improve salaries and the quality of education. However, at this point, this support has not been received. Given that there is a nursing shortage and the nursing salaries do not compare with business salaries upon graduation, the universities would like the nursing fee of $1,000 to be approved contingent on an external funding source agreeing to cover that fee.

Regent Stuart said he was not prepared to support a motion based on that contingency when there was no indication of what the funding source or conditions might be. President Crow said the universities have been meeting with the hospital and medical care giving leadership from around the state and there are ongoing discussions concerning that issue. President Likins said the universities cannot increase the size of the nursing programs until they are able to receive more money for salaries since the universities are unable to recruit more nursing faculty.

Regent Bulla said this proposal was not in keeping with past proposals as it is contingent on other things happening. He said he was hesitant to see this proposal move forward until there is more certainty. He moved to table the nursing fee proposal at all three universities until there is a reliable funding source for the fee. Regents Jewett and Herstam declared a potential conflict of interest on the undergraduate nursing fees and did not participate in the discussion or voting on this issue only.

Regent Meaker said he believes the special program fees in the undergraduate programs are probably warranted; however, he said there is a lack of policy guidance for setting undergraduate program fees. He said he would therefore have difficulty supporting the requests for undergraduate program fees.

Regent Boice seconded the motion to table the $1,000 undergraduate nursing fee at all three universities. The motion failed with Regents Bulla and Stuart voting yes and Regents McKay, Boice, Palacios, and Meaker voting no.

Regent Kelling asked why there needed to be a fee if the hospitals were willing to work with the nursing programs; why couldn’t it be received directly from the hospitals? President Likins said the three university presidents were in a discussion with hospital leaders and they suggested they would be willing to cover this fee. Regent Bulla said he was concerned the unintended consequences of this fee would be fewer nursing students as those who were not affiliated with a group would not know their fee would be paid.

Regent Stuart moved that the Board grant authority to ASU, NAU, and UA to establish a special program fee for the Bachelor of Science degree in nursing, limited by the condition this special program fee would not be implemented unless external funding was received for each nursing student in each of the universities so each student would be held harmless. The motion was seconded by Regent Boice and failed by a tie vote with Regents Boice, McKay, and Stuart voting yes and Regents Bulla, Meaker, and Palacios voting no.

Regent Stuart moved and Regent Meaker seconded the approval of the Special Program fees as requested with the exception of the undergraduate business and nursing fees. This included the program fee in Critical Languages Institute (ASU), M.S.E. Graduate Professional Certificate (ASU), M.S.E. Distance Learning Program (ASU), M.S.E. Accelerated Weekend and Evening Program (ASU), Executive M.S.E. Distance Learning Program (ASU), Doctor of Pharmacy (UA), M.S. in Nursing (UA), Ph.D. in Nursing (UA), and the School Information Resources and Library Science (UA.).

Regent Herstam said the M.S.E. Distance Learning Program was discussed at the Arizona Regents University (ARU) committee meeting at great length. There was concern about how this program would coordinate with ARU, whether ASU would market both programs, and differential fees for the same classes. There was a discussion about how to prevent this in the future; when individual university programs overlap with ARU, a “heads up” must be given as soon as possible so ARU can coordinate an increase in fee to keep the programs the same. ASU did state its support of the Tri-University Engineering Program that is under the ARU umbrella.

Provost Glick asked for the Board’s support for a possible request for increase in program fee for the ARU Masters of Science in Engineering, recognizing it would require a special hearing.

Regent Stuart said the remaining special fee request was for a $500/year upper division fee for undergraduate business students at both ASU and UA. At ASU, the Summer I and II fee would be $125 and the Intersession/Winter Session would be $70 with the fees being assessed per session; and at UA, the Summer I and the Intersession/ Pre-session fee would be $20 with the fees being assessed per academic unit.

Regent Stuart reminded the Regents a petition had been submitted by Associated Students of the University of Arizona stating they cannot support any “Academic Differential Fee” that is not waived for those students currently holding need or merit based tuition waivers. Additionally, the Associated Students do not support any differential academic fees not restricted to professional, graduate professional, and graduate schools and colleges and object to the Eller College Fee unless this provisional restriction is recognized.

The Regents also received Associated Students of ASU Senate Bill 75 which supports the proposed semester fee affecting the W. P. Carey School of Business and asks the Arizona Board of Regents to allow for its implementation.

Regent Stuart said he was hesitant about this fee because of the large tuition increase that happened at the last Board meeting. He believes the business plan is sound, but cannot support the increase because he believes it is premature and uncomfortably close to the tuition increase. Many people believed the $1,000 increase was all that would occur this year.

Regent Meaker said he believed students should have had more notice, as everyone was concentrating on tuition and fees were not highlighted. He had a philosophical problem with the increase as he believed there should be a procedure for increasing undergraduate fees. There may be many requests along this line in the future. Regent Boice asked if a student who had already been accepted into the junior year of business school would have to pay the fee. Dean Penley said the proposal grandfathered the students who have already been accepted but those who have not yet been admitted for next fall would be put on notice they would have to pay the fee. Regent Boice said he believed this was an enterprise approach and he would support the fee.

President Likins said what Dean Penley had described did not fit the University of Arizona model and was not what was in the Executive Summary. In the Executive Summary, current seniors were exempt from the increase, but there was no exemption for those who had been admitted as juniors. Dean Penley said the description includes a notation referring those currently in the program (juniors and seniors) and he believes that includes those who have been admitted as they would now be juniors in the program. President Crow said the presidents had intended the language as in the Executive Summary which means current juniors and seniors and does not include grandfathering those who have just been admitted to the program.

President Likins said the university administration had consulted with various student groups before tuition was set as that involved all students. The UA had discussed the fee increase with business students, but not with ASUA and other students as it does not involve them. He sought guidance as to whether the Board expected the universities to involve all students in discussions of fees when they are specific to one group of students.

Dean Zupan said the Business College had consulted with the students who had taken the survey, including sophomores. They met with ASUA several times and they intend to follow the ASUA request for merit and need-based financial aid. Dean Penley said ASU had also consulted with a similar broad group of students.

Regent Stuart agreed there had been broad consultation; however, he also said President Likins’ question demonstrated the lack of policy guidance on this issue. He was afraid there would be many more requests for fees from other undergraduate programs and these increases are very large when there has just been a large tuition increase.

President Crow said Dean Penley was acting under direction from administration to move the business school to a market position as rapidly as possible and with the resources that might be derived from moving to that market position, move the business school into a superior competitive position on a national basis. It is a targeted request that has not been given to any other dean. Dean Zupan said the UA had its accreditation review that happens every five years. They have the same push for quality with limited means because of the current tight budget. The key part of receiving reaccreditation was looking at differential fees as several other schools around the country are doing at the undergraduate level.

President Jewett said he had the same concerns as Regent Stuart. He believed the tuition setting demonstrated how a consultative process could result in acceptance of an increase. He was surprised to find this process was not as consultative as the tuition process had been and there were students who believed they had not had enough notice. He believed the precedent setting and the timing, coming so close after a large tuition increase, were both troublesome for him. Regent Herstam said he agreed with what Regent Stuart had said, but he was going to vote for the increase. He said, however, he would like to make the point that he does not believe pushing fees as high as possible is the next step after raising tuition. He was comforted by President Crow’s statement that the business college at ASU was the only one being pushed to operate in the market environment. He would be very skeptical of any other differentiated undergraduate fees that might be proposed for the reasons already stated by others. He is also worried increasing undergraduate fees would keep minorities from the expensive programs, even with financial aid.

President Likins said he would welcome guidance with respect to an understanding of the sense of the Board on the issue of upper division or graduate fees beyond tuition.

Regent Herstam moved the Board approve the special program fee for the B.S. in Business at ASU and UA as stipulated in the Executive Summary. The motion was seconded by Regent McKay and passed with Regents Boice, Bulla, Herstam, McKay, and Palacios voting yes and Regents Meaker, Stuart, and Jewett voting no.

Dr. Milt Glick, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, Dr. Elizabeth Ervin, and Ms. Tonya Drake joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said the Board was being asked to approve special program fees within pre-approved fee ranges. Program fees are charges to the student that are added to regular tuition. At last April’s meeting, the Board approved policy changes and program fee ranges to provide greater flexibility to the universities in responding to market changes. The universities may request Board Approval for changes to fees within the pre-approved fee ranges.

Regent Kelling said the students currently enrolled in the ASU College of Law have accepted they would pay an increased fee for next year. Regent Meaker said the administration at the UA College of Law has had multiple meetings with law students and he believes they are supportive of this proposal.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Meaker, the Board, by unanimous voice vote, approved the special program fees within pre-approved fee ranges as requested.

Dr. Elizabeth Ervin joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said the Board was being asked to approve the implementation of a $75, non-refundable application fee for the University of Arizona’s College of Medicine.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board authorized the University of Arizona College of Medicine to assess a $75 fee to accompany the Medical School Application, effective for the 2004 entering class.

Mr. Joel Sideman joined the meeting for this discussion. Mr. Sideman said this item was removed from consent. This is a retirement incentive plan and it is expected each university will develop programs in accordance with its own needs. A summary of the common elements of the program are: participation is voluntary; a person who does choose to participate shall agree in writing to relinquish, as applicable, rights to tenure, continued employment, re-employment and all other employment rights and privileges; eligible employees do not have an absolute right to participate; universities may limit participation to tenure-track and tenured faculty and academic professionals with continuing status; any eligible employee who has received, prior to the effective date of retirement, written notice of termination for cause is not eligible; and a university choosing to offer a voluntary separation and retirement incentive program will use only that program and all other retirement incentive negotiations with retirement-eligible employees will be prohibited unless there is an exception to this provision approved by the Provost.

Dr. Wanda Howell said the Arizona Faculties Council believes the voluntary aspect of the program is reduced because eligible employees do not have an absolute right to partici-pate and the universities may limit participation in their respective plans. President Crow said this program will have limits in funding and in the number of people a department could afford to lose at one time. President Likins said the language indicates there needs to be a mutual acceptance on the part of both the volunteer retiree and the university before the retirement incentive can apply.

Dr. Howell asked if individual plans would come to the Board for approval and was told the policy delegates to the universities the authority to develop plans and asks that those plans be reported to the Board after the fact. There has been some discussion between the presidents and Board members concerning visibility of the plans before implementation.

Regent Stuart said he would not like to be in the position of second guessing the administration when there has been mutual agreement with a faculty member for retirement.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board approved new Board Policy 6-607, “Voluntary Separation and Retirement Incentive Program.”

The meeting recessed at 5:06 p.m. and President Jewett reconvened the meeting at 9:25 a.m. on Friday, April 25.

President Jewett apologized for failing to call on Mr. Len Munsil, representative for the Center for Arizona Policy, yesterday during the Call to the Audience. He had signed up to speak, but he was missed inadvertently. Mr. Munsil’s written statement was distributed to each Regent. Mr. Munsil addressed the proposed Board Policies 2-101 and 2-102 on admissions. The revisions would provide no process for home school students to be assured of admission to the universities because they will have no class rank. He asked for the policy to allow a process for assured admission for home school students.

Ms. Bethany Lewis, an ASU student, also representing the Center for Arizona Policy, was present and was called to speak.

Bethany Lewis, legislative analyst for the Center for Arizona Policy, said current home schooled students are assured admission to the Arizona universities based on SAT or ACT scores as well as other criteria. The proposed revisions would assure admission to public, private, and charter school students based on class rank, but does not provide any assured admission for home-schooled students since they have no class rank. The Center believes the proposed change is not meant to hurt home schoolers, but is an unintended consequence of a laudable attempt to raise admission standards. They recommend the proposed policy be amended to at least allow a process for assured admission for home- school students.

Ms. Kathie Zeider, Executive Director of Arizona’s Commerce and Economic Development Commission, Dr. Walter Plosila, Vice President for Public Technology Management for the Battelle Institute, and Dr. Adrian Roberts, Senior Consultant to the Project Team, joined the meeting for this discussion.

President Jewett said this is a report from the Battelle Institute titled, “Positioning Arizona and Its Research Universities: Science and Technology Core Competencies Assessment.” Steering committee members from the universities and the central office included Dr. Dick Powell, Vice president for Research at UA, Dr. Jonathan Fink, Vice President for Research at ASU, Dr. Carl Fox, Vice Provost for Research at NAU, and Dr. Tom Wickenden, Associate Executive Director for Academic and Student Affairs, Central Office. The Flinn Foundation also collaborated on the study.

Ms. Zeider said the Commerce and Economic Development Commission (CEDC) had a statutory responsibility to provide long-range strategic planning for economic development for the State of Arizona. Over the past year, the Arizona Department of Commerce and the CEDC have been engaged in developing very high quality information on which a strategic plan can be built. The CEDC and the Department of Commerce recognize that Arizona’s universities are very strong economic drivers in the state through their students and research grants and through the possibility, through their research, to focus and form and drive economic development.

Ms. Zeider announced the CEDC had provided additional funding to supplement the information from the Report by developing road maps for the technology that will provide the state with a long-range economic plan for building on these research strengths.

Dr. Plosila explained the process used to produce the report. The objective of the presentation was to show where Arizona could be as the “Go To” state for a knowledge-based economy based upon its research universities. The findings suggest Arizona is in a good position if it makes further investments and takes other actions to participate. The market areas that require strong research to be competitive are advanced communications in the short term, gene-based medicine in the mid-term, and sustainable systems in the long-term.

The project looked at research areas to see how to turn them into niches that contribute to platforms. Dr. Roberts discussed the platforms and what gaps existed and what options and opportunities exist for enhancement of the platforms for the future.

In summary, six core competencies were identified: Communications, Information Technology, Sustainable Systems, Bioengineering, Neurological Sciences, and Cancer-Therapeutics. They were blended into four technology platforms that have the potential of catching the next major technological waves : Advanced Communications, Gene-Based Medicine, Sustainable Systems, and Bioengineering. Gaps and options for enhancement of three of the platforms–communications, information technology, and sustainability–were identified. The fourth platform, bioengineering, is currently the subject of a platform development strategy.

Finally, Battelle identified five crosscutting opportunities and actions that might be considered and needed to address all technology platforms. This study can only address gaps, options, and opportunities in a preliminary fashion. To further build Arizona’s future in these platforms, each will need to be further developed as comprehensive road maps.

President Jewett thanked the presenters for their work. President Likins said the Report resonates with decisions previously embraced by the Regents in the Proposition 301 Fund discussions. President Likins said he suspected every state in the nation would have some variation of most of the strengths mentioned in the Report. He would welcome guidance in finding strategies to help develop niches where the Arizona universities could be successful. However, he believed the Arizona universities are better positioned than most state universities in the area of sustainable systems. Unfortunately, this is an area that will not show a return for many years. Dr. Plosila said there would be some short and medium term results from sustainable systems and this would be enough to build support for the long term.

President Haeger said the difficulty in ecological science and environmental areas is the short term is usually engaged in preventing economic loss. The business area was disappointed because there were not start-up companies as a result. But in the long term, there will be the development of new products and new ways of life. He believes Arizona can become a global leader in this area.

Dr. Haeger said he knows it is not possible to be excellent in everything. The difficulty for the universities will be to maintain focus on a few areas and to not become so diffuse they lose their areas of excellence.

President Crow said the concept of the universities positioning themselves with technology to reap economic benefits in the future is important. There is a need for the universities to find a way to capitalize on their joint capacities. Dr. Crow said the amount of dollars stated seems significant; but in relation to what is going on in other states, it is not. Dr. Plosila agreed the current grants and state funding are not enough to put Arizona in a high position on the national scene; but it does put it on the same page with universities with more funding. It is a start.

Dr. Elizabeth Ervin, Dr. Milt Glick, Ms. Stephanie Jacobson, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, and Dr. Randy Richardson joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Palacios said this was the annual presentation of the Undergraduate Consolidated Accountability Report or UCAR. In addition to discussing the report, the Board was asked to approve goals and goal years for several common and unique measures and for some common measures at ASU.

Ms. Jacobson introduced the report. She said the UCAR was organized in several sections. The Executive Summary, in addition to the overview and the list of action items, includes two sets of information specifically requested by the Regents. The first is the identification of those measures, by institution, that are not making adequate progress towards the goals. The second, being reported for the first time this year, is national benchmark data on freshman retention and six-year graduation rates.

Although the primary function of UCAR is to measure each institution’s progress on the measures, the reports, analyzed togther, do suggest some systemwide trends. Common measures in which at least two universities are moving in the same direction are identified, noting especially those with several years of data. Related measures that were experiencing similar changes were also identified.

A few of the successes are the number of graduations is increasing and students are graduating in a fewer number of years. Two of the new Learner-Centered measures are showing progress. Students in research related or Capstone courses are at or near the goal across the board. Areas of concern include student-faculty contact, freshman retention, and larger classes.

Ms. Jacobson said the Regents were being asked to approve goals and goal years for several of the newer measures as well as modification to goals for four common measures for ASU. NAU and UA are seeking goals for some unique measures.

Ms. Jacobson said the current UCAR contains 61 measures, 34 common and 27 unique measures among the three universities. It is likely these measures will increase as there are still two to be developed–one on faculty evaluation of student learning and one on employer satisfaction. Further measures are being developed or proposed in response to Changing Directions. During the Learner Centered team meeting in March, Regents expressed concern that UCAR was becoming too complex and suggested it might be time to streamline it.

Regent Palacios suggested the Provosts and central office staff review and make a recommendation to the Board for a way to streamline UCAR. Regent Stuart said a format needed to be found that would be quick, flexible, and easy to identify. He suggested consideration be give to finding another way to process the report, perhaps an electronic version that would be available to the public, also.

President Likins said 61 measures were too many for Board oversight, but were not too many for management use and the Regents should have access to the measures the universities use. However, 10 or 12 measures would be better for Regent oversight. He suggested the measures not be all directed toward undergraduate performance, but should include the university performance broadly understood. It should be reported to the Board systematically, with the same definitions, over a period of time.

Regent Boice said he believed UCAR should be streamlined. He also believed it should become more dynamic as changes are happening more quickly these days and he would like to be able to evaluate those changes.

Provost Glick said ASU had improved its graduation rate in a time of increasingly larger classes and at a time when national public graduation rates are decreasing. ASU areas of concern are undergraduate access to tenured and tenure-track faculty and class section availability. However, the number of students has increased, retention has increased, and due to budget cuts, the number of faculty has not increased for ten years. ASU is still working on advising.

Provost Grobsmith said NAU is seeing an increase in the number of seniors who are discussing their course work with faculty and there is an increase in the number of undergraduates who are having research or capstone experiences. Graduating seniors and alumni gave their NAU experience good marks. Due to budget cuts, NAU has been relying on adjunct and part-time faculty.

Dr. Grobsmith said NAU has a new Gateway Student Success Center, a centralized place for freshman advising. There are new freshman interest groups in which students are placed in living/learning communities. They are revamping their first year colloquium experience, the gateway to the liberal studies program.

Dr. Randy Richardson said the UA has the new Integrated Learning Center, a new Student Union Memorial Center, and the Academic Advising Task Force is in its second year. The UA is very committed to its outcomes assessment and Changing Directions is providing an opportunity to support undergraduate education.

Dr. Richardson said more UA students are taught by professors, but the classes are larger since the number of faculty has declined and student enrollment has increased. There are mixed reviews of faculty contact with students. First year student retention is down (non-resident students, not resident students), the freshman graduation rate continues at its highest level ever, and the time-to-graduation is at the lowest level.

Regent McKay said she did not mean to infer she did not believe there was no need for evaluation measures. She would like the universities to continue to use more measures for their own use and would like the measures to be available to the Regents upon request. However, she would like to see UCAR streamlined.

Regent Stuart said he understood the pressure from legislators and parents for students to be taught by ranked faculty; but he did not want to send the message that part-time faculty were of lesser value. He believes the value of non-tenure track faculty should be a public awareness issue.

President Haeger said shrinking budgets and increasing students mean the universities need to find other ways to teach. It is unrealistic to believe finances will change and enough new faculty can be hired to teach in the same ratios as in the past.

Provost Grobsmith said adjunct and part-time faculty are valuable teachers. However, the advantage of tenured faculty is that they stay at the university for a longer period. They participate in research and community service and students get to know them and contact them for advice. They are a resource year after year. Provost Glick said it was important to get the right mix of tenured faculty and adjunct and part-time faculty as they all have their important places.

Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board approved the new goals and goal years for the common and unique measures as proposed.

Provost Glick and Provost Grobsmith joined the meeting for this discussion. President Crow said the Institute for Computing and Information Science and Engineering is the consolidation of the computer science department along with several other centers that are in various areas of the university and this program unit will occupy the facilities for which the Regents approved a lease in downtown Tempe yesterday. It is important for ASU’s research development activities.

Provost Glick said ASU was adding a Ph.D. in Religious Studies as it is a timely subject on the national scene and ASU believes it needs more presence in the humanities. This will be the only such program in the state and ASU currently has an undergraduate and masters program. Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board authorized ASU to implement the Institute for Computing and Information Science and Engineering at ASU Main, the Ph.D. in Religious Studies at ASU Main, and the Minor in Interdisciplinary Organizational Studies at ASU West.

Provost Grobsmith said the proposed Master of Arts degree in Teaching Spanish would be the only one in the state. There is a tremendous shortage of teachers in this field. It is a two-year masters degree that is primarily for teachers. Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board authorized NAU to implement an M.A. in Teaching Spanish.

Dr. Patti Ota, Dr. M. J. McMahon, Dr. Tom Wickenden, and Dr. Christine Wilkinson joined the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Ota said there had been one change to the policy as a result of the discussions held at the first reading during the March Board meeting. The policy changes have been revised to remove the concern about the admission require-ments for non-accredited charter school graduates to the universities. The admission requirements for all graduates of all Arizona high schools are the same.

Dr. Ota said a question was raised at the last Board meeting as to whether the new policy changes, with respect to delegation, would give the universities enough flexibility to manage their enrollments well into the future. It is believed the answer is yes. Since the policies do not go into effect until the Fall of 2006, the universities will have the time to develop the strategies to assist them in managing enrollment. The universities will monitor the impact on the flexibility of enrollment over the coming years and will report any changes in this assessment.

Dr. Ota said a question had been raised about the universities’ communication plans; specifically, what actions will be taken to insure the high school guidance counselors, students, parents, and other stake holders understand the implications of the policy changes. The three institutions have been in contact with high school guidance counselors concerning the implications of the change. The central office has also sent out an email to interested constituents talking about the implications of the policy changes for any students planning to enroll in the Arizona public universities beginning in the Fall 2006.

President Jewett said these policies do provide flexibility to the universities and support the differentiated admissions that are a part of Changing Directions. He believes they will lead to improved student success. He said he supported the implementation date of Fall 2006 as this will allow the institutions time to prepare and will provide time to work with the K-12 system.

President Jewett said the Regents had received letters expressing concerns about the impact of the admission changes on minority and home-school students. One of the letters had come from the Arizona Minority Education Policy Analysis Center (AMEPAC) and contained recommendations. He said he believed the accountability measures the Board has approved will address many of the concerns, but he asked Dr. Wickenden if the Work Group had considered the recommendations from AMEPAC.

Dr. Wickenden said the Work Group had reviewed the recommendations and does believe most of the issues are addressed by the measures the Board approved last month. Their four main recommendations are that the Board set goals for enrollment and graduation rates for minority students, that the universities identify strategies to obtain these goals; that the Board measure progress toward those goals; and that the Board take corrective action if it finds progress is not being made.

Regent Bulla asked that the universities track the academic performance of the students that are admitted from unaccredited charter schools that are assured admission under the new policies and report to the Board how their grade point averages and graduation rates compare with the other high school graduates.

Regent Herstam said the universities currently have the flexibility to consider minority status as one of the many factors in admission and nothing in the new policy alters that consideration.

President Jewett asked President Likins to comment on home schooled students as the Regents had received a lot of mail on that issue in relation to the new admission policies. President Likins said home-schooled students do well at the universities and he expected they would be welcomed as they have been in the past. The UA receives three or four applications from home schooled students every year and they are all accepted, but many choose to go elsewhere; so usually only one or two register. Their performance is good. He believes it would be confusing to adopt specific SAT based Regent prescribed criteria for assured admission for a population of 3 or 4 students out of 6,000 applicants. He suggested the Regents ask the universities to track the home school population to make sure they are still admitted as they are now.

Regent Stuart asked that the home school students be tracked over the next few years to make sure the home schooled students have a fair and reasonable opportunity to be admitted into the system. He was surprised to find out it was such a small number of applicants. President Likins said this population frequently chooses to go to a different type of university than the large public universities in Arizona.

Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board adopted Policies 2-101 and 2-102 as proposed with the directions of Regent Stuart and Regent Bulla included.

Dr. Ray Woosley, Vice President of Health Sciences at the University of Arizona, joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Palacios said the presidents described their vision of a collaborative among the universities in the areas of biomedical education and research at the retreat last August. This vision has matured, and the Board was now being asked to approve an organization called the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative for Education, Research, and Health Policy, with the easy-to-remember acronym “ABC.” The presidents have asked Dr. Woosley to serve as the Executive Director for ABC.

Dr. Woosley said there is a critical shortage in health care providers in Arizona. The challenge in the health sciences is for the universities to determine how to participate in addressing this problem with declining state revenues. The universities believe the answer is collaboration. They do not believe simply training more people for a broken health care system is the answer, however. The Institute of Medicine has called for a fundamental change in the health care culture. The universities believe it will be necessary to change the way people learn to practice health care in order to change the culture. There must be policies to encourage people coming out of the university learning environment to work as teams and have an integrated professional health care delivery system. There must be a focus on preventive medicine. One of the opportunities for health care providers in Arizona is to be part of the commitment to biomedical research.

ABC will be a collaborative that brings together the three state universities into a network that brings the best from each through synergy. The mission of ABC is to plan and coordinate the collaborative efforts of the three universities through further expansion and development of statewide health care education programs to address the shortages, statewide biomedical research to address the opportunity to reap the reward of better health through biomedical research, and to help formulate policy.

The universities will also need the partnership of the health care community to make this effort successful. Through the subcommittee that has been working with Regents Jewett and Ulrich, an initial plan has been developed. Dr. Woosley said the salaries of nursing professors must be increased. Different programs, such as second degree programs for nursing, will bring more nurses more rapidly. There needs to be a partnership with community colleges. Accelerated degree programs may help recruit new health care workers at a lower cost.

The beginning focus will be on the Phoenix campus as there is a commitment from the City of Phoenix for support for ABC as well as TGen. The initial funding will be a grant from the Flinn Foundation for the infrastructure for clinical research.

Dr. Howell asked that nutritionists be included in the collaboration and Dr. Woosley said this was the strongest part of the prevention area.

Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent Stuart, the Board approved the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative (ABC) charter as proposed.

Regent Bulla chaired this portion of the meeting. He suggested the material from the Battelle Institute Report could be incorporated in strategic planning, especially the road maps, to help communicate to legislators and other interested parties in a meaningful way.

Mr. Dave Harris, Mr. David Duffy, Dean Dick Eribes, and Mr. Adam Gross of the firm of Ayers Saint Gross joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Bulla congratulated the UA on its plan as he believes it was well done. President Likins said the university needed a major update to its master plan to see how to best accommodate a growing enrollment. He said the UA had worked hard to communicate with its neighbors.

Mr. Duffy said the Comprehensive Campus Plan is integral to a lot of institutional plans. The Capital Improvement Plan is a major implementing mechanism of the Campus Plan.

Mr. Duffy said the UA had a very collaborative process over the last three years in developing the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gross explained the observations that took place over six or seven months that led to a series of five principles: meeting the academic mission of the university, dealing in a sustainable way with regional issues, supporting student life in a proactive way, dealing with transit, and dealing with the community. He explained how ideas were brainstormed for different areas and how the Plan came together with the input from many sources. He said the final Plan is grounded on academic need.

Mr. Gross told the Regents how the Plan can bring different disciplines together, how it can help determine the most efficient use of the land, and how it will fit within the neighborhoods it surrounds. The themes of the Plan are tied to the idea of intellectual open space and tying the campus together. The campus should be defined, yet porous. He described how to deal with parking problems and the importance of green space.

Regent Bulla asked Mr. Valdez to respond to questions that had been raised by neighborhood groups. Mr. Valdez said the UA was concerned about the issue of parking. The university has been implementing various modes of parking in association with various entities such as the City of Tucson and the Pima Association of Governments. The garage on Sixth Street is one example. It allows city buses to come in and drop off people who will take the university shuttle. No complaints are being ignored; but it takes a long time to implement plans. He said there is no capital project designed as “buffer.” However, every capital project has money built in for landscaping and how to design a buffer. This does mean it will take a while for buffers and greenscapes. Additional parking is also under design.

Regent Bulla asked anyone who had additional comments or questions to submit them to the university.

Dr. Art Ashton and Dr. Sally Jackson joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Bulla said the Board was being asked to approve funding from the Regents’ Innovation Fund to acquire and install a “Business Continuity and Disaster Planning” software application. Earlier this year, the Regents approved a budget of $340,000 for collaborative university information technology projects. At the March Board meeting, the first Information Technology (IT) project to perform an IT Security Assessment was approved in the amount of $100,000. Today, the second project is coming to the Board. It will not only provide business continuity and disaster recovery planning benefits to the IT units of each university, but will provide an automated system for the entire university. Regent Bulla said he believed the state will require much of this in the future and he believes this will put the universities ahead of the curve.

Dr. Jackson said the intention is to buy a license for this software to be shared among the three universities. Upon motion of Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Stuart, the Board approved funding of $223,415 from the Regents’ Innovation Fund for Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery software.

Regent Herstam said the Board discussed House Bill 2529, the Research Infrastructure Bill, and the status of budget negotiations yesterday. There was a listing of bills and the Board’s position furnished with the agenda materials.

Dr. Wanda Howell said she wanted to emphasize the role faculty could play in the revision of the UCAR in terms of both content and the delivery system of the information. Faculty would also like to engage in the dialogue regarding the distribution of adjunct faculty and tenure-track faculty.

Regent Stuart said the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges would cease to exist June 30. The Joint Conference Committee will meet next Monday for its last meeting, but it will need to be reconstituted in some form.

Regent Boice said the University Medical Center Corporation (UMCC) and University Physicians, Inc., (UPI) are in negotiations relative to the sale of Tucson General Hospital to UPI. UPI is considering taking over the management of Kino Hospital by entering into a management contract with Pima County.

President Jewett recognized former Regents Campbell and Shropshire who were in attendance. Regents and members of the Council of Presidents thanked President Likins and his staff for their hospitality. President Likins was congratulated on the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education which focused on him and Provost Davis.

MINUTES