 |
MINUTES |
 |
|
MINUTES |
|
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
MINUTES OF A MEETING
August 24 and 25, 1995
Table of Contents
RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Budget Study Session
Proposed FY97 State Operating Budget Requests
Historical Perspective of Alternative Funding Mechanisms
for Capital Projects
Proposed FY97 Capital Projects
CALL TO THE AUDIENCE
Representative Jorge Garcia
Matthew Somers
Roberto Conchola
Raul Bejarano
Clyde Foster
James Higgins
Anne Cerl
William Kennedy
Jerry Booth
Michael Davis
Ola Cassadore Davis
Brad Allison
Gita Bodner
RESOURCES COMMITTEE (Continued)
LAND USE MASTER PLAN (UofA)
CONSENT AGENDA
Resources Committee Consent
*Internal Audit Reports
*Naming of the 90-Inch Telescope on Kitt Peak
(UofA)
*Agreement With U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (ASU)
PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
Report on Academic Plan for the New Campus in Pima County (UofA)
Site Selection for the New Campus in Pima County (UofA)
Annual Report on Measurable Goals Linking Faculty Teaching
Effort to the Quality of Undergraduate Education
STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Five-Year Strategic Plans for the Three Universities
Report From the Task Force on Information Technology
Update on Enrollment Growth Demand Projections
RESOURCES COMMITTEE Continued
Property Purchases at 1427 E. Helen Street, 1533 E. Helen, and 142B E. Seventh
Street (UofA)
Sale of Unimproved Parcel of Land in Mohave County (UofA)
Sale of Land in Cochise County
Sale of Portion of Cowden Estate to Harrison Properties
Sale of Portion of Cowden Estate to Campbell Taggart
Baking Companies, Inc.
Optional Retirement Plan Life Expectancy Option
Internal Audit Plan
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
REPORTS FROM THE PRESIDENTS AND THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
Report From the President of the University of Arizona
Report From the President of Northern Arizona University
Report From the President of Arizona State University
Report From the Executive Director
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
~~~~~~~~~~
MINUTES OF A MEETING
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
August 24 and 25, 1995
A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held on
August 24 and 25, 1995, in the Rincon Room of the Student Union at the
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Acting President Munger called the
meeting to order at 10:25 a.m.
PRESENT: Regent George H. Amos, III
Regent Eddie Basha (Friday Only)
Regent Rudy Campbell
Regent Arthur Chapa
Regent Judy Gignac
Regent Andrew Hurwitz
Regent John Munger
Regent Mark Davis
ABSENT: Regent Fife Symington
Regent Lisa Graham
Regent Douglas Wall
Also present were: President Manuel Pacheco, Dr. Paul Sypherd, Dr. Saundra
Taylor, Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Ken Smith, Dr. Celestino Fernandez, and Mr.
Gregory Fahey, University of Arizona; President Clara Lovett, Dr. Charles
Connell, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Mr. Norman Hintz, and Mr. Sam Polito, Northern
Arizona University; President Lattie Coor, Dr. Milton Glick, Mr. Jennus
Burton, and Mr. Allan Price, Arizona State University; Executive Director Frank
Besnette, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr.
Thomas Wickenden, Dr. Mary McKeown, Ms. Norma Salazar, and Dr. Art Ashton,
Central Office; and Dr. Thomas McGovern, Arizona Faculties Council.
All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents
referred to in these minutes can be found in the August 24 and 25, 1995,
Documents File.
Acting President Munger introduced the two new Regent Designees, Don Ulrich and
Kurt Davis.
RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Regent Gignac chaired this portion of the meeting.
Budget Study Session
Proposed FY97 State Operating Budget Requests
Regent Gignac reminded the Board the proposed FY97 State Operating Budget
Requests were being presented to allow the Regents to discuss the requests and
give guidance to the universities and the central office. The budget requests
will come back at the September meeting when the vote will take place as to what
will be submitted to the Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (OSPB).
Dr. McKeown introduced the budget requests. She told the Regents the numbers
submitted on the budget documents today likely will change between now and
September because of the 21st day enrollment report, changes in the ERE
calculations, and any directions the Board gives today. The material for this
presentation includes a matrix that displays how the proposed requests are tied
to the goals of the strategic plan.
Dr. McKeown stated the proposed FY97 Budget Requests total $858.6M, an increase
of $78.7M over the FY96 State Operating Budget Expenditure Authority. The
requests are composed of three parts: adjustments to the base, decision
packages, and critical issues. The universities have included enrollment growth
management requests under the demographic workload category of adjustments and
the request is called Board of Regents Instructional Delivery Initiatives (IDI)
instead of Enrollment Growth Management to avoid confusion with the 22 to 1
enrollment growth formula.
The request for annualization totals $7.1M and these requests are consistent
with OSPB guidelines. Other base adjustment requests are consistent with OSPB
Guidelines and total $7.5M. The proposed adjustment for mandates totals $6.9M.
Requests for adjustments to the base for Santa Rita Range, payroll processing
and reporting, and clinical rural rotations were not in the mix or anticipated
when the Board's guidelines were formulated in June. Dr. McKeown said there was
no concern over the merit of these requests. Demographic adjustments include
costs associated with increases or decreases in student enrollment, operational
support for new facilities, adjustments in the funding for the Arizona Financial
Aid Trust Fund, WICHE programs, and the enrollment growth management or Board
instructional delivery initiatives and total $19.6M. They are consistent with
guidelines issued by OSPB, except OSPB does not include an allowance for
operational support for new facilities which totals $1.2M for new facilities at
NAU-Yuma and the University of Arizona. The proposed request for inflation in
utilities and the cost of library materials totals $3M. OSPB does not permit
adjustments for inflation.
In addition to the adjusted base, the Board's guidelines permit the universities
and the central office to present to the Board requests for high priority items
called decision packages. The universities' decision package requests support
the goals outlined in the 5 Year Strategic
Plan. OSPB Guidelines do not include an allowance for
decision packages. NAU's budget also includes a critical issues category that
identifies items that are important but are not included in the budget total.
This is consistent with the OSPB Guidelines.
President Lovett told the Board the four principles on which the Northern
Arizona University draft budget request was based. The first was the
accommodation of enrollment growth at approximately the same level that is
expected for the current fiscal year, about 3.5 percent. The second was
maintaining quality and there was a request for a modest salary increase for
faculty and staff to aid in the recruitment and retention of quality faculty and
staff. The third was expanding the capacity of the higher education system by
making some structural changes on the Flagstaff campus to accommodate the
additional student enrollment required to reach the capacity established for
this campus and to extend the NAU Net. The fourth was looking for ways to bring
about systemic change at NAU, looking for leverage points in the system in which
change is possible and will bring about increased educational outcomes for
students as well as financial savings or efficiency. One example of systemic
change would be changing to a 12-month academic year.
Ms. Sharon Marmaduke, Budget Director, and Mr. Joshua Allen, Budget Analyst,
presented more detailed information on the NAU budget request. Regent Gignac
asked if this is the first time the request for Cost Study Equity money had been
adjusted for inflation and was told it was not.
Regent Gignac asked how the money would be allocated for Peterson Hall and NAU-Yuma
if the funding was received to operate the buildings and the buildings were not
yet finished. She was told this situation had never arisen; it would require
consultation with the Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) and the
Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC). Regent Gignac emphasized the three
universities should be working together in using technology infrastructure such
as the Interactive Television Network. She asked if NAU was moving toward the
potential for a tuition contract for the three-year baccalaureate program.
President Lovett said her staff was not sure this would be a workable idea; it
was still under consideration.
Regent Munger asked how the remodeling of Peterson Hall would be funded and was
told through academic revenue bonds and money that had been set aside in the
plant fund for this purpose. He also expressed a concern about coordination of
resources for telecommunication needs. Regent Hurwitz asked how funding would be
handled the next year for the buildings if funding is received for operations
for part of this budget request year and was told it would be annualized next
year as allowed in OSPB guidelines.
Regent Munger asked several questions relating to the availability of
scholarships and student services to various minority and non-minority students
and the relationship of the percentage of minority students who receive
scholarships to the percentage of minorities in the general population. He asked
who made scholarship decisions and was told the student financial aid officers
make the scholarship decisions. The financial aid officers were not present to
answer his question, but he was told the information would be furnished to him
later.
Regent Davis asked if the minority scholarships were need-based and was told
they were. Regent Chapa called the Board's attention to the fact they were
discussing an amount of money totaling $10,600.
President Pacheco told the Board the University of Arizona Operating Budget
Request has been developed against a background of continuing financial
constraints. The University is trying to become more efficient through its
Continuous Organizational REnewal Program and reallocation of resources. He
outlined the main components of the budget proposal. He said the University has
been developing an improved method for allocating salary funds that ties awards
to faculty and staff to performance evaluations. In particular, faculty salary
increases will be linked to a system of periodic post-tenure reviews.
He stated the continuation budget for the main campus amounts to a total of
$310M, an increase of about 5.2 % over the current operating budget. This
increase follows the guidelines that were provided by the Board. The largest
individual element involved $3.2M for employee related expenses, $2.1M to
annualize this year's salary increases, and $2M for the enrollment management
initiative. Dr. Pacheco mentioned two small items that were not contemplated by
the Board's guidelines--$111,000 for the Santa Rita Range Project and $150,000
to fund activities under the Budget Reform Act.
President Pacheco explained the decision packages for the main campus that
totaled $9.6M. He stated the budget request also contained funding for the
Sierra Vista Branch Campus and the New Campus in Pima County. The request for
funding for the Arizona Health Sciences Center was $55.1M, an increase of 7.2%
over the current operating budget. Dr. Pacheco said the continuation budget
request as a whole amounted to about $17M or 5% of the base budget. The decision
packages request total $14.1M or 3.8% of the base budget.
Provost Sypherd explained the proposal regarding salary
increases and how they linked to performance evaluations. Regent Gignac
suggested this issue should be addressed by all three universities. Regent
Hurwitz expressed his concern that making this a part of the continuation budget
causes a structural problem as it is not really part of the continuation budget
guidelines.
Regent Gignac asked about the University's request for funds for alternative
fuels. Mr. Greg Fahey answered that the Department of Environmental Quality
had been under the impression only Maricopa County was covered under the State
law; however, it had been determined over a year ago there was no exemption for
Pima County. Regent Gignac expressed concern that the UofA asked for funds to
implement the State Budget Reform and the other two universities did not. Regent
Munger stated he would consider the Earn and Learn Initiative money to be a form
of financial aid and suggested this money should be reflected in the financial
aid figures if this program becomes a reality. Regent Gignac suggested
terminology such as new campus development or academic and support program
development be used for the Sierra Vista Campus Demographic section.
Regent Hurwitz said the recent numbers on student enrollment led him to question
whether the Sierra Vista Branch Campus and the New Campus in Pima County
development should proceed at a slower rate than is currently proposed. Regent
Gignac stated the students exist in Sierra Vista but there are no programs for
them to attend. The requested operating money would be used to add programs.
Regent Chapa asked for the number of students at the Sierra Vista Campus and at
NAU-Yuma.
Regent Munger questioned who could participate in minority programs. He was told
they are marketed to minorities, but that non-minorities are generally able to
participate as well. President Pacheco stated the University considered these
programs a low-cost way to help students succeed who might otherwise fail.
Regent Munger stated he believed the programs should be available to all needy
students, regardless of race. He said his concerns were not driven by the amount
of money being spent on these programs; he believed the programs were
discriminatory.
Regent Chapa asked if the majority of the students in these programs were needy
and was told they are. He stated there had been discrimination in the past and
these programs were being used to reverse that pattern. Regent Campbell stated
the prison population contains a high percentage of minorities, many of them
educational dropouts. He believed society would be better served by investing
money to educate people than to keep them in prison. President Pacheco said
these types of programs are available to non-minority students, also; these
programs are simply additions that are targeted for minorities. The programs
available to everyone have been made permanent in the budget and are not broken
out. The minority programs were listed separately because the universities had
been previously required to do so by Board and legislative requirements.
Regent Hurwitz reminded the Regents the Legislature, beginning in 1988, funded
many of these programs and asked that they be continued. He said he knew the
Regents would continue to discuss these programs, but he did not want to see
adoption of the budget delayed because of the inclusion of these programs. He
would rather the issue be brought before the Board in a policy discussion.
Regent Gignac agreed.
The meeting recessed at 12:20 p.m. and reconvened at 2:02 p.m.
President Coor explained that the ASU budget request was tied to ASU's Strategic
Plan and directly and specifically to measurable goals and objectives. This set
of budget proposals pays specific attention to the state of development and
roles of all 3 campuses and ASU's activities in distance learning. The budget
requests have 3 primary focuses: 1) salary on all 3 campuses based on merit; 2)
specific activities at the main campus on undergraduate education and economic
growth; and 3) the development of new campuses and the roles they are going to
play.
Dr. Coor stated ASU would like the salary increases to be locked into the
performance evaluations, but do not know how to guarantee funding. ASU's salary
request has been placed in the format of a decision package, but welcomes
guidance as to where it could be placed. President Coor highlighted Distance
Learning, the Program for Strengthening Undergraduate Education, the Engineering
Excellence Program, ASU West, and ASU East requests. He called the Board's
attention to the fact that the Main Campus budget declined by the amount
transferred to ASU East.
Regent Gignac asked if the Cost Equity inflation adjustment was for salary and
was told it would be adjusted for the 2% increase. She asked why ASU included a
payroll process reporting requirement having to do with child support and the
other 2 universities did not and was told this was an issue that would be
examined by all 3 universities following this discussion to decide if it is
appropriate to bring it back in September.
Regent Munger asked if this cost study equity funding would be the final sum and
was told it would be the final piece from the study. He asked if the money would
be used for undergraduate education that would not include remedial courses and
was told it would. He asked how ASU's distance learning differs from NAU's and
was told ASU can use NAU's statewide transmission facilities, but is focusing
its efforts on the metropolitan area. Regent Munger asked for the total number
of faculty that would be added by this budget request and was told approximately
99.
Regent Amos expressed concern that the budgets were constructed with an
automatic 2% increase every year with no reductions. The presidents responded
many reductions had been made before the budgets were presented that were not
reflected in the material. Perhaps there could be a way to illustrate this.
Regent Gignac explained that these reductions are shown in the additional detail
material that was not furnished to the Board because it was not believed the
Board wanted to deal with the budget requests at that level of detail.
Executive Director Besnette informed the Board the Regents' budget request is
composed of $252,600 continuation components with standard adjustments of
$54,400, a 3.1% increase. All follow the Board's guidelines. The financial aid
component totals $198,200 and comprises the Financial Aid Trust Fund and money
for WICHE. Also presented for the Board's consideration is a request for $1.9M
to fund Arizona Area Health Education Centers (AzAHEC). Regent Hurwitz raised
the question of where to place this request for money if the Board decides to
support the AzAHEC issue. He suggested it be placed in critical issues.
Mr. Don Proulx, Assistant Director of AzAHEC, presented the AzAHEC budget
request and a description of the program. He reminded the Board that the
Legislature did not grant funding last year, even though AzAHEC is currently
undergoing a Program Authorization Review. The Centers are remaining open this
year by using small Federal grants, special grants and contracts, an expanded
community based partnership, and discretionary local funds.
Regent Gignac asked if the Board members wished to provide some guidance and
direction for the preparation of the budget requests. Regent Hurwitz stated a
concern with displaying the request for Cost Study Equity Funding under
mandates. He would prefer this be arrayed as a decision package. Dr. Besnette
informed the Regents the request had been displayed in this manner because it
was a commitment made by the legislature to fund this package over a period of
years.
Dr. Besnette said the universities intended to reconsider items that had not
been presented uniformly, such as the request for payroll processing, and see if
the requests could be made in a uniform manner. If some differences remain, the
Board will be given a rationale for these differences. Regent Gignac expressed a
concern about the Santa Rita Range request. A discussion on the inflation
requests did not produce a request for any changes.
Regent Gignac suggested the University of Arizona should decide how to handle
its salary request. She would like the Board to have an in-depth discussion on
how to work with the legislature to provide funding for performance-based merit
money on a continuing basis. Regent Hurwitz suggested this request could be
presented in a separate manner, rather than as part of the continuation budget,
to call attention to the idea. Regent Gignac made the following recommendations
concerning the placement of requests under decision packages or critical issues:
1) ASU's salary package and the undergraduate programs be decision packages and
the economic development request be a critical issue. 2) ASU West and ASU East
salary requests be decision packages. 3) NAU's breakdown of decision packages
and critical issues remain as requested. 4) UofA's request for the new learning
technology, K-12 education outreach, excellence in science/mathematics
undergraduate instruction, and the science and mathematics education program be
submitted as decision packages and the clusters, large optics technology, active
learning initiative, biotechnology emerging industries, and earn and learn be
submitted as critical issues. 5) Arizona Health Science Center's four decision
package requests remain decision packages; and 6) Central Office AzAHEC request
be submitted under critical issues. She did not have a recommendation as to the
placement of the request for money for the New campus in Pima County.
Regent Hurwitz agreed with the recommendations and suggested all the new campus
requests be submitted as decision packages. The Regents complimented Regent
Gignac for her work on the budget and its presentation this year.
Regent Munger stated he would like to reach a point where one program would be
deleted for every program added on the main campuses. He stated it would be
helpful for him to know what plans the universities have for the coming years
and asked if that information could be provided, exempting enrollment growth,
next month. President Pacheco answered that the list of requested programs is
essentially the same this year as it was last year. He said it would be hard to
predict future needs, but believed the strategic plans identify where the
universities would like to go. Student services are driven by student needs and
have been scaled down at the University of Arizona to basic health needs and
needs for student union and recreation services. He foresaw a need for
consolidation rather than the need to add a lot of new services.
President Coor stated that the decision packages requested by ASU Main Campus
are the derivative of a quite substantial number of programs seeking endorsement
and said the list could be provided to the Board as a way of illustrating how
the university prioritizes its needs. The decision package list from ASU is
basically the same as it has been for the past several years. Dr. Coor said
there are likely to be additional student services, like the freshman year
experience and advising programs, that would greatly improve student
performance. It is not clear at this point whether these programs can be
provided by sunsetting other programs, but he believed a fair approximation
could be provided. He said student financial aid is also an unknown, and
suggested, for purposes of the analysis, possible changes in financial aid be
treated separately.
Regent Munger asked if there might be any projection of where there might be
something taken out of the system in 1, 2, or 5 years so the Regents could get a
sense of dynamic change as opposed to simply adding more programs. Dr. Coor
recommended, when looking at capped campuses, there be a separation of the
question on facilities--such as what are the appropriate facilities to meet the
needs of the current student body--and look separately at facilities and
programs that might appear in the future that might either be additive or
replacement.
President Lovett stated the budget request for 1997 was organized around
accommodating growth, and extending the capability to accommodate future growth.
It was focused on maintaining higher education as accessible and affordable to
the people of the state as possible. There were no new academic programs on the
list nor any additions to the list of support services. She believed a
university that does not innovate dies, so there will be some proposals for new
academic programs in the future. She does not believe there will be proposals
for new support services, but said that is hard to predict as the composition of
the student population is changing. Dr. Lovett stated she could not provide
a list of academic programs or student services that will be phased out, but she
is sure some will be in the years ahead because the faculty, in advance of
absorbing new enrollment, is already reeling under the weight of the academic
programs. She believes this is also true in the area of student support
services.
Historical Perspective of Alternative Funding Mechanisms for Capital Projects
Regent Gignac introduced Mr. Bruce Kelley, Senior Vice President from Rauscher
Pierce Refness, who specializes in higher education and health care financing.
Mr. Kelly stated there are basically two types of funding available to meet the
universities capital needs--state appropriations and debt. Prior to 1980 state
appropriations predominated. Since 1980, debt has predominated in terms of
raising capital needs. This is partially a recognition the state has limited
resources to fund long-lived assets on a current basis.
He stated the universities have the ability to issue debt in two ways. The most
cost effective is system revenue bonds. The other type of debt is Certificates
of Participation (COP) which are lease-purchase obligations. The legislature
authorizes system revenue bonds up to a total amount, but the Board must
determine the university's capacity to pay the bonds when it authorizes a
particular project. The authorization by the legislature does not create debt;
it is created when the Board authorizes an issue of bonds.
Proposed FY97 Capital Projects
Regent Gignac introduced Mr. Norm Hintz, NAU Vice President of Business Affairs,
Mr. David Duffy, UofA Director of Campus and Facilities Planning, and Mr.
Jennus Burton, ASU Associate Vice President of Administrative Services, who
presented the capital projects proposed for FY97.
Mr. Hintz informed the Board NAU's request includes mostly renovations and
additions rather than new construction. There is also resource conservation and
some infrastructure construction. The items requested include: Completion of the
funding on the Yuma Project; utility infrastructure; a major renovation for the
Center in Excellence in Education and the Performing Arts part of the Creative
Communication College; conversion of Peterson Hall to academic use; addition of
space to the Fronske Health Center; addition of an additional TV Studio; a
reclaimed water piping project; building system repair replacement that would
directly reduce deferred maintenance; and renovation and addition to the
Bookstore. Regent Gignac asked that there be a column added that indicates
whether the projects need Project Approval and Conceptual Approval and, if they
do, whether they have received the needed approvals.
Regent Munger asked why the university is seeking general fund money for the
utility infrastructure renovation and the building system repair replacement
projects rather than academic bonding. Mr. Hintz stated the projects are here
because of inadequate funding in prior years, especially building renewal, and
the university believed it was important to present its real needs to the
legislature. Bonding would be a possibility if general fund money was not
authorized. Regent Munger asked if NAU had any remaining bonding authority and
was told it had the capacity but not the authorization.
Regent Davis asked what would happen to the maintenance funds when Peterson Hall
becomes an academic building. He was told the funds will go to the improvement
of other residence halls. Regent Amos stated he supported these requests because
they are to maintain and repair existing facilities rather than for new
construction.
Mr. Duffy informed the Board that UofA is asking for six projects for a total of
$54.1M, $20M of which would be general fund requests. The items requested
include: construction of an integrated instructional facility; construction of
an agriculture research complex; finishing of shell space in Life Sciences North
and the Computer Center addition; finishing of shell space in the Marley
Building; improvements to the College of Law building; and Phase I of the Mt.
Graham infrastructure project.
Regent Amos asked if there were plans to continue to use the land on Campbell
Avenue for an agricultural facility or if the university is contemplating
selling the land and moving the facility because the land is such valuable real
estate. Dr. Eugene Sander, Dean of the College of Agriculture, stated there were
no current plans to sell any of the land as it is used by the College in the
same manner as science disciplines would use laboratory space. Also, several
high technology buildings already exist on that property. The College is
proceeding to use the land in a manner consistent with the land-use plan
approved by the Board for that facility approximately three years ago.
Regent Amos asked if the Mt. Graham project would be changing in light of recent
court rulings. He was told this project would not be initiated until a certain
stage of development is reached. Regent Hurwitz asked if the project would need
to come back to the Board for approval before it could be built and was told it
would. Regent Gignac asked if the university intended to use its remaining
bonding authority for the two projects requested and was told that was the plan.
She also asked about the placement of the Integrated Instructional Facility and
was told one of the sites being considered, as the result of an extensive site
evaluation process, is under the mall. Regent Amos said he had received a lot of
calls on this project, most of them negative, about the mall placement. Regent
Gignac asked if building underground added to the cost and was told it was
roughly equivalent to building above ground. President Pacheco added that the
maintenance costs for this type of facility are much less over the life of the
facility. Mr. Valdez told the Board the university was asking for general fund
money; however, if this project is not funded by the legislature, the university
will come back to the Board and ask for permission to sell bonds and this may
require the restructuring of the remaining bonding authority.
Mr. Burton informed the Board he would present the requests for all three ASU
campuses. The request from ASU East is for the renovation of U.S. Government
Building 785 and Phase I of the campus infrastructure upgrade. The building
renovation is a new project that has not gone through the normal Board processes
and ASU is asking for a waiver of Project Initiation and Conceptual Approval
pending the completion of programing and design. Regent Hurwitz asked why the
renovation project had not followed the Board's regular process and was told it
was because ASU just recently received the property from the federal government.
Regent Hurwitz replied he understood that; but it has been known for quite
awhile that programs were going to be transferred to this campus, and he
believed this project should have been brought to the Board prior to its
submission in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
Regent Munger asked how many students the renovation project would service and
was told there are 1200 students in the School of Technology and this renovation
is for lab space that will service all the students plus two labs for
agribusiness. Regent Hurwitz asked what would happen if the Board did not
approve the inclusion of this project in the first year of the CIP as requested
and was told ASU would not be able to make the program fully operational.
President Coor said ASU has been working on a master plan for ASU East, but
could not proceed fully until the land was actually received. The university did
not have enough information to proceed in a more timely manner. He stated ASU
could be ready with Project Initiation for this project for the September
meeting.
Mr. Burton told the Board ASU West was requesting three projects. The first is
construction of a classroom laboratory/computer classroom. Regent Munger asked
what the classroom usage was for ASU West and was told it is 16% in total, but
is at capacity in the evening for classrooms that hold 70 or more students, 85%
of capacity for classrooms that hold 50 to 70 students, and 67% of capacity for
smaller classrooms. Regent Munger said it would be hard for him to support
construction of a new facility when the overall useage on campus is only 16%.
President Coor told the Regents that ASU West was created as an upper division
and masters campus for part-time commuting students. It was anticipated that
most of the student body would be working, and this type of student attends
mainly in the afternoon and evenings. He said the campus is experimenting with
innovative scheduling, but will probably always have more students later in the
day as compared to the main campus that has more students in the morning but has
less students in the afternoon and fewer still at night. Regent Munger suggested
the campus is underutilized and perhaps the mission should be changed to include
lower division classes.
Regent Hurwitz reminded Regents that the Enrollment Growth Commission discussed
the mission of ASU West and whether it should change from an upper division
campus to a four-year campus and the clear consensus was it should not change.
This was largely due to the community colleges belief they were working well
with the current system and the demand was not present at the lower levels.
Regent Chapa recalled the earlier discussion of ASU West had raised the
possibility of Maricopa community colleges using some of the classroom space
during the day and he asked if this was being done. President Coor said some
space was being utilized in this manner, but he did not know how aggressively
this had been pursued with the community colleges.
Mr. Burton presented two additional project requests for ASU West: an extension
of the Central Plant to accommodate the new classroom building and an
infrastructure that would complete the campus roadway and various other projects
such as landscaping, lighting, and circulation system.
He told the Board ASU Main was requesting seven projects: the construction of a
Liberal Arts Building; classroom renovations; construction of the Public Safety
Complex, Phases 2 and 3; additions to the Cancer Research Institute; continued
renovation of Gammage; the replacement of locking hardware for academic,
administrative and research facilities; and a cogeneration system. Regent
Hurwitz asked if ASU had any remaining bonding authority and was told it did
not.
Regent Davis asked why academic bonding was being considered for the Gammage
renovations and was told there are a lot of academic programs located in the
building. Regent Gignac asked why ASU did not proceed with the cogeneration
project last year and was told there are some water chemistry problems that
needed to be taken care of first. They should be solved by 1997.
Regent Gignac informed the Board what she had learned about the procedure for
asking for legislative authority for bonding. She suggested that, prior to the
September meeting, university government affairs representatives make a
determination what the potential is for a bill to be passed that would give the
universities more bonding authority.
The meeting recessed at 5:50 p.m. President Basha reconvened the meeting at 8:55
a.m. on Friday, August 25, with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Regent Munger told the Board the headline and the article in the morning
newspaper had misinterpreted his position on programs designed to help students
catch up on lagging English and math skills. He does not oppose the programs; he
supports the programs if they are available to everyone. Regent Amos supported
Regent Munger's statement.
CALL TO THE AUDIENCE
Representative Jorge Garcia spoke on behalf of minority set-asides and
preferences. He believes there are not enough scholarship and waiver dollars
designated for minority students and there are not enough minorities represented
in the university student population.
Matthew Somers, who lives in the neighborhood bordering the university,
challenged the University of Arizona to use the proposal developed by Mr. Bodie
Robbins to redevelop the Sixth Street commercial area around Park Avenue and
Sixth Stree, to build its recreational fields a few blocks south of campus in
the flood plain area owned by the City, and to use the warehouse district just
north of downtown and the office and warehouse south of Broadway for research
and academic space.
Roberto Conchola, the Santa Cruz County Superintendent of Schools, spoke
on behalf of NAU's expansion of its interactive television network to Santa Cruz
County and urged the Board to approve NAU's strategic plan.
Raul Bejarano, Superintendent of Nogales Unified District No. 1, spoke on
behalf of NAU' s Bilingual and Multicultural Masters Program which is offered on
the Nogales campus as well as other courses NAU might offer in rural areas.
Clyde Foster requested that the Board support the NAU-Pima Community
College partnership programs in Santa Cruz County.
James Higgins, a property owner in two neighborhoods bordering the
University of Arizona, does not want to sell his property on Sixth Street. He
said the University has not communicated with the neighbors, and he believes the
Bodie Robbins plan is superior to the University plan.
Anne Cerl opposed the University of Arizona's budget request for
construction in connection with the Mt. Graham project and spoke in opposition
to continuing the Mt. Graham project.
William Kennedy, a homeowner on Sixth Street, asked that any condemnation
action taken by the University of Arizona be taken in Tucson. He does not
believe he has been treated well by the University staff. He asked the Regents
to instruct the University to implement the revised neighborhood proposal he
brought with him today.
Jerry Booth, Curriculum Director of Nogales Public Schools, spoke on
behalf of NAU's programs in Nogales and the 2+2 program being planned with Pima
Community College and NAU.
Michael Davis, a member of the Apache Survival Coalition, showed the
Board petitions from German people who were said to oppose the Mt. Graham
project.
Ola Cassadore Davis, a member of the Apache Survival Coalition, told the
Board she was the official spokesperson for the San Carlos Apache Tribe and
brought a Resolution from the Tribe to that effect. She spoke in opposition to
the Mt. Graham project, stating the project will desecrate the ancient sacred
ground of the San Carlos Apaches.
Brad Allison, representing the Apaches for Cultural Preservation, spoke
against the Mt. Graham telescope project. He asked that the project be located
elsewhere.
Gita Bodner, a graduate student in the Department of Ecology and
Evolutionary Biology at the University of Arizona, spoke in opposition to a
proposed Congressional exemption to environmental laws for the additional
telescope on Mt. Graham.
RESOURCES COMMITTEE (Continued)
Regent Gignac chaired this portion of the meeting.
LAND USE MASTER PLAN (UofA)
Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. Bruce Wright, and Mr. David Duffy gave the Board an
overview of the history and implementation of the University of Arizona Land Use
Master Plan. Regent Campbell asked for a response to statements neighbors had
made earlier. Mr. Wright said there has been extensive communication with the
neighborhoods and all legal procedures were followed, including the written
notifications required. Regent Hurwitz stated the Board, due to its remoteness
from the campus, was not well suited to make decisions on individual property
purchases and urged the University to continue to negotiate with property owners
to see if a compromise can be reached. He would not like to see the use of
eminent domain proceedings unless there were extraordinary circumstances
involved. Regent Amos asked if the Sixth Street parking lot would be a
joint-venture and was told that was one possibility.
Regent Gignac agreed that initiating eminent domain proceedings would be the
last thing she would want to do. However, if the university does believe it
needs to come to the Board for permission to initiate these proceedings, it
should be done at a meeting taking place in Tucson. She said she believed the
university has done a good job of working within the Land Use Plan over the past
years. President Basha concurred that issues germane to a Tucson neighborhood
should be acted upon at a meeting that takes place in Tucson.
CONSENT AGENDA
All items on the Consent Agenda, which were printed in blue on the Agenda and
are marked in these minutes with an *, were considered as consent matters and
were adopted unanimously upon motion of Regent Hurwitz, seconded by Regent
Gignac. There was no specific discussion of these items.
Resources Committee Consent
*Internal Audit Reports
The Board accepted the Internal Audit reports as submitted for Indirect Cost
Proposal Components/Space Allocation and Building Depreciation Study Reviews (UofA),
Building Renewal Expenditures (UofA), Accounts Payable (UofA), Accounts Payable
(NAU), and Building Renewal Expenditures (ASU). There were no findings
reportable to the Board on any of these audits.
*Naming of the 90-Inch Telescope on Kitt Peak (UofA)
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to name the 90-inch telescope
situated on Kitt Peak in honor of the late Professor Bart J. Bok.
*Agreement With U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (ASU)
The Board authorized Arizona State University to enter into an agreement with
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for the collection and preservation of
archaeological artifacts for the sum of approximately $6.2M.
MINUTES
Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Amos, the Board approved the
July 20 and 21, 1995, Regular Meeting Minutes. Upon motion of Regent
Hurwitz, seconded by Regent Chapa, the Board approved the July 20 and 21, 1995,
and the June 1, 1995, Executive Session Minutes.
PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
Regent Campbell chaired this portion of the meeting.
Report on Academic Plan for the New Campus in Pima County (UofA)
President Pacheco introduced Dr. Celestino Fernandez, Executive Vice President
and Provost of the New Campus in Pima County, Dr. Gary Fenstermacher, Chair of
the Academic Planning Advisory Committee for the New Campus in Pima County, and
Dr. Gregory Prince, President of Hampshire College and Chair of the National
Advisory Board for the New Campus in Pima County, who presented the academic
plan to the Board.
The academic program is based on the concept of the house, a cluster of 6 or
more faculty members and up to 250 students. The house also includes associated
classrooms, conference areas, faculty offices, student work rooms, and
information centers. The academic program at the new campus is divided into four
primary components: Core Studies, Specialty Studies, Career Studies, and Service
Learning. Each student at the new campus would work with faculty advisers in the
house to design a program of study which takes the form of a contract between
the student and the faculty. Students would be expected to possess proficiency
in English language skills. In addition, all students would graduate with
proficiency in Spanish or a Native American language. Close and continuous
contact between faculty and students is envisioned.
The house, sitting as a whole or as a committee of the whole, would review and
approve student programs of study which are submitted with the endorsement of
the adviser. The house would review the progress of its students when they are
one-third through their programs of study, the Qualifying Examination, and
two-thirds through, the Candidacy Examination. The third stage of review would
be the Capstone Activity, a thesis or project initiative that is grounded in the
study areas selected by the student.
All faculty members would be expected to undertake fifteen units per semester or
a total of thirty units per calendar year. Nine to twelve of these units will be
dedicated to instructing courses and an additional four units is dedicated to
work as an adviser/ mentor with the remaining two units dedicated to renewal
that is consistent with the mission of the new campus.
Regent Campbell stated it was difficult for him to grasp the culture the
committee is trying to create such as the concept of the house. For example, can
it grow to support large numbers of students. He would like the concept of the
students being allowed to fail without it appearing on their permanent record to
be explained. Dr. Fernandez said this concept needs further study. Dr.
Fenstermacher said growth could occur by adding more houses.
Regent Gignac said she had several concerns: that the program itself would drive
the physical location and structure of what is built; with the ability to fail
without it being recorded on the permanent record; that the student population
being sought is a younger group of people and not an older, non-traditional
population; that there needs to be clarification on course studies ; how the
specialty studies and career studies work together; the limitation of second
language proficiency to Spanish and Native American; that there not be a
denigration of Western Society; that there be more detail about the
examinations; and that there be more information about the two units of faculty
renewal. She asked what the next step in this process would be. President
Pacheco answered that these programs will need to be approved by the Board, but
he did not yet know when that would be.
Regent Munger commended everybody for the work they have done; he believed it
was an exciting academic concept for undergraduate education. Regent Amos
thanked the presenters for their work on this issue. He stated he believed this
was an exciting concept. However, the mission statement contains diverse
society, global, and international references; and he does not believe the plan
references these concepts. He would like to see some business and computer focus
included in the courses as he believes that is important for everyone today. He
liked the idea of a foreign language, but did not believe it should be limited
to the two stated.
Dr. McGovern said the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) asked that the planning
document be shared with faculty throughout the state. The AFC encourages a
dialogue with the faculty on the UofA campus as the faculty at ASU West found
they made mistakes by not collaborating more with the ASU Main Campus in the
beginning. He encouraged a dialogue with ASU West as they are already doing some
of the things listed in the document, and said the AFC would like to be included
in the discussion of personnel issues.
Regent Hurwitz stated it was an exciting proposal. However, he believed this
campus, especially in the short run, will be composed of non-residential,
part-time students and this plan may not accommodate those students. He was also
concerned about the cost-effectiveness issues. Regent Chapa said he had the same
concerns expressed by Regent Gignac. He did not want to see this school become
too expensive. Dr. Prince said there are some public universities using this
model; Evergreen is one example. It has worked in public university education
and in high schools, both public and private. Regent Davis expressed
reservations about the cost of this model.
Site Selection for the New Campus in Pima County (UofA)
Mr. Bruce Wright brought the Board up to date on the site evaluation process for
the New Campus in Pima County. An independent consulting firm, NBBJ Architecture
Design Planning, has been retained to evaluate three proposed sites (the
developed acreage at the UofA Science and Technology Park, the undeveloped
acreage at the Park, and the site presented by the City of Tucson and the
Downtown Development Corporation). NBBJ has been working closely with a site
selection advisory committee which includes citizens from the local community.
The assigned task was to assist in the evaluation of proposed new campus sites,
to develop an objective and responsive criteria and site analysis methodology,
to conduct an evaluation of the three sites, and to come forward with site
plannings and recommendations. Currently NBBJ is conducting an extensive
evaluation of the sites and comparing short and long-term development strategies
and costs.
Regent Hurwitz asked if site acquisition costs were a part of the analysis and
was told they were not as there were no real land costs involved for any of the
proposed locations. The costs involved in making the sites suitable include
building facilities or renovating buildings and those are included. Regent
Munger stated that the revenue generated from the Research and Technology Park
from leasing property will pay for debt service for any new construction needed
there. Regent Basha said he did not believe there would be enough land available
to construct the type of infrastructure needed to support the type of new campus
described on the suggested downtown site, particularly because he believed
residential facilities would be needed. Mr. Wright said additional sites
could be easily evaluated based on this same model if the Board so desired.
The meeting recessed at 12:00 p.m. and reconvened at 1:20 p.m.
Annual Report on Measurable Goals Linking Faculty Teaching Effort to the
Quality of Undergraduate Education
Dr. Milton Glick, Provost at ASU, reviewed ASU's results of the first year's
efforts since these goals were established. The data is from last year and the
enrollment numbers are from last fall. He said these goals will require systemic
change and that will require a long-term effort. Dr. Glick stated ASU feels
very good about the progress made in Item 1, Students Obtaining Necessary
Classes. Average hours earned at graduation above the expected minimums have
been deleted from this section and was replaced with a different measure in the
outcomes. Under Item 2, Students Receiving Adequate Advising, graduating seniors
were surveyed. The survey is being expanded to include current students and
alumni to give three different windows into the issue. Item 3, Classrooms
Adequately Equipped, shows substantial progress because this is generally a
matter of purchasing. Item 4, Lower-Division Courses Taught by Ranked Faculty,
did not show improvement even though there were more classes taught by ranked
faculty, because there were more lower division students. Item 5, Graduates
Trained and Educated, has three new measures. Item 6, Student Contact with
Ranked Faculty, was similar to Item 4. Item 7, Integration of Undergraduates
into Research, is considered one of the most important of the goals. Outcome 1,
Student Persistence and Graduation Rates, is one of the areas that will be a
long-term commitment. Under Outcome 2, Average Time and Credits to Complete
Degree, the number of years freshmen take to graduate has been changed from 5.4
to 5.1. Two measures under this outcome were deleted and four were added.
Dr. Charles Connell, Provost at NAU, highlighted the outcomes for Northern
Arizona University. Under Item 1, Class Availability, NAU believes it has been
successful. He focused on the overall improvement in retention and graduation
rates, especially critical groups such as Native Americans. He stated 96% of the
freshmen and sophomores have two or more classes with full-time faculty and 67%
of the freshmen and sophomores have at least one class taught by a full
professor. Average overall class size has been maintained despite enrollment
growth. The measures show 89% of the students are completing their liberal
studies requirements prior to their junior year. The measures indicate 95% of
the recent alumni are employed or pursuing advanced degrees. In the next year,
NAU intends to try to find ways to define new goals and objectives that are more
appropriate for the seniors who will graduate in four years.
Dr. Paul Sypherd, Provost at UofA, showed the Board some of the efforts and
structural transformations necessary to reach the goals. A core curriculum is
under development. There has been a substantial revision to the
tenured-promotion guidelines and the annual performance reviews. University
Distinguished Professorships were established. A "Finish in Four"
program has been initiated wherein students agree to certain requirements and
the university will guarantee they can graduate in four years. Career services
is being reconstituted. Classrooms are being modernized. Dr. Sypherd
acknowledged the results coming from the measures are mixed.
Regent Amos noticed the definition of ranked faculty is different among the
universities. He did not believe two or more classes taught by ranked faculty
was enough. Regent Davis expressed his belief that advising needs to be improved
dramatically. He would like to see statistics on what happens during the
freshman and sophomore years. He said NAU provided the number of students that
were polled in their section on advisement; he would like to see the numbers
from the other two universities. He would like to see the percentage of students
accepted into programs and he would like to see a move into peer advisement.
Regent Hurwitz stated he understand this is a report card on the first year
since the goals were set and he understands there has not been time for some of
these goals to be implemented. He believed there is a formatting issue as this
was designed as a report card and he believes the format should be simpler. He
suggested something like the visual report ASU used today. None of the
universities met their goals in respect to ranked faculty teaching and he said
he believed this is an important goal that needs to improve. He urged the
adoption of commonality whenever possible.
Dr. McGovern stated these measures are changing the culture on the campuses. As
these measures become more part of the culture, the quality of learning will
become more stringent. Regent Gignac would like to see some way of simplifying
the recording of progress. She believed the baseline has to be the same year for
all three universities and the way the attainment of the goals is reported needs
to be consistent. Regent Munger wanted to see higher goals than 67% faculty
teaching of undergraduate courses and two courses being taught by professors.
President Basha asked the Provosts, in concert with the presidents and the
Executive Director, to devise a simpler, standard format. Upon motion of Regent
Gignac, seconded by Regent Amos, the Board accepted this year's annual report on
measurable goals for linking faculty teaching effort to the quality of
undergraduate education.
STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Regent Munger chaired this portion of the meeting.
Five-Year Strategic Plans for the Three Universities
President Pacheco reviewed the Arizona Health Sciences Center plan as it had not
been presented to the Board before. He said this plan encompasses the Colleges
of Nursing, Medicine, and Pharmacy. Regent Gignac asked if there was an issue of
clinical spaces for allied health professions and was told no. She asked if the
Strategic Plans had been structured essentially to meet the Office of Strategic
Planning and Budget (OSPB) requirements and was told there had been an attempt
to integrate the OSPB, university and Board needs. She asked to what extent the
Board was being locked into the programs and numbers in the plans by approving
the plans. Regent Munger expressed the same concern. He stated he viewed the
plans as overall directions for the universities to move, but the Board was not
giving approval to every specific item in the plan.
Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board approved the
strategic plans for all components of the Arizona University System.
Report From the Task Force on Information Technology
Dr. Tom Wickenden presented an overview on the relation between the FY 1997
information technology budget requests and the Board's past and future planning
activities in this area. Dr. Bill Lewis, ASU Vice President for Information
Technology, Dr. Charles Hurt, UofA Director of the School of Library Science,
and Dr. Sam Levy, NAU Director of Educational Assistance Programing, and Provost
Connell were present to answer questions. Regent Gignac asked if there needed to
be a change in Policy 2-205 to recognize what is happening in telecommunications
and was told the policy would be reviewed but it deals more with programs than
technology. Regent Amos encouraged cooperation among the universities and a
review of the Board policy to see if it is up to date. Regent Hurwitz said the
Regents rely on the technical people for help in this area and need to be told
when one is enough and when sharing can occur to help expenses. Dr. Besnette
stated he understood the sense of the Board to be that, over a period of time,
some kind of indicators need to be used to demonstrate whether the universities
are continuing to work together to optimize their technology. Dr. Wickenden
informed the Board the Task Force was to report in October and said he believed
suggestions as to how collaboration could be monitored could be included in that
report.
Regent Chapa left the meeting.
Update on Enrollment Growth Demand Projections
Dr. Besnette stated that in 1991 the increased demand for university education
was projected to range from 37,000 to 77,000 by the year 2010. The updated
figures push out the time horizon by five years to 2015. The revised figure for
2010 is 39,000 which is still within the lower range of what was predicted
earlier. Regent Hurwitz stated the model shows there will be substantial growth
on the Arizona campuses; it may not occur as quickly as originally anticipated,
and the strategies to meet this growth may not need to occur as quickly as had
been planned. Regent Campbell said the enrollment figures for the University of
Arizona campus do not show growth; so it does not appear there is a quick need
for a branch campus. Regent Munger stated some of the enrollment data for the
University of Arizona is influenced by the capping of the main campus.
President Basha asked for an update of what the potential is for enrollment
growth across the state and how the growth will be met during the next several
years, including the increased use of evenings, weekends, and community
colleges.
Property Purchases at 1427 E. Helen Street, 1533 E. Helen, and 142B E.
Seventh Street (UofA)
Upon motion of Regent Hurwitz, seconded by Regent Campbell, the Board authorized
the University of Arizona to purchase the properties located at 1427 E. Helen
for $72,000 from the UofA Foundation, at 1533 E. Helen for $115,000 from the
Estate of Ethel S. Carpenter, and 1428 E. 7th Street for $82,000 from Cheryl
Tate. Regents Munger and Basha voted no.
Sale of Unimproved Parcel of Land in Mohave County (UofA)
Upon motion of Regent Hurwitz, seconded by Regent Campbell, the Board authorized
the University of Arizona to sell an unimproved parcel of land located south of
the Virgin River approximately eight miles southwest of Littlefield, Arizona, at
the fair market value determined by appraisal, subject to approval of legal
documents by University Counsel.
Sale of Land in Cochise County
Regent Hurwitz requested the staff to see if the policy regarding the sale of
land could be changed to allow the sale of land without auction or appraisal for
items under a certain dollar amount. Upon motion of Regent Hurwitz, seconded by
Regent Davis, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to sell directly an
unimproved parcel of land situated in the City of Wilcox and described as Lot
21, Block 11, M&A 2nd, Cochise County, Arizona, without auction at the fair
market value determined by appraisal, subject to approval of legal documents by
University Counsel.
Sale of Portion of Cowden Estate to Harrison Properties
Upon motion of Regent Campbell, seconded by Regent Hurwitz, the Board approved
the sale of a portion of the Cowden Estate to Harrison Properties as a cash
transaction with a purchase price of $21,456/acre with the proceeds of the sale
being approximately $128,700 less closing costs. The execution of all legal
documents by the Board's President, Secretary, or Executive Director, subject to
review of all documents by Board Counsel, was also authorized
Sale of Portion of Cowden Estate to Campbell Taggart Baking Companies, Inc.
Upon motion of Regent Hurwitz, seconded by Regent Campbell, the Board approved
the sale of a portion of the Cowden Estate to Campbell Taggart for $1,001,880,
with the Board and the Co-owners being responsible for contributing
approximately $71,000 to the cost of a second sewer line that will be available
to serve other Cowden property in addition to this property, 50% of the cost of
relocating an irrigation ditch (approximately $75,000) and a 5% commission. The
net proceeds of the sale will be approximately $805,786 less closing costs. The
Board also approved a modified public bidding process and authorized the
execution of all necessary legal documents by the Board's President, Secretary,
or Executive Director, subject to review of all documents by Board Counsel.
Optional Retirement Plan Life Expectancy Option
Dr. Besnette stated this item was to advise the Board of the actions taken by
vendors to provide a Life Expectancy Option (LEO) at retirement under the
Arizona Board of Regents Optional Retirement Plan (ORP). Both of the new
providers and VALIC have committed to providing this option. Regent Basha asked
if this action was compatible with Dr. Eugene Morkin's request which had been
raised when the original action was taken. Dr. Morkin stated it was. Regent
Campbell agreed the issue should be reexamined at a more frequent interval than
five years. Regent Gignac asked if the Arizona Faculties Council would be
willing to examine faculty benefits and work with the Board to see if they could
be improved. Dr. McGovern said he was certain they would be willing.
RESOURCES COMMITTEE (Continued)
Internal Audit Plan
Dr. Besnette introduced Tracy Myers, the new Assistant Executive Director for
Audit Services at the central office. Ms. Myers told the Board the 5-Year Audit
Plan, as outlined on Attachment B, may change after it is reviewed with the
universities. Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Davis, the Board
approved the 1995-96 internal audit plan as submitted.
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
Dr. McGovern reported that the faculty leaders on each campus, in conjunction
with the Provost, are educating the faculty about the outcome measures and are
taking accountability quite seriously. He said faculty believe one of the
singular marks of excellence in American Education is the bringing of diversity
to classrooms. Dr. John Schwartz, the New Chair of the Faculty Senate at the
University of Arizona, said diversity is very important and in the educational
interests of everybody.
REPORT FROM THE BOARD'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR
COMMUNITY COLLEGES OF ARIZONA
Regent Gignac told the Board the Community College Board had met August 18 and
19 but she had been unable to attend the meeting.
REPORTS FROM THE PRESIDENTS AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Report From the President of the University of Arizona
President Pacheco reported LaPaz Residence Hall opened on time. He stated the
American Council of Education has honored the University of Arizona with an
invitation to participate in its leadership and institutional transformation
projects. Assistant Professor Jo Dale Carrothers has been awarded the C. Holmes
MacDonald Outstanding Teaching Award for Young Electrical Engineering
Professors. Professor Nicholas J. Strausfeld is one of this year's 24 John D.
and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Fellows.
Report From the President of Northern Arizona University
President Lovett told the Board she had attended the State Board of Community
Colleges meeting referred to earlier. She is working directly with the rural
community colleges to deal with issues specifically related to transfer problems
with NAU. The issue will be visited at the September 16 Community College Board
meeting and Regent Gignac said she intended to be present.
Dr. Lovett reported NAU had attracted three federal grants for a total of $1.5M
in support of NAU Net. One of the grants will extend the Net to Santa Cruz
County and another one will allow the extension of the Net all the way to Window
Rock. A $2.8M grant from the Department of the Interior was received to support
research in Eco Systems Restoration and Management. She distributed material
describing the Center for High Altitude Sports Training, an effort financed by
the City of Flagstaff, the State of Arizona, and NAU.
Report From the President of Arizona State University
President Coor reported this year ASU had the largest summer enrollment in the
United States. He said the residence hall occupancy rate is now 97%. He
announced two new appointments at ASU West, a new Dean of the College of Human
Services, Mark Searle, and a new Dean of Students, Sylvia Silva.
Report From the Executive Director
Dr. Besnette announced Dr. Mary McKeown has been elected the new national
president of the State Higher Education Financial Officers. He announced Ellie
Balstaad had left the central office to work for the Office of Excellence in
Government, and Ken LaFleur had left to work for Merrill Lynch.
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF
PRESIDENTS
President Basha welcomed Provost Connell to his first Board meeting and thanked
Regent Gignac for her work on the budget. He also thanked Regent Chapa for
hosting the Regents Thursday evening. Regent Amos asked if scholarships and any
financial aid the universities give could be audited as well as waivers. Dr.
Besnette said it would be possible, but all the federal financial aid programs
are already subject to audit on an annual basis. He said he would let Regent
Amos know what the schedule is for these audits.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:26 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
__________________________
Judy E. Garza
Secretary to the Board
APPROVED BY:
___________________________
Edward N. Basha, Jr.
President
ATTEST:
____________________
Judy Gignac
Secretary