 |
MINUTES |
 |
|
MINUTES |
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCUSSION: HIGHER EDUCATION TRANSFORMATION THROUGH LEARNER CENTERED CHANGE
REPORT FROM THE HOST PRESIDENT, DR. COOR
REPORT FROM BOARD'S REPRESENTATIVE TO STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, REPORTS AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
~~~~~~~~~~
A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held April 15, 1999, in the Memorial Union at Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
President Gignac called the Discussion Session to order in the Arizona Room of the Memorial Union at 10:25 a.m. Regents Campbell, Gignac, Herstam, Jewett, McKay, Reichelt, and Ulrich were present along with Presidents Coor, Likins, and Lovett, Executive Director Besnette and various staff members from the universities and the central office. Members of the State Board of Directors of Community Colleges, members of the community college district governing boards from throughout the state, and CEO's of the community college districts were also present.
DISCUSSION: HIGHER EDUCATION TRANSFORMATION THROUGH LEARNER CENTERED CHANGE
President Gignac introduced Dr. Alan Guskin, a nationally recognized authority on higher education transformation through learner centered change. Dr. Guskin discussed cost issues, student learning, and new technologies. He said he believed it is necessary to recast the curriculum and to change expectations. The most important question to ask is, "What would the university look like if we were creating it today with current technology?"
Dr. Guskin believes the current paradigm, which generally involves faculty teaching groups of students in a class setting places a stranglehold on the faculty. They are required to teach more students than they have time to teach. There is a need to restructure the role of faculty to maximize the essential faculty-student interaction. There should be a new focus on student learning. There is a difference between faculty who are teaching focused and faculty who are student-learning focused. Currently classes are arbitrarily divided into a certain number of weeks for each semester, regardless of the learning rate of the various students, and grades are awarded at the end of each semester. Dr. Guskin recognizes the need for some measure of a student's performance, but he does not believe semester grades add to the learning process.
Dr Guskin believes there is a need to provide more faculty development as faculty need to be more proficient in the use of computers. Faculty also need more training in mentoring and leading group discussions. Students need to become more responsible for their own learning and work more independently. Dr. Guskin believes faculty self-interest will help bring about changes as the world changes. Dr. Doreen Dailey, President of Yavapai Community College, offered her thoughts on preparing higher education for the future. She said there are currently problems with deciding who owns intellectual property. There is a need to identify competency rather than courses passed. Technology will impact the number and type of facilities necessary and maximizing the use of community facilities will help save resources for higher education. For example, community colleges are using facilities at car dealers to teach auto shop classes. There is a need to rethink the image higher education is presenting to the community. Students currently face an information cauldron based on all the courses they take and there should be a better way to integrate this information into a useable form. Faculty and staff development should focus on how to enhance the learning process. There is a need to focus on recruitment and to balance the expertise within the higher education group with community expertise.
Dr. Lattie Coor, President of Arizona State University, said the Kellogg Commission is currently framing new language to replace the description of faculty endeavors as "teaching," "research," and "service." They are focusing on learning, discovery, and engagement. There is a need to bring the community into the research being done in higher education. Applied research needs to be integrated with other forms of research.
Dr. Coor reminded everyone the presidents of the universities and the community colleges are stewards; they don't own the colleges. They cannot just make changes unilaterally; there must be ownership of the changes by the university community. A major problem with the Arizona funding structure is that it is tied to the number of students enrolled on the 21st day of the fall semester. It does not matter if the enrollment increases or decreases during other semesters. Also, faculty workload is validated only by the number of hours they stand in front of a classroom.
Dr. Coor believes Arizona has one of the best systems in the country connecting
community colleges with the universities. The transfer articulation system
allows a seamless transfer of credits for students. However, he warned the
rating game, such as the rankings in U.S. News and World Report, has
become increasingly important to the outside community.
The audience was asked for comments. Dr. Guskin was asked how to implement these
changes. He said there should be a "grand vision" and experimental
ways to reach it should be tested slowly and step by step. Dr. Guskin was asked
how it is possible to spend less to implement changes and he agreed the up-front
costs of making changes, both in technology and training, cost more. It will
require a ten-year time frame to accomplish the changes. It will be necessary to
maintain the quality of faculty work life and student experience while the
changes are being made. The legislature and the business community need to
understand that implementing these kinds of changes entail substantial start-up
costs; once in place, the new delivery systems should be very cost-effective. In
the current political environment, Dr. Guskin believes higher education has a
difficult time obtaining increased levels of general fund support because
legislators view the universities as unable to or unwilling to adapt to changing
needs and demands.
The comment was made that sometimes it seems the academic community wants to figure out how things should be done and then tell the rest of the world what to do. It would be more productive if they would involve the outside world along the way. There should be more effort given to educating people to what the problems are and what is needed. Dr. Guskin said that is a matter of timing and strategy. The academic community needs to understand the problems first and then it can work with the outside community.
President Gignac thanked everyone for their participation and the discussion recessed at 11:40 p.m. The discussion participants met in the Gold Room of the Memorial Union to continue their conversations over lunch at 12:00 p.m.
The board representatives participated in discussions at each table with presidents, chancellors, university provosts and executive directors. The responses of the participants to three discussion questions were reported at the end of the meeting. These responses are described below under each question.
Question 1. What major pressures for transformation of higher education are you experiencing? Given these pressures, what are the implications of policies that maintain the status quo, on the one hand, and of those that increase learner-centered change, on the other?
Pressures for transformation:
Financial pressures
Accountability pressures
Student pressures
Faculty pressures
Pressures to maintain the status quo
Gatekeepers
Governance
Public Leadership
Question 2. What are the major barriers to higher education transformation? What strategies for policymakers might be effective at overcoming those barriers to increase the rate of learner-centered change?
Major barriers to transformationTradition
Resources
Measurement
Leadership
Tradition
Resources
Professional Development
Leadership
Question 3. What steps should be taken by policymakers over the next year to increase the rate of learner-centered change in Arizona's institutions of higher education?
Tradition
Resources
Public Awareness
Professional Development
Measurement
Leadership
PRESENT:
Regent Rudy Campbell
Regent Judy Gignac
Regent Chris Herstam
Regent Jack Jewett
Regent Kay McKay
Regent Jennifer Reichelt
Regent Donald Ulrich
ABSENT: Regent George H.
Amos, III
Regent John Munger
Governor Jane Dee Hull
Superintendent of Public
Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan
Also present were: President Peter Likins, Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Saundra Taylor, Ms. Judith Leonard, Dr. Janet Bingham, Dr. Richard Powell, Dr. Michael Gottfredson, Mr. Greg Fahey, Mr. Dick Roberts, and Dr. Randy Groth, University of Arizona; President Lattie Coor, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Mr. Allan Price, Mr. Steve Miller, and Dr. Elaine Maimon, Arizona State University; President Clara Lovett, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Dr. Charles Connell, and Ms. Anne Barton, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director Frank Besnette, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, Ms. Louise Houseworth, and Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda, Central Office; and Dr. William Davey, Chair of the Arizona Faculties Council.
President Gignac introduced Ms. Christine Thompson, the Student Regent Nominee. Ms. Thompson's nomination will be heard by the Senate Education Committee on April 16 and she will begin her duties as the new Student Regent on July 1. President Gignac also introduced Dr. Linda Blessing, the new Executive Director for the Central Office. Dr. Blessing will assume her duties July 1, as well, but she will be working in the Central Office beginning May 31.
President Gignac expressed pleasure that Dr. William Davey, Chair of the Arizona Faculties Council, was back at the table after his bout with the flu; and complimented Dr. Hogle on his participation in the last meeting.
President Gignac welcomed Dr. Art DeCabooter, President of Scottsdale Community
College, to the meeting. Dr. DeCabooter was representing the Scottsdale Charros,
a leading charitable organization in Scottsdale that supports many endeavors
such as outstanding students and teachers, handicapped students, and athletics.
He introduced Mr. Keith Holben, Chair of the
Scottsdale Charros' Scholarship Program, and Mr. George Day, who is also a
member of the committee. This is a new scholarship program that will support two
students, each year, who graduate from Scottsdale schools and go to one of the
three state universities to major in education. The awards will range from
$36,000 to $40,000 per student. The award will cover tuition and fees, books,
room and board, and a $400 per month stipend for four years. There will be a
requirement for students to maintain a specified Grade Point Average and certain
number of hours completed. Upon graduation from college, each student will be
presented with a Scottsdale Charro ring. The first two students selected are
Jeff Ranby from Saguaro High School and Marie Blanchard from Arcadia High
School. President Coor, on behalf of the presidents, thanked the Charros for
this very significant award. President Gignac thanked the Charros on behalf of
the Board.
There were no requests to speak at Call to the Audience.
President Gignac announced she had received a request to remove No. 16, Update on Student Housing Plans for the Department of Residence Life (UofA), from the Consent Agenda to be
considered later during the Strategic Planning Committee Agenda. The items on the Consent Agenda, which are marked in these minutes with an *, were considered as consent matters and were adopted unanimously upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Campbell. There was no individual discussion of these items.
*Minutes
The Board adopted the February 25 and 26, 1999, Regular Meeting, the November
19, 1998, Executive Session, the January 15, 1999, Executive Session, and the
January 20, 1999, Special Executive Session Meeting minutes.
*Internal Audit
Report: Information Technology Audits (UofA)
The Board received a written report on the audits of the Center for Computing
and Information Technology's Project Management and Budget Process at the
University of Arizona. These areas were audited because they are important
controls over the expenditure of Center for Computing and Information Technology
resources. The audits did not result in any recommendations.
*Amendment to Board Policy Chapter VII Remaining Sections (Second Reading)
The Board approved policy revisions to the second portion of Chapter VII
(Buildings, Infrastructure and Land). The proposed revisions delegate
substantial authority to the universities to make decisions regarding the
acquisition, sale, lease, and exchange of real property. The first portion of
Chapter VII, which streamlined the capital planning and development process, was
adopted by the Board in January 1999.
Highlights of the changes include standardizing the dollar thresholds demarcating the Board's and university presidents' responsibilities and authority for the exchange, purchase, sale, and lease of real property. It enables the Presidents to approve transactions less than $250,000 with appropriate reporting to the central office. Transactions of $250,000 or more would need Board approval with the exception of sales of residential property.
The changes also implement a lower dollar threshold for the requirement of an appraisal for the exchange, purchase, or sale of real property. No appraisal would be required for transactions with an anticipated market price less than $25,000. The changes streamline the process for the sale of real property by allowing for the sale of real property worth less than $250,000 through a licensed broker who is a member of a multiple listing service, or by public auction. They also allow for the sale of any residential real property through a licensed broker who is a member of a multiple listing service, or by public auction, and reduce the time for notice of sale in a public auction from ten weeks to four weeks.
*Request for
Initiation of Litigation Against Cryo Refrigeration, Inc., (ASU)
On August 28, 1997, ASU entered into an agreement with Cryo Refrigeration, Inc.,
as low bidder, to install an environmental chamber at ASU East's Photovoltalc
Testing Laboratory for $68,000. After numerous delays and repairs, the chamber
was declared a failure. Cryo was given every reasonable opportunity to make the
defective chamber work. The chamber was funded by a grant and the department has
no funds to replace it. In addition, numerous laboratory samples (to date
exceeding $6,500 in value) were lost due to the defective nature of the chamber.
The University has also expended considerable man-hours and other expenses
related to this issue. The conservative estimate of all damages would exceed
$120,000.
The Board granted authority to Arizona State University to initiate litigation against Cryo Refrigeration, Inc., and any subsidiary or parent corporation and any officer or shareholder as may be determined to be appropriate upon further discovery by the ASU Office of General Counsel.
*Approval of
Financing Team Participants (ASU)
ASU requested authorization to enter into contracts with certain firms for bond
financial advisors, bond counsels, and bond trustees for a term of one year,
with four additional one-year renewal options upon mutual agreement of the
parties. The RFPs also provided for possible contract extension for an
additional sixth and/or seventh year, after the first five years, if mutually
agreed, and if the university president or designee determined in writing that
such a contract extension would be advantageous to the university.
The fees of Dain Rauscher are $.90 per $1,000 of financing ($15,000 minimum and $50,000 maximum for fixed rate system revenue bonds and $65,000 maximum for all other financings) plus reimbursement for direct expenses, payable only upon completion of a specific financing. The fees for Snell & Wilmer are $.60 per $1,000 of financing ($10,000 minimum and $35,000 maximum) on fixed rate system revenue bonds and $.80 per $1,000 for all other financings ($17,500 minimum and $45,000 maximum), plus reimbursement for direct expenses, payable only upon completion of a specific financing. The fee structure for Bank of New York Western Trust Company is a fixed amount that varies by year, e.g., initial fee, first year annual fee, subsequent years during construction period, and subsequent years after construction period.
The Board authorized Arizona State University to retain the following firms for the positions listed: 1. (a) Dain Rauscher, Primary Bond Financial Advisor, (b) Public Financial Management, Alternate Bond Financial Advisor; 2. (a) Snell & Wilmer, Primary Bond Counsel, (b) Kutak Rock, Alternate Bond Counsel; and 3. (a) Bank of New York Western Trust Company, Primary Trustee, (b) State Street Bank & Trust, Alternate Trustee, subject to approval of all documents by University Counsel.
*Acquisition of the Braeside Observatory Located Near Flagstaff, Waiver of ABOR Policies in Chapter VII, and Granting of Easements (ASU)Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Fried (Frieds) own the Braeside Observatory, which includes an observatory with a telescope building and a separate maintenance building for the equipment to operate the observatory, and the Fried residence located on ten acres of land. The Frieds desire to donate the observatory, the land, and the residence to ASU subject to two conditions: 1) the Frieds retain a life estate in the residence and approximately three acres of land surrounding the residence, and 2) ASU pays the Frieds $300,000. Part of this amount will be used to purchase an insurance policy for their estate to compensate their heirs for the value of the property being given to ASU. The cost of the policy is approximately $140,000. The remainder of this amount will pay off the existing mortgage on the property of approximately $160,000.ASU requests waiver of ABOR Policy 7-307 to allow ASU to grant two easements and a waiver of the requirement in ABOR Policies 7-305.B that the appraisal be "independent." ASU will request and pay for the appraisal. However, to save funds there will be a single appraisal to meet the needs of ASU, the needs of ASUF, and the needs of the Frieds for income tax purposes.
ASU requests a waiver of the requirement in ABOR policy 7-303.A, 7-305.B, and 7-305.D that a copy of the appraisal report be provided at the time of the request for ABOR approval of the transaction.
The Board authorized Arizona State University to acquire the Braeside Observatory located near Flagstaff, Arizona, and the related land and residence according to the terms and conditions set forth in the Executive Summary, including, among others, the condition that ASU receive a written appraisal report showing a valuation for the real property to be received by ASU, together with the value of the telescope and other equipment, of at least $300,000. The Board further authorized ASU to grant the non-development easement described above and such other easements as ASU determines to be necessary or appropriate for utilization and enjoyment of the Residential Parcel by ASUF and the Frieds. The Board also approved the variances from ABOR Policies as described above.
President Gignac thanked President Coor and ASU for hosting the large group of Regents, members of the Council of Presidents, and community college people for the discussion and lunch held earlier.
REPORT FROM THE HOST PRESIDENT, DR. COOR
President Coor introduced Professor James Collins, Chairman of the Department of Biology. The Biology Department involves undergraduate students in programs that are "learner centered." Dr. Collins presented three students who are involved in the Hughes Program which exists because of a grant from the Howard Hughes Institute. Dr. Collins said he believed Arizona was the only state in the nation to have all three state universities receive funding from the Hughes Institute, and the three universities have developed program linkages for the benefit of the students.
Professor Collins said the mission of the Biology Department is to foster learning in the life sciences. The faculty sees its role as bringing to the young people of Arizona opportunities to become involved in science to a much greater degree than has historically been the case. The department has found the external funding to be able to finance the undergraduate students so they can develop their own projects and can work one-on-one with faculty members. In the last six years, approximately 318 undergraduate students have been supported so they do not suffer financially as they do not have time to work when they participate in this program. There are 100 faculty sponsors scattered across 16 departments in three colleges. Thirty-five percent of the majors in the Biology Department have an opportunity to participate in programs like the ones described below.
Ms. Marsha Tallman is a senior in biology who works with Professor Elliott Goldstein. Ms. Tallman returned to school after ten years in the corporate sector and has participated in the Hughes Program for a year in the field of genetics. She is attempting to locate the gene that produces an enzyme called Phosphofructokinase somewhere in the region of Chromosome 2 in Drosophila Melanogaster, a fruit fly. This program, in addition to the first-hand opportunities she is experiencing in science, has allowed her to interact with many faculty and graduate students she would not have encountered otherwise.
Mr. Román Barraza is a sophomore biology major planning to enter medical school. He is currently working in the area of antibiotic resistance, the resistance mechanisms of "Bocillus Sphaericus" to the antibiotic Streptomycin. Mr. Barraza said the program is valuable as it allows networking with professors, other students, both undergraduate and graduate, and scientists in the community. He was contacted by a veterinarian from the San Diego Zoo who expressed interest in working with Mr. Barraza, so they are collaborating on a salamander project. He said thisprogram allows him to be creative and independent and adds immensely to his ability to understand what is taught in the classroom.
Ms. Tamany Vinson, a junior in the Biochemistry Department, described her project with ants, "Cooperative Colony Founding by Unrelated Queens in the Ant 'Acromyrmex' versicolar." She said the program has helped her learn presentation and writing skills as well as scientific knowledge. It has also given her access to students from other national programs.
Dr. Collins said this program develops special links with students and faculties between universities and forces the students into the larger world. The idea is to get students to do science as science is done.
Regent Ulrich chaired this portion of the meeting.
Spring Update of the FY 1999 All-Funds Operating Budget
Ms. Louise Houseworth and Ms. Gale Tebeau joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Ulrich reminded the Board it had approved the Initial All Funds Operating Budget in June 1998 and the Fall Update in November 1998. President Gignac commented that the report was clear and concise and shows the universities are making progress in eliminating the deficits exceeding $100,000. She encouraged them to keep up the good work. Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Campbell, the Board approved the Spring Update of the FY99 All Funds Operating Budget.
Steward Observatory Addition: Conceptual Approval (UoA)Mr. Joel Valdez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Ulrich noted the Board granted Project Initiation for a vertical expansion to the four-story Steward Observatory Building in September 1998. The $1.6M project will be funded entirely through annual lease payments from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board granted Conceptual Approval to the University of Arizona for the Steward Observatory Addition.
Approval of Sale of Certificates of Participation for Financing the Student Union/Bookstore Replacement Project (UofA)Mr. Joel Valdez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Ulrich reminded the Board Project Initiation was granted in August 1997 and design/build was authorized in April 1998. In
February 1999, the Board authorized the university to proceed with the Design-Build Agreement. The university is now seeking approval to sell Certificates of Participation (COPs) in an amount sufficient to fund the construction budget for the $59M project and the authority to enter into necessary agreements. The COPs will be sold in two series: (1) Fixed Interest Rate COPs ("Minibonds"), which will be marketed primarily to members of the University community, and (2) Variable Interest Rate COPs, which will be marketed to institutional buyers.
Regent McKay said she was impressed by the creativity of this approach. Mr. Valdez said the concept of the minibond is new to the university, but not new to Arizona as cities and utilities have used it before. This gives an affordable opportunity for faculty, staff, friends, and alumni to participate in the project. Likewise, the variable rate has not been used before, but historically, the rate is less than the fixed rate.Regent Campbell said he was very impressed with the proposed financing structure. President Gignac noted buyers of mini bonds will be notified later of the tax advantages of donating the principal to the university. She asked if people will be told this when they purchase the bonds and was told this cannot be mixed with the offering statement. Regent Ulrich congratulated the university and Mr. Valdez on this creative approach to financing which enabled this project to proceed.
Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Reichelt, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to sell Certificates of Participation in an amount to produce sufficient proceeds to fund the construction budget for the Student Union/Bookstore Replacement Project (currently $59M) at initial yields not to exceed 6% per annum, and to enter into all necessary agreements related to the COPs, as provided in a resolution reviewed by Board Counsel and staff.
Authorization to Ground Lease Property to the UofA Foundation for Construction of a New Police Station Facility (UofA)
Mr. Joel Valdez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Ulrich reminded the Board it had granted Project Initiation for a new police facility at the University of Arizona in January 1999. The UofA is requesting authorization to ground-lease property to the University of Arizona Foundation. The Foundation will issue Certificates of Participation to finance the construction of the station. When the Foundation's certificates are paid off, the improvements will be donated to the University. The facility will be designed and constructed to meet the university's requirements, and will be leased back to the university for a rental that is equal to the Foundation's debt service expenses. The university will have the right to terminate the leaseback if it lacks the funding to meet the payments. As long as the university uses the facility, the
Foundation will pay ground rent to the university of $1.00 per year. If the university terminates the leaseback, the ground rent will increase to a market rental rate to be determined by appraisal.
Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to grant a ground lease to the University of Arizona Foundation, as set forth above, provided the form of ground lease be acceptable to University Counsel and Board Counsel.Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting.
Review of State Legislation with Potentially Direct Impact on the Arizona University System
Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said the legislature passed a two-year budget for the university system last week, the first time in recent history atwo-year budget has been passed for the universities. He stated the adopted budget was not what was requested, but it was certainly better than the original one proposed by the legislature. President Lovett agreed the end of the session was better than the beginning. She believes the funding for a Center for K-12 Improvement will benefit the entire state and this funding will allow the state to apply for additional federal funds. The legislature also understood NAU needed help to extend its rural outreach. The amount approved was not generous, but was symbolically important. Dr. Lovett was disappointed with the decision to fund building renewal at only 23% of the formula. She is happy the legislature was willing to fund the salary package, but was not sure the 2% earmarked only for merit distribution is the best outcome. She would like to see either greater funding for salaries or greater flexibility to use what funds exist as this package makes it difficult to address market issues. However, Dr. Lovett expressed her gratitude for the support of the Governor and university supporters.
President Coor said the universities were indebted to Regents, the Governor and the Governor's staff, and the many university supporters who came forward to reset the budget discussion from its ominous beginning. Since the state funded the building renewal formula at 100% last year, funding it at only 23% this year will have a major impact on university buildings, making it very hard to carry out a long-term plan for maintenance and renewal. He expressed disappointment the salary package would not begin until April. Many states are now experiencing good economic times and several are using this money to increase their salaries. As Arizona is competing with these states for faculty and administration, President Coor would like to see university supporters try to get the message across to legislators it will be necessary to allow more money for salaries in the next biennial budget, especially since Arizona is sharing in the good economic times.
President Likins said his strongest reaction is a powerful sense of relief that disaster was averted. He expressed appreciation to the Governor and legislative and university supporters for their help in the legislative process. However, the university will receive fewer taxpayers dollars next year than it receives this year; and the institution will not be able to provide quality education if this trend continues.President Gignac added her thanks to the students who supported the university budgets. She asked the Regents if they would agree to look at three areas at the May meeting concerning the budget. She asked the Council of Presidents to provide input, recommendations, or a plan at the May meeting for these areas. The first area has to do with the consequences of the 2% merit that will take place beginning in April of 2000. How do the universities retain quality faculty and staff with this small amount of money and how will the universities position themselves to insure quality and access as this biennial budget moves forward? The second issue has to do with discussions as to how to proceed with regard to supplementals, or the mid-budget cycle discussion, as there will be changes in enrollment. The smaller agencies, who have had biennial budgets before, have submitted supplemental requests during the off years. The third area has to do with funding of decision packages, especially the three priorities which were K-12, tri-university software, and outreach work with community colleges. When the Regents authorized the budget for submittal, they asked the universities to come back to the Board with a specific plan as to how each funded program would go forward, how they could be accounted for and measured, and how it could be determined whether the programs become a successful.
Regent Herstam said he was nervous about having an active discussion about supplementals only five weeks after the biennial budget was adopted. He believes the legislative leadership will be skeptical about supplemental requests. President Gignac said she was talking about the procedure, not the dollars or issues.
President Likins said there will be changes in enrollments and the legislature has not yet issued guidelines as to whether there will be adjustments for these changes. This discussion would be to determine where to go in the second year of the budget, not to submit new decision packages or to present specific requests for money. Regent Jewett said he agreed with Regent Herstam the discussion should only touch on procedural issues.Mr. Seese-Bieda reported on the status of legislation. Regent Ulrich asked if SB 1282, University Scholarships, contained the same requirements the Regents had discussed last year, namely criteria should be the same for public schools and charter schools. Mr. Seese-Bieda reminded the Regents their prior discussion had been in relation to the admission of charter and public school students to the universities, whereas this legislation deals with fair and equitable treatment of charter and home school students relative to their access to Regents' tuition waivers. Regent Ulrich asked if the admission policy is in sync with the scholarship policy.
President Gignac said she believed this bill contains a good idea, but she would have appreciated it if the Regents had been allowed to pursue the issue rather than being presented with a legislative solution. She believes the universities should pursue this, regardless of the status of the bill. If the data were available, it would probably show home schooled students and some charter school students will be benefiting from scholarships because they are high achievers. However, the data is not available; so there is no way to know if home schooled or charter school students are under or over represented in the scholarship field.Regent Ulrich asked if the admission policy is the same for all types of students from all types of schools. Dr. Gottfredson said financial aid decisions are different from admission decisions. The universities will have to come up with something that substitutes for "rank in class" for home schooled students for financial aid purposes; but the same rules apply to public and charter schools for admission purposes. This bill has passed the house.
President Gignac asked the status of bills concerning whistle blowers, tuition, and social security numbers. Mr. Seese-Bieda said the whistle blower bill became a vehicle for a striker on an unrelated topic. The Senate version of the Social Security bill, SB1399, did get through the House and may come back to conference committee. The current version of the Senate Bill does extend implementation to 2002, but it does not extend protection to faculty and staff.
The tuition bill proposing a cap on tuition did not make it to a hearing in the Senate. The other related bill, which prescribed several procedural requirements relating to the tuition and fee setting process, including a requirement for public hearings, did make it through the Senate and will go back to the House for conference committee. President Gignac asked the status of the "Truth in Advertising" for academic programs bill and was told it was withdrawn when it became obvious there would not be enough votes for it to pass.Regent Reichelt asked if the Board still opposed SB1399 since it has been amended to extend the compliance time. President Gignac said the time extension is helpful to the universities and the Board is not precluded from adding faculty and staff if it so desires. President Likins says the universities will accomplish this with or without the legislation. Upon motion of Regent Reichelt, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board adopted a position of support for SB 1399. Regent Campbell asked if a pin number will be used instead of social security numbers and was told a pin number would be used; however, the pin number would not allow access to a person's other private accounts.
President Coor said the statement had been made at the last meeting in Tucson that students' social security numbers had been pulled off the web. He wanted the Regents to know an exhaustive search had been made and ASU could find no case of its students' social securitynumbers being accessed off the web. President Likins said the UofA had determined some faculty in some departments were using the last four digits of the students' social security numbers for internal purposes such as recording class records.
Amendment to Board Policy 6-908, Patent Policy (First Reading)
Regent Jewett announced this is the first reading of the amendment to Board Policy 6-908, Patent Policy, that guides how the discoveries in research breakthroughs at our universities are shared with businesses and other users of applied science. This policy has been a focal point for building a strong relationship between the universities and the business community in Arizona. University of Arizona Vice President for Research Richard Powell, Arizona State University Vice President for Research Jonathan Fink, and Mr. Steve Zylstra, Chair of the GSPED High Technology Industry Cluster and an employee of Simula Technologies, Inc., joined the meeting for this discussion. Mr. Zylstra explained the extensive amount of effort put into these amendments by the faculty and staff at all three universities and the business community. At this stage, having subjected the latest draft of the policy to extensive industry review, he was pleased to report there is a broad consensus among industry that this policy represents a fair balance between the needs and desires of industry on one hand, and the policy issues of the university and the public on the other. He stated appreciation to the Board for its willingness to see the project through from May of 1996 to its culmination. He believes this new policy will promote a higher level of cooperation between the Arizona university community and Arizona-based industry. He presented a letter to the Board, signed by all the high technology oriented clusters plus companies like Microage, Intel, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, urging the Board to accept the new policy. Boeing did not sign the endorsement as it is waiting for approval from its corporate office. Motorola, however, has two remaining issues of concern; the windfall provision and the issue of march in rights. The second provision prevents the company from just sitting on technology.
Regent Ulrich asked what the exit scenarios are for the universities that allow them to quit if they don't want to continue with the transfer. Mr. Zylstra said the policy guides the universities, but there is a specific contract for each research project and the exit provisions would be described in the individual contracts. Dr. Powell said the major change in the proposed policy is the definition of terms which tightened up the language. The old policy could be interpreted in many ways; so it led to misunderstandings. Regent Jewett encouraged the Vice Presidents to work with any of the Regents who had concerns before this policy returns to the Board for a second reading.
Mr. Zylstra said he believes the hallmark of the new policy is clarity. Definitions have been added to prevent the ambiguity which caused the confusion and problems in the past. He also
believes the universities have hired very competent people to represent their interests. Regent Ulrich said he would like the people on both sides of the contract to be equally protected.
President Gignac suggested this policy not be placed on the Consent Agenda when it is brought to the Board for adoption. She said she did have some questions concerning the new policy and she would put them in writing and send them to Dr. Powell to be answered before the next reading of the policy.
Mr. Joel Sideman said the lawyers would provide the Regents with additional assurance in writing, prior to the next meeting, in terms of how the Board will be protected. In response to Regent Ulrich's concern, he said this is a major delegation of responsibility to the universities to implement the kinds of programs being discussed. The issue is whether the Board's policy structure will protect both sides. The policy talks about having due diligence milestones that willbe negotiated on a case-by-case basis. The old policy did not require the contracts to be sufficiently specific to prevent problems. Regent Ulrich asked if the university policies have also been scrubbed. Dr. Powell said the UofA was looking at its policies, but has been waiting until the new Board policy is adopted so theirs can be compatible. Dr. Fink said significant changes have been made at ASU.Dr. Powell said the future of higher education depends significantly on partnerships with industry and this new policy will help. He also believes the process used to develop this policy has had a very positive impact on the relationship between the universities and the business community. Mr. Zylstra agreed the attitudes have been changed enough to begin to affect cultural change. Both sides were highly enlightened by the process. Regent Ulrich complimented everyone involved for the great job they did with such a difficult issue.
Proposed Policy Framework Regarding Naming of Facilities and Programmatic Units
Regent Jewett said he asked for a review of the current policy because the development efforts at the universities are succeeding and the result has been more gifts to the universities. The Regents need to give the presidents guidelines and directions for how to deal with these gifts, including the naming of facilities and programmatic units.
President Coor said he believed the language in the proposed policy was a sensible way to proceed. President Likins said he also supported the proposed language. He said he believes the Regents should know the policies each university has for the processes of naming so they could develop confidence there are the appropriate reviews prior to the submission of names to the
Board. He also said there should be an examination, perhaps with an outside consultant, of the ethics of philanthropy. Any Regents who are interested in this subject would be invited to join the discussion. The Arizona universities are just entering into this era that private universities and some pioneering public institutions have been facing.
President Gignac clarified that the policy changes would become part of Board Policy, but the guidelines would be adopted separately and not as part of Board policy.
REPORT FROM BOARD'S REPRESENTATIVE TO STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Regent Herstam reported the Community College Presidents' Council reported to the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges (SBDCC) that they endorse the concept of joining with the universities to share the costs associated with the continuing development of the CourseApplicability System. The System is a joint community college/university effort to computerize the process of transferring course credits from the community colleges to the universities. The community college presidents reported they are looking forward to the opportunity to meet with university presidents at a summit in September arranged by President Likins and President Jensen of Pima Community College. The SBDCC approved several new academic programs, including new associate degrees designed to align with the statewide transfer articulation agreement between the community colleges and the universities.
The meeting recessed at 3:45 p.m. and reconvened at 4:01 p.m.
Regent Reichelt chaired this portion of the meeting.
Bookstore /Memorial Union Expansion: Project Initiation (ASU)
Dr. Art Ashton, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, and Dr. Christine Wilkinson joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Reichelt explained the Bookstore will be a new three-level, 122,000 Gross Square Foot (GFS) building adjoining the existing Memorial Union to provide retail and office space at an estimated cost of $16.5M. Also, ASU is requesting a 20,000 GSF addition to the Memorial Union's west courtyard and a 17,000 GSF addition to the north side of the Memorial Union at a combined estimated cost of $7M. Financing is through ASU reserves, Certificates of Participation, and auxiliary enterprise bonds. The debt will be retired using funds from auxiliary enterprise reserves, increased bookstore income, food, and retail services.
Dr. Harrison said ASU is trying to create a different kind of space for the bookstore. They are moving toward a bookstore that is a community gathering space. Dr. Wilkinson said ASU is trying to prepare to meet current and future student demand. Currently it is necessary to reserve rooms in the student union one year in advance, so meeting space is really needed. ASU hopes to extend the hours of the bookstore and introduce the "Barnes and Noble" concept. Dr. Harrison said ASU is preparing to make additional bookstore services accessible on the Internet.
President Gignac asked why, as reported on Page 1 of the Summary, there are $5M of revenue bonds which were previously approved that are no longer needed for residential life projects. Dr. Harrison said ASU is a using a public/private partnership for the main residence life project, so bonds will not be needed.. Upon motion of Regent Reichelt, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board granted Project Initiation to Arizona State University for the Bookstore/Memorial Union Expansion.
Approval to Change the Name of UofA Sierra Vista to the University of Arizona South (UofA)
President Likins said the current name was chosen because this campus began by serving the City of Sierra Vista. It now also serves other cities, so the name is no longer an accurate description of the area served. The new name is broad enough in character to embrace opportunities that may arise in the area. Regent McKay asked if there had been any criticism of this request and was told no. Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Ulrich, the Board changed the name of The University of Arizona Sierra Vista to The University of Arizona South.
Update on Student Housing Plans for the Department of Residence Life (UofA)
Mr. Joel Valdez and Mr. Jim Van Arsdel joined the meeting for this discussion. Mr. Valdez assured the Board the university is not asking for permission to purchase anything today; they are just informing the Board about a new option that has surfaced as a possibility for housing at the University of Arizona, the purchase of the 138 unit Casa Feliz apartments. The actual purchase would require specific Board approval. Mr. Van Arsdel said an owner had come forward to ask the university to consider purchasing property located adjacent to the campus. At this point, the Residence Life Department is engaged in pro forma analysis and has not yet involved students. On the surface, this presents a possible long-term solution for married graduate student housing and may be a good short term solution for undergraduate housing as it will take a while to complete the construction of new residence halls.
President Gignac asked if students were already living in these apartments and was told they are, but the university doesn't know yet how the purchase would impact them. Regent Reicheltexpressed appreciation that students will be involved in the dialogue if this purchase becomes a possibility.
Mr. Valdez said Casa Feliz is one possible project. Another possible project would be the purchase of the 47-unit Corleone Apartments which the university has been renting for years. He said he has also approached developers in Tucson to see if they would be interested in public/private partnerships to build apartments on university property.
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
Dr. William Davey, Chair
of the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC), reported the AFC had a lively breakfast
meeting with Dr. Alan Guskin talking about possible innovations and planned
change for the university system. The AFC believes the faculty can play an
active and supporting role in defining baccalaureate degrees on the campuses,
trying to identify and codify what student outcomes might be developed, and
assisting the Board in understanding the development andother financial
requirements necessary for the implementation of such innovations when the Board
decides to move forward with learner centered change.
He also reported the AFC reviewed the three universities' Whistle Blower
policies and believe these policies satisfy the presidents' agreement with
Representative Jarrett last year. If there is a legislative study committee
appointed to study this issue, they believe the faculty representative should
come from the legitimate governance structures of the university, not from an
outside group.
President Gignac said if there is further discussion on Higher Education Transformation, faculty will be involved.
Regent McKay chaired this portion of the meeting.
Systemwide Academic Program Review
Provosts Glick, Connell, and Gottfredson and Dr. Thomas Wickenden joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay explained the Board is being asked to review and approve recommendations for 19 academic programs that were recorded in April 1997 as falling below productivity thresholds for the number of students who graduate from degree programs. At that time, the Board authorized a 2-year extension for these programs because of a projected increase in graduates. Each university has provided recommendations regarding these programs.
Regent Campbell asked about ASU's Composition (Music) Program, where the recommendation was to retain, the goal had been 9, and 0 had graduated. Provost Glick said ASU believes this program is an important one because it gives an occasional student who wants a degree in composition a chance to do that, and doing away with this degree would eliminate an option that has no cost as it is taught by faculty who already teach over 700 students a semester in the bachelor of music program. President Gignac asked if the same justification could be given for Theory (Music) and was told yes. No faculty would be added or removed if either of those degrees were eliminated.
President Gignac said the policy does not address those kinds of programs. She asked if the other universities had this situation and suggested the policy might need adjusting if this is the case. Provost Gottfredson said there are some programs that place no resource burden on the university. Provost Glick said there is a current national concern that universities are producing too many Ph.D.'s and he believes the trend will be to have smaller Ph.D. programs. President Gignac asked the universities to work with Dr. Wickenden to propose an amendment to the policy to cover these situations. Regent Ulrich asked if there is a place where it tells how long these programs have been in existence; for example, are Material Science and Engineering or Social and Philosophical Foundations of Education new programs? Provost Glick said those programs had been reorganized. Regent Ulrich said restructuring programs to keep them doesn't accomplish anything. He would like to see a sunset date added to the programs which would require the university to present a reason why the program should be continued if it doesn't meet the requirements of the policy. Regent McKay said she believed the issue of cost should be considered in deciding sunset issues.
Executive Director Besnette reminded the Regents a large number of programs were eliminated at the beginning of this process and the universities are now dealing with a small number of programs that fall in this category. Provost Glick said there should be a category added to allow for programs the universities deliberately need to keep small.
Regent Ulrich asked for some background on the process that took place to establish this review. Dr. Wickenden said the process began in 1995 when Board was concerned with duplicative programs, especially those with low enrollments. The universities were asked to design a systemwide review process with thresholds. During this process, other universities and other systems were examined and middle of road goals were chosen.
Upon motion of Regent Ulrich, seconded by Regent Campbell, the Board approved the recommendations of each university regarding those programs which were retained for review in 1999 and asked that a sunset date be added when these programs are examined again, with the universities being allowed to explain why they might want to retain a low-producing program.
Proposed Center for Applied Sociology (UofA)
Dr. Michael Gottfredson joined the meeting for this discussion. President Likins said universities around the country are evolving in such a way that academic departments that once saw themselves purely as serving the research and scholarly enterprise are looking at ways in which they can be more useful to society as whole. Sociology is increasingly understood in terms of its utility and application to organizations, such as business organizations. The request to establish this Center is a formalization of this trend. Dr. Gottfredson said the university is very proud of its Sociology Department which is ranked nationally. The Center will be funded internally with startup funding from the university for three years. It is then anticipated it will fund itself from grants and contracts. Regent Ulrich asked if this Center will afford students the opportunity to have practical experience and was told yes. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Ulrich, the Board authorized the establishment of the Center for Applied Sociology at the University of Arizona with a sunset review date of 2004-2005, effective immediately.
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, REPORTS AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
President Gignac commented she believed this morning's discussion and lunch on Learner Centered Education was a good beginning. She would like to ask for concurrence of the Board for two items to come back at the May meeting. The first one would be for the three presidents to showcase, or provide the Board with information, about the learner centered programs that are already in place at the universities. The second item would be for the presidents and the executive director, in consultation and discussion with the Arizona Faculties Council, to begin the process or bring draft ideas as to how they think the Board should move forward with this topic. President Lovett commented there is little time to prepare for the May meeting. President Gignac said she realized there might be a time crunch; but she did not want to lose momentum, so requested the discussions at least begin. If it is decided to present one university at a time, that would be fine.
The meeting adjourned at 4:40 P.M.
SUBMITTED BY:
_____________________________
Judy E. Garza, Secretary
to the Board
APPROVED BY:
_________________________________
Judith A. Gignac,
President
The
Regents | The
Universities | For
the Student | For
Faculty | For
Parents | Special
Programs |
Administrative/Staff
| Government/Legislative
| FAQ | Site
Index/Map
Contact
us
Arizona Board of Regents
2020 N. Central Ave., Suite 230
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4593
Telephone: (602) 229-2500 / Fax: (602) 229-2555