Arizona Board of Regents-Minutes

A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held December 1 and 2, 2005, in the University of Arizona Student Union Memorial Center, Tucson, Arizona. President Palacios called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m., on Thursday, December 1, 2005.

PRESENT:	Regent Fred Boice Regent Robert Bulla Regent Ernest Calderón Regent Lorraine Frank Regent Benjamin Graff Regent Edward Hermes Regent Chris Herstam Regent Jack Jewett Regent Christina Palacios Regent Gary Stuart Superintendent Tom Horne (December 2 only)
ABSENT:	Governor Janet Napolitano

Also present were: President Peter Likins, Dr. George Davis, Mr. Greg Fahey, Dr. Randy Groth, Ms. Judith Leonard, Dr. Leslie Tolbert, Ms. Edith Auslander, Mr. Joel Valdez and
Dr. Patti Ota, University of Arizona; President John Haeger, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, Dr. M. J. McMahon, Northern Arizona University; President Michael Crow, Dr. Milt Glick, Mr. Paul Ward, Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Mr. Rich Stanley, Arizona State University; Executive Director Joel Sideman, Board Counsel Paulina Vazquez Morris, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Art Ashton, Mr. Michael Hunter, Ms. Cathy McGonigle, Mr. Ted Gates, Ms. Stephanie Jacobson, Dr. Mark Denke, Ms. Kathy Bedard, Mr. Dan Anderson, and Ms. Stella Galaviz, Central Office; and Mr. Robert Mitchell, Arizona Faculties Council.

All list, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the December 1 and 2, 2005, Documents File.

President Palacios welcomed Dr. Myles Brand, President of the NCAA, to the meeting. She reminded the Regents that one of the significant issues of Regent Jewett’s tenure as President of the Board was his leadership in studying the issues surrounding intercollegiate athletics; so she had asked him to chair this item.

Regent Jewett said the Regents were honored to welcome Dr. Brand to the ICA discussion this year. The Regents had really started looking at intercollegiate athletics in a more focused way beginning in 2001-2002 when the Knight Commission Report looked at actions that colleges and universities might take to reform athletics. One of the outcomes of the work done by the Regents that year was to invite the athletic directors to come to the table at least once a year to report on their progress and allow the Regents to have a good conversation about intercollegiate athletics at the three Arizona universities.

Regent Jewett said President Likins had been deeply involved in the NCAA for many years. He currently serves as a member of the NCAA Division One Board of Directors and the Executive Committee, and he chairs the PAC10 CEO group. He also chairs the NCAA Division One Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division One Intercollegiate Athletics and chairs the Fiscal Responsibility Subcommittee of that Task Force.

Dr. Likins introduced Dr. Myles Brand who was the former chair of philosophy at the University of Arizona and the Director of the Cognitive Science Program at the UA. He became the Dean of the Faculty of Social Behavorial Sciences and was the coordinating Dean for the entire College of Arts and Sciences when it was a unified entity. In his academic career, he was the President of Indiana University and President of the University of Oregon prior to assuming the extraordinary challenge of the NCAA. He has brought a different perspective to that organization. In the course of the time that Dr. Brand has served in this role, there really has been a redoubling of efforts to accomplish academic reform, to make sure that student athletes truly are students, and to achieve the successes we expect of students.

Dr. Brand stated that he was pleased to be back at this great institution of higher learning and the wonderful City of Tucson to give a presentation on, “The Future of the NCAA.”

Dr. Brand said he came to the NCAA as the first former university president and former academic. The academic reform of intercollegiate athletics really started in about 1991 with the issuance of the first Knight Commission Report. The primary recommendation was that university presidents need to be more engaged in intercollegiate athletics.

Dr. Brand gave a sense of what changes are taking place. He said that student athletes graduate at a higher rate than the general student body. Women student athletes graduate at a higher rate than men. Football players tend to graduate at a point or two below the male student population and basketball players tend to graduate at about 12 points below the male student population. But, in every group, student athletes do better than the comparative group. For example, African American basketball players do 8-10% better in graduation rates than the African-American male population on our campuses in Division One.

Why is there a problem if student athletes are already doing so well? The fact is that you always want to perform at the highest levels. Student athletes should have an opportunity in all sports, both genders, to perform at even higher levels. The academic reform is to increase the ability of student athletes to succeed academically.

Dr. Brand stated that the NCAA has been using a federally mandated metric that determines graduation rates by examining the number of students who entered and the number who left six years later, ignoring those who transferred and graduated elsewhere and those who came in as sophomores or higher and graduated. Accurate measurements were needed: (1) a real time measurement, to know semester by semester how well the student athletes are doing and (2) a better graduation rate that accounts for transfers-in and transfers-out.

The real time metric recently adopted by the NCAA is the academic progress rate – APR. This will become a very important term – it will be as familiar as SAT. You will also begin to hear about the graduate success rate, which is a six-year measure like the federal rate, but does include transfers-in and transfers-out.

Those measures are now in place and academic requirements have been strengthened by increasing the number of required core academic courses from 13 to 16. With two years of data, more students are qualifying for initial eligibility and doing well in college. The continuing eligibility requirements are being increased; a student athlete has to make 20% progress towards a degree each year to remain eligible.

The APR takes as the unit of analysis the team; graduation rates take as the unit of analysis the individual. A team is assigned an APR which has two variables--continuing eligibility to play and retention. There are waivers for special cases, for example, when a student leaves to play professional sports and leaves in good academic standing. That won’t count against the team. That provides a prediction of the graduation rate, which if the graduation rate is 50%, equates to approximately a 925 APR. Every team is striving right now to get a 925 APR. If a team does not have a 925, the NCAA starts to take away scholarships. This is the second year and will be the first year the NCAA will be applying sanctions. It appears that 80% of the Division One institutions will have one or more teams below 925. The sanctions begin to compound after that point. The next sanction would be the institution would not be able to play in post-season games, like men’s final four basketball. The next level of sanction would be to decertify the team, which means that no team in the university can play in post-season games if one team is decertified. These are very serious sanctions. The NCAA expects behavioral changes, such as recruiting students who can do the work; and the success rate of academic achievement is expected to increase.

There will be some incentive for schools that do well. NCAA will put aside some of the money that it gets from its CBS contract to provide to athletic departments who are either improving or already very successful.

Dr. Brand stated that he had also formed a group of 50 Division One university presidents and chancellors to look at other issues that need to be addressed such as the values that underlie intercollegiate athletes and when does commercialism become unacceptable. A second group is looking at the relationship between university presidents, boards of trustees, and external groups such as boosters. A third area being considered is student athlete’s well being. There is also a subcommittee looking at fiscal responsibility which President Likins chairs.

Dr. Brand recommended the AGB Statement on Board Responsibilities to the Regents.

President Likins clarified how the loss of scholarship will work if the 925 APR is not reached. If an institution has a team that is below 925, the team will be susceptible to losing a scholarship for each student who leaves the university while academically ineligible. If any member of that team leaves at the end of the year, while the student is academically ineligible, the coach cannot fill that scholarship position for one year.

Regent Jewett said the work that President Likins and Dr. Brand were doing tracks with the Knight Commission Report. He believes the APR is absolutely critical and the academic reform portion that the NCAA and the presidents are leading is to be applauded.

President Likins stated that having accepted Dr. Brand’s invitation to work with his colleagues, he has been very mindful that he needed to take a good luck at his own “house”. He asked Dr. John Taylor and Dr. Doug Woodard to chair an athletics environment panel to examine the culture of intercollegiate athletics at the University of Arizona.

Regent Bulla stated that he really applauded these efforts; but it will not be easy, and there are a lot of unintended consequences when you get into these things. He believes the Board needs to ask its athletic directors and its presidents how the Regents can assist and support them. If the athletic directors are not prepared to talk in that direction at this meeting, he would appreciate it if that discussion could take place soon. Also, he believes that the Board needs to know if there are any teams that are currently below the APR and what can be done.

Dr. Brand said he thought one key point in the Knight Commission Report is the critical central role of the president in assuring that intercollegiate athletics on campus is not only doing the proper things, but is also creating the most value not just for the student athletes, but for the whole campus community. The Board needs to be supportive of the presidents in their operational efforts. The Board needs to help the high schools understand that the expectations are changing if the students want to participate in sports. You have to prepare yourself in high school to become eligible and then remain eligible through college. Intercollegiate athletics needs to be integrated into the mainstream of the university.

Regent Frank asked how these proposed reforms are being accepted by the alumni who support the academic programs. Dr. Brand said this is another area where the Board could help. Avid fans love to see teams win and some avid fans have less interest in the academic success of the student athletes than the athletic success. Everyone has to reinforce the point that these are academic institutions and these are students and, of course, we want to win, but we are going to make certain that the students get an education and graduate and become successful.

Regent Graff asked how career services are presented to student athletes. Dr. Brand stated it is the job of coaches, athletic directors, faculty members, etc., to open up new opportunities outside of athletics so students can see new directions they can travel.

President Likins introduced UA Athletic Director Jim Livengood. He said the UA has been pleased to have Jim Livengood as its athletic director.

Mr. Jim Livengood introduced Doug Woodard, the faculty athletics representative.
Mr. Livengood stated that the UA has some teams that have some work to do as far as the APR is concerned. He distributed information on the UA ICA fund balance and on the 04-05 accomplishments. He stated that most groups will support student athletes and there will only be a few who look at only the games.

President Crow introduced ASU Athletic Director Lisa Love. Ms. Love stated that ASU is proud of its heritage as a teacher’s college. Athletics can be a powerful teaching mechanism. She distributed a history of the ICA fund balance at ASU and a list of points of pride. She stated that ASU ICA now has a balanced budget.

President Haeger introduced NAU Athletic Director Jim Fallis. Mr. Fallis has established an athletic director’s honor roll which recognizes student athletes that achieve a 3.5 or higher Grade Point Average, and he reestablished the fiscal responsibility of all athletics. Mr. Fallis introduced the academic services person, Ms. Apryl Guisasola. NAU’s faculty athletics representative, Dr. Wayne Shubert, was not present because he was in class teaching.

Mr. Fallis believes the APR will be a great tool that will give immediate feedback to the schools. He distributed the NAU ICA fund balance report. He thanked the UA and ASU because much of NAU’s money is earned from UA and ASU scheduling NAU to play football and basketball when the opportunity is available. He said the Board and Presidents can help by supporting the philosophy that you are a student athlete with the expectation you will attend class and graduate and there are consequences when you don’t.

Regent Jewett asked about the graduation rates and the implementation of the plan. Will this be administered fairly or is it going to be a bureaucratic nightmare in the making?

Dr. Brand said the NCAA has 350 staff members and over 1,000 members. The members make legislation, not staff. The NCAA has tried to become more student athlete friendly and more timely. The NCAA is not going public until they think they have it right. They have consulted with schools and will probably go public in February. They will also go public with the pilot graduation success rate that includes transfers-in and transfers-out either in the winter or early spring without sanctions. We believe that we will see a graduation rate increase of 10-15% because transfers can be included.

Dr. Likins stated that some schools will go down; an example being if you start accepting student athletes from community colleges. Community college transfers didn’t count before; but now they do; and if they fail to graduate, it will show. But most schools will go up. Mr. Livengood stated that care will have to be taken with the community college transfer issues.

Regent Stuart asked if the graduation rate is not what it should be because of living conditions, financial constraints, preparedness, not enough playing time or enough visibility. Why are athletes leaving and what role does winning or losing play in persistence to graduation? Regent Stuart said he believed the new rule would have a more accurate basis by which to measure graduation rates.

President Crow said the ASU athletic programs are doing very well even though he thinks they will do better. However, when you think about the fact that the athletic graduation rate at ASU is about 78 or 80% and the actual universities graduation rate is below that, one should consider that the athletic departments, with their resources, focus, attention, and their culture enhance that graduation rate. He thinks that there are lessons being learned in the athletic programs that could be applied to the rest of the institution.

Dr. Brand said he agreed; and if you look at the studies that have been done, the single most important factor to persistence in college is engagement in the freshman year. Athletics provides a built-in support group.

Regent Calderón thanked the three athletic directors for what they have done. Specifically, he was pleased with ASU regarding the increased discipline that is now being emphasized. NAU was even financially in both basketball and football. For the Big Sky Conference, it was his understanding that was very good. The fact that NAU is not losing money is a win for the citizens of Arizona. He asked the Athletic Directors to continue to work cooperatively to include NAU on the athletic schedules.

Regent Jewett thanked Dr. Brand and the athletic directors. He stated that this Board has been very respectful in not intruding into athletic affairs that are appropriately handled by presidents. President Palacios also thanked all for coming to the meeting and making their presentations.

Upon motion by Regent Calderón, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board recessed into Executive Session at 11:56 a.m. President Palacios reconvened the open meeting at
1:10 p.m.

President Likins introduced Provost George Davis and Mary Voyatzis, the Head of the UA Classics Department. Dr. Voyatzis was investigating a dig in Greece and invited Provost Davis to come along.

Dr. Voyatzis explained that the site they are working on is the sanctuary of Zeus and has enormous significance and potential. They started excavating this summer. This sight may help understand the origins of the Olympic games; it may be the origin of the concept of Arcadia as an idyllic landscape as used in literature; it may be the origin of the Gods themselves, Zeus in particular. Dr. Davis explained the geology of the region and why that is important.

President Palacios welcomed Marian Conrad, a third year student at the UA College of Law. Ms. Conrad is an exceptional student who comes from an environment of domestic violence. Ms. Conrad explained how she spent a portion of her life as a homeless teenager. She lived with her half-sister for about nine months. At the age of 15 she went out on her own. She kept going to school, even while working two jobs. She learned about budgeting and a lot about sacrifice. Many people came out of the woodwork to support her. Her inspiration to go to law school came from the many legal obstacles she faced. She couldn’t go on field trips in high school because she didn’t have a parent to sign a permission slip and she had trouble getting her driver’s license. Because of her circumstances, she worked to get a bill passed that helped homeless children become emancipated. She is a Board member of Youth on Their Own, a group that assists homeless children with legal issues such as finding a place to live so they can get through school.

Aimee Gipper, Chair of the Meal Plan Committee at ASU, spoke in favor of the mandatory meal plan and the Living/Learning Dining Renovation Project.

Yaser Alamoodi, President of the Undergraduate Student Government at ASU, spoke in favor of the mandatory meal plan. However, he still had two concerns: how financial aid will work and the payment options. Many students think a monthly payment option is needed.

Cledwyn Jones, ASU Undergraduate Student Government Senate President, spoke in favor of the mandatory meal plan, the Living/Learning Dining Renovation Project, and separating the meal plan from the project. The Student Government Senate is continuing to explore concerns that have been raised.

Richard Sales, was representing a group of students from ASU opposed to the mandatory meal plan and is a Senator in the Undergraduate Student Government. The students are concerned about the way the process of implementing a mandatory meal plan at ASU has been handled. Students have just learned that the plan is still only a proposal and not a fact. They believe student opposition to this plan has been ignored and disregarded even though 800+ signatures have been collected in opposition to this plan. An on-line student survey found that 79% of students are opposed to mandatory meal plans, with less than 10% supporting it. Over 3,000 students participated in the survey.

Robb Carlisle, representing the Tri-university Classified Staff Executive Board, thanked the Regents for their commitment to staff at all three universities. They support Item #33 that would establish a Special Advisory Human Resources Committee. He thanked the Regents for charging the Human Resources Committee with the review of the University Systems’ Annual Personnel Report, particularly in the area of salary needs.

President Palacios stated that she has been asked to remove the September 29 and 30, 2005, Regular Minutes from the Consent Agenda. Items on the Consent Agenda, which are marked in these minutes with an asterisk (*), were considered as consent matters and were adopted upon the motion of Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Boice.

The Board approved Arizona State University’s request to accept awards and agreements as follows: The Gates Foundation, #37863, for support of the Center for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology Biodesign Institute project for $845,463 non-federal funding for the period July 1, 2005, through July 1, 2010; a cooperative agreement from the National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Science, #SES-0531194, for support of a Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, and college of Liberal arts and Sciences project for $1,400,000 for the period October 1, 2005, through September 30, 2010; and the National Institute of Mental Health, #1 P30 MH068685-01A2 for support of the Department of Psychology in the college of Liberal Arts and Sciences project for $1,439,074 for the period September 30, 2005, to June 30, 2010.

The Board approved the revised FY 2006 budget for Arizona AHEC. This revision is necessary due to the receipt during July-September 2005 of $4.2M in FY 2005 from the State Lottery Funds, pursuant to the Healthy Arizona 1 initiative measure passed by Arizona voters in 1996.

The Board approved the request of Arizona State University at the Tempe campus to increase the 2005-06 Financial Aid Set Aside (FASA) by $821,800 and to increase the 2005-06 State Expenditure Authority by $3,933,500, with a corresponding change in the 2006-07 Legislative Budget Request. This is due to overrealized 2005-06 tuition revenues.

The Board received the High School Report Card. This report is required by Arizona Revised Statute §15-1822. Since 1986, the universities have developed annual reports on the performance of the previous year’s Arizona high school graduates during their first year in higher education. These high school ‘report cards’ are designed for and distributed to Arizona’s high schools to help ensure that their graduates are ready for success in post-secondary education.

In Fall 2004 there were 146 more Arizona high school graduates enrolled at the universities than there were in Fall 2003. This year 28% of the total high school graduates enrolled were from a racial/ethnic minority group. In Fall 2004, 80% of the high school graduates were admitted to the universities without academic deficiencies.

The Board received the Report on High School Students Taking University Courses in 2004-2005. A.R.S. §15-1821 requires an annual report from the Board of Regents on students under the age of eighteen who had not attained a high school diploma or high school certificate of equivalency and who were enrolled in a university for credit during the period of September of the previous year through August of the current fiscal year. Between Fall 2004 and Summer 2005 the universities reported 347 students enrolled who met these criteria.

The Board approved a revision to 4-203, “Requirements for Resident Status,” that would amend the requirements for resident status to include spouses of Arizona residents in order to conform to the provisions in H.B. 2078 and A.R.S. §15-1802.

The Board approved the College of Medicine Statement of Institutional Support for Graduate Medical Education by authorizing the ABOR president to sign the original document.. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), the national accrediting agency for Graduate Medical Education (GME), mandates that institutions sponsoring residency and fellowship training programs have a written statement of institutional commitment to GME that is supported by the governing authority.

The Board authorized Arizona State University to promote Professor Cordelia Candelaria, Department of English/Department of Chicana & Chicano Studies, Professor Carlos Castillo-Chavez, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Professor Douglas Montgomery, Department of Industrial Engineering, Professor George Poste, School of Life Sciences, Professor Edward Prescott, W.P. Carey Chair and Professor of Economics, and Professor Rogier Windhorst, Department of Physics and Astronomy, as Regents’ Professors, to take effect on August 15, 2006, and carry an annual salary increment of $5,000.

The Board approved Arizona State University’s request to reallocate $2.6M from the HB 2529 Research Infrastructure funds to finance a portion of the previously approved $5.5M increase to the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative Research Building B project.

The Board approved Arizona State University’s request to enter into contracts with RBC Dain Rauscher Inc., for financial advisory services, Snell & Wilmer as primary Bond Counsel, Kutak Rock, and Squire, Sanders & Dempsey as alternate Bond Counsel, and Bank of New York Trust Company for Bond Trustee services.

The Board adopted the proposed Comprehensive Campus Master Plan for Northern Arizona University as presented.

The Board approved the charge to the Human Resources Committee established in September 2005 by Board President Christina Palacios as a special advisory committee.

President Palacios called on Regent Calderón who asked that the following language be inserted into the September 29 and 30, 2005, minutes at Page 17, paragraph 5:

“Specifically, Regent Calderón noted that the UA budget request included a new County Extension agent for Greenlee County. Regent Calderón asked Dr. Likins, who in turn confirmed with UA College of Agriculture Dean Gene Sander who was in the audience, that the proposed budget would guarantee that Greenlee County would receive a new agent position. Both Dr. Likins and Dean Sander confirmed that to be the case.”

Upon motion of Regent Calderón, seconded by Regent Boice the Board approved the amendment to the September 2005 minutes.

Upon motion of President Palacios, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board approved the minutes of the September 29 and 30, 2005.

Regent Calderón reported the JCC has been working on recommendations to improve transfer articulation and has agreed on four recommendations: (1) increase the transfer credits for select programs up to 94 credit hours; (2) increase the number and scope of institutional partnerships; (3) establish joint funding models; and (4) expand the Arizona university system campuses and statewide programs. In number 4, NAU made the promise that if a cohort of 25 students were available and it was a program NAU already offered, NAU would go to that location to offer the program.

There are still two recommendations under discussion. One relates to community colleges offering 4-year degrees and the second addresses community colleges becoming 4-year regional colleges. Regent Calderon reported that on October 19, 2005, President Haeger and President Christensen presented versions of these two recommendations to the JCC, but agreement could not be reached.

The first of the recommendations (recommendation 5) was that there would be a two-step process before 4-year degrees were allowed at a community college--a needs assessment would be performed and a determination of who would provide the program would be made. Part of this proposal was that the JCC would be the review council determining whether there was a demonstrated need and determining who the provider would be. The second part of the proposal was that the universities would have the first option to respond to be the provider – the right of first refusal.

The second recommendation (recommendation 6) would be a pathway for community colleges to become 4-year institutions. The key points of the pathway were a development of general guidelines for a community college to request to become a 4-year institution, and an implementation plan submitted to the JCC, the legislature, the governor, and the Board of Regents. At the October meeting of the JCC no agreement was reached on the last two recommendations The university perspective has been very firm relative to the right of first refusal. The positions on both sides have been very respectful, but quite strong.

It was reported to Regent Calderon that on November 17, 2005, the Arizona Community College Association, which is the community college presidents and leadership from each local governing board, reviewed all six recommendations. The ACCA, at that time, approved the four recommendations that the JCC approved. The ACCA is recommending continued negotiation on the last two recommendations.

The next step with the six recommendations was also discussed at the Presidents’ Summit on November 28, 2005, a meeting of all community college presidents and the university presidents. There was a very positive discussion about the first four recommendations with the possibility of folding recommendations three and four into one recommendation, and there was continued discussion about whether to proceed on recommendations 5 and 6.

President Crow said the Presidents’ Summit was productive. President Haeger stated that the issues boiled down to a very different philosophical perspective about how a higher education system in the Arizona should evolve over time. President Likins found the conversations helpful and constructive and the relationships among the participants were excellent. He concluded that the strongest statement made came from Chancellor Glasper who observed that all of this discussion about who had the right to do what was irrelevant if there was no funding.

Upon motion by Regent Calderón, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board adopted the four recommendations stated above, with all Regents voting in favor except Regent Frank, who voted no as she was just not prepared to vote on this issue yet.

President Palacios spoke to the remaining two points and said she agreed with the process that Regent Calderón has lain out, but she wants to be sure that the Regents were comfortable that no one was going to commit the Board to something without first bringing it back for consideration. Regent Calderón confirmed that this was also his understanding.

Regent Boice stated that it is a very easy to say that nothing will be done without financing, but it is also pretty easy to say, we’ll just take some money away from university budgets and give to the community colleges to get them started. He believes that would be lethal. Regent Calderón agreed and reminded everyone that the JCC is trying to move conceptually forward, but the details will be provided to the Board for approval.

Dr. Leslie Tolbert, UA, Dr. Carl Fox, NAU, and Ms. Kathy Bedard joined the meeting for this discussion.

Regent Boice stated that the Board was being asked to review and approve the universities’ final FY 2007-2011 TRIF Business Plans and project brochures developed by the universities. The business plans detail the proposed use during the second five-year TRIF cycle for the fiscal years 2007-2011 of an estimated $332M in TRIF (Proposition 301) revenue. At the March 2005 meeting, the university Provosts made presentations on the results of their self-evaluations of the first three years (2002-2004) of the TRIF program. Using these results, along with Regent recommendations, the universities developed Business Plans for their second five year TRIF cycles for the fiscal years 2007-2011.

The Vice Presidents for Research then commented on their projects. Dr. Tolbert stated these projects brought in a total of $1.90 for every $1.00 of TRIF funding in the first four years. In the coming five years, the UA will build on the ground work that has been set in the first years, but in a very strategic way. They will be doing six things. First, they will be phasing out the ACIST (Arizona Center for Information System and Technology) Initiative. It performed the function of helping to draw to the UA new faculty in areas that needed more computer intensive approaches and these faculty are being folded into other initiatives. Second, the funds that were used for ACIST will be moved into the Venture Fund which will be used for areas of particular promise related to existing TRIF initiatives. The Venture Fund will also collect any revenues above the revenues predicted, giving the UA flexibility in its investments. Third, they will continue to put strong emphasis on translating research results to commercial or other practical applications. Fourth, the UA will continue to place a strong emphasis on educating a workforce that can drive and sustain an increasingly technical economy. Five, they will emphasize the sustainability of new programs created under TRIF. Six, they will put capital investment debt service into a separate fund that is listed along with the computer based infrastructure.

Regent Bulla stated that the IT/AZUN Committee reviewed a handful of projects at the various universities and the Committee is satisfied with the revisions. He was extremely pleased with the summary reports. There is still some tweaking; but it is a huge step forward in being able to communicate.

Regent Stuart posed a question regarding the way the budget was presented. Dr. Tolbert explained they propose funding each of the initiatives at a flat rate and then take anything that comes in as part of the venture fund that will be invested into those areas rather than building in inflation from year to year.

Ms. Bedard explained that in the first full year, the numbers were estimates; and it wasn’t known if those numbers could be achieved. Funds were held back so they wouldn’t be short at the end. In fact, projected revenue was about 3% short in the first year; in the second year it was 3.5%; but in the third and fourth years more revenue was actually received from the state than was budgeted. The projections are on the conservative side.

Regent Boice stated that the Board would like to see what is being done with the funds in the Venture Fund. Dr. Tolbert said that information would be provided to the Board on an annual basis.

Dr. Fox stated that NAU’s TRIF FY 2007-2011 initiatives will focus on the needs of Arizona. NAU has four goals. (1) to stimulate entrepreneurship, innovation and research and development to support Arizona’s knowledge based economy, (2) to increase access to higher education, to prepare a skilled workforce to meet the needs of Arizona’s expanding economy, (3) to invest in infrastructure that will promote research and development partnerships with business, enhance technology transfer and connect knowledge creators with knowledge users, and (4) develop new and expand existing programs to prepare students for high technology industries in Arizona. NAU will also continue its original four initiatives.

A major change in the organization of NAU TRIF is the increase in external oversight and review that occurs through an established oversight board of Arizona business leaders. They will also utilize an external evaluator and a business expert in a competitive based project funding process. Additional oversight will be accomplished through initiative specific advisory committees that will combine academic leadership with external business and research leaders.

A new program titled University Initiatives, which is somewhat similar to the UA’s Venture Fund, will focus on growth opportunities that arise through time. Much of the initial activity under this initiative will focus on infrastructure projects.

President Haeger said NAU is going to be combining a few of the initiatives under a single advisory board, but the initiatives that are very distinct will have a single advisory board.
Regent Boice stated that the Board would also like to see what is being done with the University Initiatives Fund. Dr. Fox said that information would be provided to the Board.

President Crow presented the TRIF report for ASU. ASU views the TRIF funding as an investment fund. It is absolutely critical funding for the evolution of the institution. It was decided four years ago to advance most of ASU’s investment into the university’s first attempt to build a world class research institute. For the last four years and for the next five year plan, as much as 80% of the resources will be going into the Biodesign Institute.

The Biodesign Institute just hired its 500th employee this past month. This year, this institute alone had 166 new invention disclosures, 41 new patents were issued to the employees of this institute, 28 technologies were licensed to this institute, and ASU broke $35 million in annualized funding. ASU won its first Gates Foundation Award, a $15M project in vaccine technology, an $8.5M award in biodefense, a $5 million award in DNA signature technology development, a $7.5M award in the social implications of nanotechnology; 175 undergraduates were employed in the research activity itself.

Dr. Crow described the expected investment from multiple sources to raise an $800 million investment of start up resources to secure the position necessary to compete at the scale he believes the university has the capacity to achieve. They are trying to compress the evolutionary time necessary to compete at the highest levels of certain areas of bio-oriented science and bio-oriented technology by this focused investment.

The other 20% of ASU’s investments are in five small capacity building projects largely related to workforce development in math, science and technology education. ASU ‘s technology transfer operations this year were the most successful in the university’s history.

Regent Boice asked why the debt service goes up from 2009 to 2010. Mr. Rich Stanley joined the meeting and stated that he believed it might be the schedule of the way in which the debts on the existing buildings flow in; but he will check and get back to Regent Boice with a complete answer.

Regent Boice wants to be sure that if asked, “What did you do with the money?” Regents will be able to answer completely. The metric is appreciated and he wants to see the metric left in place. He wants to see what you said you were going to do in 06 and then he wants to see what you did in 06 in an easy to read format. If in some point in time the metric needs to be altered, make it plain and easily understood that it was changed and why. Further, in the future he would like to have various project managers of these initiatives to make presentations to the Board, 10-15 minute presentations, just to keep the Board apprised.

Regent Boice then stated that it would be very much in keeping with the overall TRIF initiative to have as much cooperation as possible among the universities. He would like to see Dr. Fink, Dr. Fox, and Dr. Tolbert have periodic visits where they can establish common ground and, if possible, coordinate their work. Further, Regent Boice would like to see if the next set of plans can be more succinct and to the point and he hopes that the Vice Presidents for Research can keep the benefit of the business plan and reduce the length and the redundancy.

Regent Boice said that over the next five years, assuming that the funding remains relatively static, the TRIF initiative will bring to the universities about $322M. That is a substantial sum and with it comes a substantial obligation to use that money wisely and in a way that can be accurately accounted for.

Upon motion by Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board approved the FY 2007-2011 TRIF Business Plans and project brochures for ASU, NAU and the UA as presented.

Paulina Vazquez Morris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said that the Board was being asked to review a policy revision to Board Policy 1-105, “Competition with Private Enterprise”, that would delete references to the Private Enterprise Review Board as the statute that created the Private Enterprise Review Board was repealed in 1999.

Paulina Vazquez Morris said that this policy sets forth the procedures that are followed when complaints are filed pursuant to Arizona Statute. A.R.S. §41-2754 defined the Private Enterprise Review Board and it was repealed in 1999. The policy for filing a complaint remains the same with the exception that all references to the Private Enterprise Review Board are removed.

Regent Bulla stated that the IT/AZUN Committee met December 1, 2005, and looked at a number of projects that were generated by the Board’s ARRO initiative (funded from Prop 301) to encourage professors throughout the system to come forth with proposals for distance learning. The Central Office received a total of 60 very worthy proposals. The total cost for awarding all of the 60 projects would have been $2.9M. Nineteen of the 60 projects were collaborative projects with other universities in the system. There were projects with the community colleges, with the K-12 school districts, public and private organizations were also partnered with some of the professors. The Committee selected an intriguing proposal, a joint venture between the ASU downtown campus, the UA, and the Native American Finance Officers Association to develop an on-line tribal financial management certificate and a course curriculum development program for certification of tribal finance officers and undergraduate course credits to be the ABOR priority project for this year. A total of 11 projects were funded for a cost of $725,018. The Committee believes these projects will make a big difference in distance learning in Arizona.

The Committee reviewed the revised UA business plan for Anyplace Access for Arizonans, a TRIF funded e-education grant program to serve Arizonans, and the university was asked to annually provide the business plans for each project funded by the program.

A new internet address, dedicated to the Board of Regents and the Central Office for the Board website has been acquired. It is azregents.edu. The current web addresses will continue to also be used and gradually we will convert to using the new web address.

The Committee also reviewed COSMOS with the UA staff and will be reviewing it in more detail in the next meeting. The Committee did review the next three Board agenda items.

Regent Bulla stated that Northern Arizona University was requesting approval to upgrade the Oracle/PeopleSoft system for Human Resources and Student Services to version 8.9 at a total anticipated cost of $5.64M. The conversion will be complete in FY 2007.

Upon motion by Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board approved the NAU upgrade of the Oracle/PeopleSoft system.

Regent Bulla stated that ASU was requesting approval of annual recurring IT infrastructure expenditures at an annual anticipated cost of $5.55M and an anticipated five-year total of $30.6 M. A large portion of the ASU Central IT budget is encumbered for non-discretionary annual expenses for licenses, maintenance, and ongoing operational costs. The individual expenses in this area range from a few hundred dollars to over $375,000.

Upon motion by Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board approved ASU’s request for annual recurring IT Infrastructure Expenditures at an annual anticipated cost of $5.55M, and an anticipated five-year total of $30.6M.

Regent Bulla stated that the ASU Biodesign Institute was requesting approval of the installation of science communication and presentation technology in Biodesign Building B at an anticipated five-year cost of $2.1 million.

Upon motion by Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board authorized the Biodesign Institute to proceed with the installation of the requested communication and presentation equipment for an anticipated five-year cost of $2.1M.

Regent Calderón chaired this portion of the meeting and Art Ashton joined the meeting for this discussion.

Regent Calderón stated that at the September Board meeting, Board members requested a template be designed to add pro forma estimates and goals to Five-Year Strategic Plan performance measures. The illustrative template of a performance measure on Page 2 of this executive summary shows the Board’s requested changes.

Upon motion by Regent Calderón, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board approved the proposed modifications to performance measures for the Five-Year Strategic Plans for 2008-2012.

Regent Stuart updated the Regents on development of the Board’s progress report to the JLBC on the University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix to be submitted by December 31, 2005, pursuant to SB 1517 (Laws 2005, Chapter 330).

ASU and UA collaborated on an explanation to the recent Arizona Town Hall about the UA College of Medicine in Phoenix and how it fits into the Arizona Bioscience and the Arizona Biotechnology Roadmap as established by the Battelle Group.

A large number of people attended a Town Hall meeting whose purpose was to connect a large group of people, including the business community, the health care community and legislators who were interested in listening to the progress that has been made to date. The Tripp Umbach Economic Impact Study, which is the first full-scale data study to project the economic consequences of building the College of Medicine, was presented. The Phoenix program will start with 24 students and ultimately go to 150 students. Tripp Umbach study stated that there is a potential for billions of dollars to be generated by this project.

The next report will be due in February 2006. It will report on residency programs and positions for the UA Medical School graduates who do residencies in Arizona and the number of residents that remain in Arizona to practice. Strategies to partner with private medical schools will need to be defined as well as any formal agreements with valley hospitals regarding clinical rotations for 3rd and 4th year students and residencies for Phoenix program students and graduates. The discussion about clinical rotations for 1st and 2nd year students will also begin.

Regent Stuart thanked Regent Bulla for his assistance in working through various issues.

Regent Bulla then introduced Michael Hunter, the new Assistant Executive Director of Government Affairs at the central office.

The meeting recessed at 3:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:00 a.m. on Friday, December 2.

President Palacios stated that the Board is being asked to review and approve the draft response to the provisions of SB 1517 (Laws 2005, Chapter 330) requiring the Board to report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the Governor’s Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting on the advisability and options for implementing a tuition structure that limits tuition increases for continuing students to no more than inflation. The Board also is asked to provide guidance relative to a policy framework for differential tuition and special program fees and to revisions to Board Policy 4-105 relating to special class fees.

The Tuition Study Work Group members joined the discussion. Committee members at the table were: Mr. Fernando Ascencio, Ms. Edith Auslander, Ms. Cathy McGonigle, Dr. M. J. McMahon, Mr. Robert Mitchell, Mr. Russell Reiten, and Dr. Christine Wilkinson. Dr. Jerry Hogle, Dr. Pat Hauser and Ms. Stephanie Jacobson were also present.

Cathy McGonigle presented the conclusions stated in the draft report. The first is that it is not advisable to cap tuition increases for continuing students since doing so cannot be accomplished without significant implications for new student tuition and general fund appropriations. The work group believes that the best way to approach funding of the university’s educational programs is to begin with a discussion of the university’s resource needs and the extent to which policymakers are able and willing to meet those needs. In this way, tuition for both new and continuing students, both undergraduate and graduate students, becomes a secondary factor focused more on how incremental tuition revenue can be used to fill the gaps.

The second conclusion is that the state needs to assist in providing more funding. There has been a substantial decline in the amount of funding provided by the state and that trend needs to be reversed. The third conclusion is that additional general fund support for need-based aid should be seriously considered since this is a very significant way in which a university education can be made more accessible and affordable to those in need of financial assistance.

Regent Bulla asked if the numbers relating to the general funds appropriations on Page 1 were the averages of all the universities. Cathy McGonigle responded that they were an average of the appropriations for the university system. Regent Bulla stated his belief that price controls never work.

Regent Stuart asked if it would be possible, in the transmittal letter for this report or in some appropriate way, to include the point that price controls do not work Regent Jewett thanked the committee for all of their work. He would like to see this communicated in a way that hits hard about the state of the system. He also thought this report should address what has been done as a system to address the cost structure.

President Crow said we should not accept that the state’s starting point in 1990 is adequate as all this does is compare what we would have grown to relative to certain price indexes. It doesn’t capture the point that we are still not keeping up with the consumer price index or higher education price indices. President Palacios said she thought that could be footnoted.

Regent Horne stated he has a question about the statement that price controls don’t work. He understands that is a correct statement with respect to a competitive system, but when you are talking about the government, all prices are controlled. Regent Bulla responded that technically this is not an absolute freeze because you have some CPI or some index, but the world does not work in isolation. Even in government you are going to be dislocated from the rest of the economy.

President Likins responded that the presumption of the question is that we don’t live in a market place in public universities, but we do. The market place is defined by the combination of public and private universities. Public universities are a peculiar hybrid, because you are still in the market; you still have to pay faculty salaries defined by market, you still have to deal with pricing that attracts students, but you have the government attempting to regulate your price. Putting refinements on that price control is really onerous for those who are responsible for managing the universities.

Regent Calderón stated that price controls don’t work in the long run. But there are price controls as the State’s Constitution states the cost of instruction will be, “as nearly free as possible.” A 74% tuition increase is unconscionable, but the lack of funding that required that increase is even more egregious.

President Haeger stated that this is becoming a competitive environment. If Community Colleges were to get baccalaureate degree granting authority, it will become the wildest free-for-all imaginable for some period of time. The legislature needs to be educated that if appropriations don’t increase, tuition needs to increase or we will have fewer universities and poorer quality. We need to educate students that if tuition and appropriations don’t increase, there will be fewer programs and less quality.

Regent Jewett agreed with Regent Calderón that the constitution is a price control. The Board has established a specific target, but significant funds are being dedicated for financial aid since the State doe not provide money for financial aid.

President Crow said the universities do not receive the majority of their funding from the government; rather they receive some assistance as well as their purpose from the government.

Upon motion by Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Stuart, the Board approved the draft report on the advisability and options for limiting tuition increases for continuing students to no more than inflation and directed the central office staff to finalize the report consistent with the guidance received today.

President Palacios then moved to a discussion of the work study group’s other topic, differential tuition and special program and class fees. The Board’s guidance is being sought on possible policy provisions. Guidance is very important at this juncture so that the Presidents can take that into account when they develop their tuition recommendation, which will be issued in January. The work group expects to bring a new policy for first reading at the February Board meeting. The second reading would take place at the March meeting and would be voted on prior to setting tuition. Alternative provisions have been provided in a few areas, and we want to come out of the study session knowing the Board’s preference. In addition, as differential tuition is discussed, you will note that we have limited differential tuition for undergraduates to professional colleges.

Dr. Jerry Hogle discussed the possible policy framework for differential tuition. ABOR Policy 5-104 is very unclear, almost silent, on the difference between differential tuition and special program fees; although it is quite specific on the issue of special class fees. The work group proposes ways to demarcate the differences between differential tuition, special program fees, and special class fees.

The work group first proposes to proceed from a definition of base tuition--the rate set for resident and nonresident undergraduates, and resident and nonresident graduates at each university. The work group proposes that it be built into that definition that base tuition is not to exceed the top of the bottom one-third of the rates set by the flagship universities in the other 49 states for resident tuition. It also proposes there be a clearer distinction between differential tuition and program fees. Differential tuition should be considered, higher or lower, an amount that would apply to all those students who achieve major status in professional colleges or at a campus, such as one of the satellite campuses of the universities. There could be lower differential in cases where the cost of delivery is substantially below average central campus expenses.

A higher differential rate is recommended in those cases of professional colleges that require higher than average university expenditures, especially for faculty or equipment, throughout the whole college and lead to a credentialing that gives students the ability to command better salaries. Dr. Hogle stated the work group believed that any deductions applied to tuition, such as financial aid set aside or employee tuition waivers, would apply to the whole--the base and the differential tuition. The work group recommended that the differential tuition only apply to students that have attained major status.

A question was raised as to whether the university should wait until the student had attained upper division status or should wait until they maintain major status. Different colleges allow major status at different times

The work group proposed that special program fees be defined as additional amounts charged in select professional degree programs that are not whole colleges or departments, but are within whole colleges and departments. The only exception might be the Honors College. An Honors College is usually over and above the regular program, so it might be reasonable to charge a program fee for that college. All programs that charge a special program fee would have to show demonstrably higher costs of delivery because of special equipment, technology, and/or key personnel expenses. Program fees would not be deducted up front. The work group asked for guidance as to whether special program fees should be charged only at the upper division or whether they be charged at lower and upper, as soon as the student attains major status.

The work group suggested there should be a process for the special class fee to be replaced with a program fee when many special class fees are being charged by a particular unit. If many program fees are being charged within a college, that college should be asked to consider applying for differential tuition.

Regent Stuart questioned if changing the language of ABOR Policy 5-104 to include graduate and non-resident students would risk, at some level, losing the statutory and case law approval of our policy which has been held to be consistent with the language in the constitution. President Palacios said that she believed we could just separate graduate and non-resident students from resident undergraduate students in the final policy language.

Regent Bulla said that differentiated tuition at the undergraduate level could push the tuition above the bottom 1/3 and he thinks that is a problem. He stated he was not opposed to differentiation, but there are a number of factors that must be considered. One is differentiated financial aid and waivers, the second is doing a better analysis of costs , and third is making certain the differential tuition does not push undergraduate tuition above the bottom 1/3. He commented that state support is dropping and he was not wedded to that criteria; however, the mix of revenues should be considered.

President Likins stated that differential tuition raises the question, can a particular college have a tuition that is above that 1/3 limit? In terms of internal policies at the UA, deans have been instructed to make sure they stay within the bottom 1/3 of their peer groups rather than whether that raises that particular tuition over the 1/3 limit of the entire university peer group.

Regent Graff stated that is a shift, comparing peer colleges rather than peer institutions, and he was a little uncomfortable with that. He believes it is an issue the Regents should consider. He is concerned that undergrads will chase a major based on what they can afford rather than what they want. He is leaning toward differential tuition applying only to upper division credits.

President Palacios said the differentiated tuition discussions are all brand new ground and that is why Regent input is being solicited. This framework suggests a permissive action versus dictating to the presidents that they must. Once guidelines are establish, it will be up to the president to choose the tuition mix that works for his university.

Regent Hermes had concerns about waiting until upper division status is reached because students with fewer resources are being pushed into majors where they will potentially make less money during their career life.

President Likins stated that he shared the Student Regents’ comments. He believes the test of whether differential pricing is driving students into majors with higher professional returns is a test of the data that follows from the policy over a period of time. It is also a matter of how diligently financial aid is used. As long as he is the president, the UA will not charge differential tuition to freshman, with the possible exception of the Honors College. He hopes the board policies will provide individual institutions with some discretion.

Regent Bulla said any time you are differentiating pricing you will change behavior over time and there is a need for caution as you might reap unintended consequences. He said he supports class fees that are specific to a class, but hopes there will continue to be analysis on those situations. He wondered if the university systems can handle the complexity and if it can be communicated to the students in a manner that does not leave them confused.

President Crow said the Regents’ policy that defines the position for general tuition is an objective the universities are focused on. He asked the Regents to not overprogram. He said the universities should be held to that and within that boundary, be allowed to do what they need to do. If there is a special case, such as nursing, which costs approximately $22,000 and the students are paying $4,400 and the state is investing $6,000, the universities should be allowed to establish a tuition of $8,500 and get someone else to pay the $4,000 differential for that tuition. That would be the kind of case that one would bring to the Regents on a case by case basis.

Dr. Crow said in the case of cost being as close to free as possible, free is a relative term. All tuition increases since 2002 have been paid for people eligible for Pell Grants and below. Regents have received a summary analyzing the return on the investment for the tuition invested by individual students. The return is 12% over one’s lifetime, every year. That is the single most significant return that an individual will get for any investment that they ever make.

Fernando Ascencio stated that his biggest worry is access; that differential tuition doesn’t become social separation. Student consultation and support is critical to any of these programs. Students need introductory courses to learn about all majors. He does not want to see students punished who change direction in the first couple of years.

President Haeger said that he thinks the students and others have made a good point about the potential impact on who majors in what and at what point they do it. The beauty of the current tuition policy is that you spread the cost of the tuition over the largest group but; as tuition has been politicized, it is that tuition rate that everyone focuses on and tries to drive down. With differential tuition, program fees, and class fees, the total cost is probably going to rise to what it actually costs to run the programs even if you have a base tuition rate that looks fairly low. Regent Graff stated he believes that differentiated tuition has huge implications and will produce a major need for changes in advising.

Regent Boice said the cost of attending the university is roughly $4500 per year, so students could save some money by graduating in four years instead of six. Under the Changing Directions initiative, the Regents let the universities set their goals and how they are going to run their particular universities. He believes these tuition considerations are a portion of that, and he believes the Regents should not bind the hands of the universities.

President Palacios asked Regents if they wanted to limit differential tuition and program fees to upper division or allow a broader application allowing higher differential tuition to be charged to undergraduates who have reached major status and special program fees to be charged to both lower and upper division students.

Regent Stuart said he had a preference for President Likins’ suggestion that there are too many flaws in proposals A and B. He did not think the presidents’ hands should be tied.

President Palacios clarified that she was not asking for a final vote on this issue. The point of putting this together was that the last time that program fees and class fees were presented to the Board, the Regents expressed a desire to reexamine the Board’s policy framework. This was just a way to begin organizing the way that the Board considers these issues; it was not intended to hamstring anyone. The work group was trying to develop a template to help organize the various requests regarding tuition, program fees, and class fees. She said she was trying to keep a scenario from occurring wherein the presidents bring the Regents a conglomeration of proposals that are difficult to assess and the Regents say that is not what they want. She believes the presidents need some guidance to keep controversy from happening during the tuition setting process.

Regent Jewett thinks that the Board would be premature to settle on an end result; the work group has listened to a robust discussion, and now there is more work to be done.

Regent Stuart stated he liked differentiation in tuition; but he was uncomfortable with the differentiation of programs, not classes. He likes the idea of more flexibility. Regent Bulla stated he believes that pricing methodologies need to come into play if the Regents are going to look at differentiation.

Regent Frank introduced Regent Tom Horne, Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Dean Dan Kain, NAU, Dr. Joseph Ryan, ASU West, Dr. Jerry D’Agostino, UA, Dean Gene Garcia, ASU, Dr. Sam Digangi, Dr. Angel Jannasch-Pennell, Associate Dean Bob Hendricks, UA, and Dr. Bette Bergeron, ASU East, joined the meeting for this discussion.

Regent Tom Horne, along with the deans of the Colleges of Education, presented a report on the ways the Arizona Department of Education and Colleges of Education at the three universities are working together to improve teacher preparation and student learning.

Dean Dan Kain, NAU, spoke on alternative secondary paths to certification. Dr. Joseph Ryan, ASU West, spoke on Arizona Teacher Performance Assessment. Arizona is the only state, at this time, that requires all of its teachers to have passed part of the Master Teacher Program through the National Board certification process.

Dr. Jerry D’agostino, UA, spoke on collaborative research projects. Dean Gene Garcia, ASU, and Dr. Sam Digangi and Angel Jannasch-Pennell spoke about PRISM and IDEAL (Integrated Data to Enhance Arizona’s Learning). Associate Dean Bob Hendricks, UA, spoke about teacher preparation program approval process development and implementation.

Dr. Bette Bergeron, ASU East, spoke about lessons learned and the impact on programs in regards to teacher preparation program approval.

Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. George Davis and Ms. Stephanie Jacobson joined the meeting for this discussion.

Provost Glick highlighted the ASU requests. ASU is asking the Board to approve planning authority for a PhD in Sustainability, BA/MA in Sustainability Studies, BS/MS in Sustainability Science, and a BS in Software Engineering on the Tempe campus; to approve implementation of two academic programs, using the one-step expedited process: BS in Leadership in International Management and an Ed.D in Leadership and Innovation at the West campus; and to approve the following organizational changes: disestablish the Department of Theater and establish the School of Theater and Film, establish the School of Computing and Informatics, establish the Department of Biomedical Informatics, disestablish the School of Design and establish the Departments of Industrial Design, Interior Design, and Visual Communication Design, and establish the Center for Metabolic Biology at the Tempe Campus; and to establish the School of Education Innovation and Teacher Preparation at the Polytechnic campus.

Regent Stuart asked if the Department of Biomedical Informatics was funded, at least in part, by the $1,000,000 state appropriation. Dr. Glick said that was correct. ASU provided additional money and was asking for another $1,000,000 from the state next year.

Regent Boice asked about the terms research overhead and scientific services to the community. Dr. Glick said that research overhead is the indirect cost that comes from any grant; every university charges an overhead charge to the federal government that covers the costs of buildings, maintenance and debt service, administrative costs, laboratory animal care, etc. He then said that scientific services to the community is where the university may have instrumentation that is unique and, where appropriate, can sell services on those instruments to the community.

Regent Bulla stated that it would be helpful if we had a consistent definition between all of the universities of schools, colleges, departments.

Upon motion by Regent Frank, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board approved ASU’s requests as presented.

Provost Davis said the UA request was for the Board to authorize the UA to implement the MS with a major in Human Language Technology; establish the Department of Basic Medical Sciences (Phoenix), and establish the Vivian Hanson Arizona Film Institute.

Regent Frank asked where the new positions that are being filled under the Department of Basic Medical Sciences would be located. Dr. Davis replied that these individuals will be based in Phoenix at the University of Arizona’s College of Medicine program in coordination with Arizona State University. They will be faculty members of the University of Arizona and have joint appointments with Arizona State University.

Regent Boice said that he doesn’t recall any mention of social and behavioral science in the TRIF plan and would like someone to explain to him where that came from. Dr. Davis stated that in 2002-2005 TRIF money was being expended into this particular programmatic objective and it was in the initial proposal that came to the board.

Upon motion by Regent Frank, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board approved UA’s requests as presented.

Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith and Ms. Stephanie Jacobson joined the meeting for this discussion. The Regents are being asked to approve new goals for one ASU measure and three NAU measures. The goals for these measures had been achieved when reported in the 2005 RAM Report last spring. The next RAM report will be presented in the spring of 2006.

Ms. Jacobson reminded the board that in April 2005 when the Regents heard the first full report of the 22 Regents Accountability Measures, ASU and NAU had already achieved the goals on some of those measures. At that time the Board asked them to make some revisions and report back. These are the revisions to the original measures.

Dr. Glick stated that ASU was increasing the number of teachers served in the original measure from 22,500 to 26,200.

Dr. Grobsmith stated that NAU was changing the goals in three of their measures. They are increasing the goals in one undergraduate measure to go from 95% of students involved in research related or capstone experiences to 99%; for the two graduate degree goals, increasing the range from 1950 to 2200 graduate degrees awarded with regard to distance learning; and expanding the credit hours to underrepresented and rural areas particularly to 50,000 student credit hours.

Upon motion by Regent Frank, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board approved ASU’s request for an increase in the number of teachers served through ASU educational support programs from 22,500 to 26,200 and NAU’s request to increase the percentage of undergraduate degree recipients participating in a research-related or capstone experience to 99%, increase the number of graduate degrees awarded to 2200, and increase the student credit hours taken in distance learning programs to 50,000 student credit hours.

Ms. Jacobson said that the Board is being requested to authorize submission of the annual progress report on transfer articulation for the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) from the Arizona Board of Regents and the Arizona community college districts. The report is due annually to the JLBC on December 15.

Regent Bulla stated that it had been discovered there were some issues regarding articulation from the university back to the community colleges and this matter was being discussed. Regent Calderón stated he had asked Ms. Jacobson to put the issue on the agenda for the next JCC meeting.

Upon motion by Regent Frank, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board approved The 2005 Progress Report on Articulation and Transfer for Arizona Public Post-Secondary Education for submission to the JLBC.

Mr. Anderson briefly summarized the report’s findings. First, there has been significantly more enrollment growth so far in this decade than was recorded in all of the 1990’s. Second, non-resident undergraduate enrollment is 24.1% in the system and highest at the UA at 29.3%. Third, actual enrollments are above the projections used in last year’s university redesign study by more than 6,400.

President Likins stated he intended to maintain his non-resident population at no more than 30%. President Likins asked that the Central Office look into this matter and see if there should be a policy regarding this restriction. Regent Bulla stated that he would use caution when making a policy as this might be a politically sensitive issue. President Likins stated that he felt it was already an issue and that maybe the Central Office making a policy would preclude the legislature feeling the need to pass legislation.

Regent Calderón said there is a continued misconception that ABOR has a 25% out-of-state student ratio. President Palacios stated that she believed this might be an issue worth pursuing with staff. Regent Bulla asked why there were more seniors than juniors. He was reminded that 5th year students are called seniors too.

Mr. Ted Gates and Mr. Rich Stanley joined the meeting for this discussion. Arizona State University requested Combined Project Implementation Approval and Project Approval for the Living/Learning Dining Renovation Project with an estimated total cost of $4.8M. The renovation of dining facilities in Palo Verde Main, Manzanita, and the Memorial Union is necessary to support the proposed Living/Learning Student Success Program and required meal plan program to be implemented in Fall 2006. This project will be funded through an internal loan that will be repaid by auxiliary generated funds.

President Crow stated that this is a small renovation project in the context of a central element of ASU’s overall strategy for student access and student success. Our investments related to student living and learning programs have but one objective – enhance the graduation rate. ASU have been outlining for a very long time its desire to expand the residence hall capacity from facilities that house fewer than 10% of our student body to facilities that would capture as much of the freshman class as we can, and still provide living and learning spaces for students that wish to live in residence halls beyond their freshman year.

President Crow then stated that resources from the meal plan will not be used to fund this project. Mr. Rich Stanley stated that this part of the renovation project will renovate dining facilities in three buildings to properly support the program. The renovation costs will be supported by a mix of auxiliary funds, operating funds and existing reserves.

Regent Graff stated that he is concerned about this item. It needs to be clarified that the Board hasn’t yet approved the ASU mandatory meal plan, only the concept. His concern is about the possibility of passing a project that would be based on a revenue stream from a project that had not yet been approved. He appreciates that ASU has listened and has come back with some changes, specifically in stating that the revenue stream would no longer come from the meal plan. However, he believes that this item is intertwined with the meal plan The meal plan should be approved first and then the renovations. He also thinks there should be a student referendum on this issue.

Regent Hermes agreed with Regent Graff. The student voice is fragmented on whether or not they want a meal plan, but what is not fragmented is that students have made it clear that the meal plan and the renovations should be separated.

President Palacios asked if there had been an assessment of demand independent of the meal plan. President Crow stated that the university turns away hundreds of students per year whose families will not let them attend ASU because ASU cannot guarantee multiple-year residence hall spaces. ASU loses 1,600 freshmen every year because they have inadequate availability of living and learning environments. The university is operating under the assumption that people are dissatisfied with graduation rates and it is attempting to deploy physical assets that will attack that. ASU is attempting to price these mandatory meal plans at a level which is more acceptable then previous proposals and they are offering financial aid to those individuals being asked to live in residence halls, who, for whatever reason, cannot afford even the lowest priced mandatory meal plan.

Dr. Sally Rammage, ASU Interim Vice President for Student Affairs, stated that the dining hall facilities received, in 1996, 1997 and 1998, a small infusion of resources for cosmetic upgrading. The facilities were all originally built in the 50’s. Regent Bulla said he understood that these are facilities from the 50’s that have had cosmetic treatment about one decade ago and would need to be renovated even without a meal plan. The university had now stated it would not use funds from the meal plans themselves to pay for the renovation. Mr. Rich Stanley said that auxiliary funds would pay for the renovations, such as residence halls, existing dining program, bookstore, etc. Regent Bulla asked how these funds would be separated from the meal plan funds. Mr. Stanley said those numbers were tracked separately.

Regent Boice stated that a meal plan was conceptually approved in January 2005. The renovations were then approved. The plan originally was to use some of the meal plan funds to pay for the renovations. Regent Graff asked the Capital Committee how they can use funds from a project that had not received final approval to pay for a project that was in progress. The Capital Committee agreed. ASU then agreed to pay for the renovations out of funds other than meal plan funds.

Regent Calderón was concerned about this issue. He applauded Dr. Crow in stating that he would find the money some place else. He believes the Regents needed to make a statement, on the record, that the meal plan money will not be used for renovations, but the renovations need to be done.

President Crow stated the university decided, because of the importance of this project, that they would find other funds to pay for this project. Regent Graff stated that just not using the meal plan money to fund the project does not solve the problem for him. The two projects are so intertwined that his perception is that they are hard to separate now.

Regent Jewett stated that this matter should have been handled by the Capital Committee. The remedy appears to be a true bifurcation of the project from the meal plan. We are talking about language that will uphold a principle that Regent Graff has made very clear.

Regent Calderón asked President Crow if it could be said that if the Regents approve these renovations, the costs of the renovations will not be satisfied through student meal plan funds. President Crow said yes. Regent Calderón then moved that the Board approve this renovation with the provision that student meal plan funds not be used to retire the debt or to pay for the project. President Palacios seconded the motion.

Regent Bulla moved to amend the motion by saying, “subject to an express commitment that meal plan revenue derived from any future mandatory meal plan will be authorized by this Board. There was no second. Regent Calderón stated that the scope of his motion was limited to this project; and if the motion were to pass, he would understand it to mean that whatever the cost, whether it is the retirement of debt or whatever, would not come from student meal plan monies.

Regent Graff stated that he would like to see an amendment to the language stating that the passing of these renovations in no way places an upward pressure on the Board to pass the meal plan. Regent Boice stated there was a motion and a second on the table.

President Palacios asked Executive Director Sideman to read the language that was being worked on. Executive Director Sideman read the motion as follows, “Subject to the express commitment that meal plan revenue derived from any future mandatory meal plan that may be authorized by this Board will not be used to pay debt service for this project. "

Committee Chair Boice then stated that he believed the language of the motion should be, “subject to the express commitment that any meal plan revenue derived from this project that may be authorized by this Board will not be used to pay debt service for this project.”

Regent Calderón stated that he thought the point was that the meal plan money, if there is a meal plan, will not be used to retire any debt or to pay for the renovation project, but yet, it would still allow the project to move forward. President Palacios asked for a clarification as to whether he meant future meal plan money or just any meal plan money. Regent Calderon confirmed he meant revenues from future meal plans.

Regent Boice said that we can approve the project and if at anytime there is a meal plan approved relative to these three projects, none of those dollars will be used to retire the indebtedness on this project. Regent Boice, for clarification purposes, then restated the motion as follows, “That the Board approve the Arizona State University project implementation approval and project approval for the Living/Learning Dining Renovation project and that, if and when a meal plan is approved for this project, none of those dollars will be used to retire the indebtedness from these improvements.”

Regent Graff moved to amend the motion by the addition of the following language, “That this recognizes the mandatory meal plan that may be approved will not be necessary to sustain these renovations.” Regent Jewett seconded the motion. Regent Boice stated that the amendment was unnecessary as it is redundant. Regent Calderón asked what the distinction is that the amendment makes. Regent Graff stated that the original motion speaks only financially, his added sentence doesn’t just speak to money, but speaks to the sustainability of the renovations.

President Crow stated that the university had agreed that no revenues associated with any yet to be approved meal plan will ever be used for any aspect of this project. President Palacios asked for a vote on Regent Graff’s amendment. The motion failed with Regents Jewett, Bulla, and Graff voting yes and Regents Boice, Stuart, and Calderón voting no.

President Palacios then asked for a vote on the original motion made by Regent Calderón and clarified by Regent Boice. The motion passed with Regent Graff voting no.

Dr. Carol Campbell joined the meeting for this discussion. Arizona State University requested Project Implementation Approval for Academic Renovations and Deferred Maintenance Phase II improvements at an estimated cost of $20M. This project included the improvement of multiple systems and spaces across various buildings on the ASU Tempe campus. The project will be funded through the sale of System Revenue Bonds, and the debt service will be funded from Tuition, Other Local Funds, and Indirect Cost Recovery.

Upon motion by Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Stuart, the Board granted ASU Project Implementation Approval for Academic Renovations and Deferred Maintenance Phase II.

Dr. Carol Campbell joined the meeting for this discussion. Arizona State University requested an exemption to ABOR Policy 7-107 B.3 requiring Capital Development Plan approval for all projects, and requests Project Implementation Approval and Project Approval for the Sun Devil Stadium Upgrades Phase I project at an estimated cost of $10M. ASU was seeking approval to proceed immediately on this project to correct critical structural systems at Sun Devil Stadium. This project received Capital Improvement Plan Approval at the September 2005 Board meeting.

Upon motion by Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted ASU an exemption from ABOR Policy 7-107B.3 and approved a combined Project Implementation Approval and Project Approval for the Sun Devil Stadium Upgrades Phase I.

Mr. Joel Valdez joined the meeting for this discussion. The University of Arizona requested Project Implementation Approval for Phase 2 of the Residence Life Building Renewal Project at a total estimated project cost of $3.9M. Phase 2, Part A, includes renovations and building infrastructure replacement at Manzanita/Mohave Hall and Cochise Hall. Funding will be provided by the sale of Certificates of Participation with debt service funded from Residence Life Auxiliary Enterprise funds. No change in operations and maintenance costs is anticipated.

Mr. Valdez stated that this is Phase 2 of the originally approved Board project for renovating the dormitories. The university hopes to get JLBC approval next week and then would like to proceed to JCCR.

Upon motion by Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted the University of Arizona Project Implementation Approval for the Residential Life Building Renewal, Phase 2, Part A.

Mr. Joel Valdez and Ms. Mercy Valencia joined the meeting for this discussion. The University of Arizona was requesting permission to advertise and sell at auction, to the highest bidder, approximately 2,300 acres of undeveloped real property located west of Tucson near Ajo Highway between Sandario and San Joaquin Roads. The subject properties are outside the university planning area.

Regent Boice stated that he thought it would be appropriate when these kinds of funds are involved, in this instance approximately $23,000,000, that the university would bring back to the Board a statement as to how the funds would be spent. Mr. Valdez stated that President Likins promised the Board in the UA’s financial restructuring that $1.5 million of the proceeds from this sale will be going into the budget; the remainder of the funds will be used to clear the slate of various debts.

Upon motion by Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to advertise and sell at auction to the highest bidder approximately 2,300 acres of undeveloped real property located west of Tucson near Ajo Highway between Sandario and San Joaquin Roads.

Mr. Joel Valdez and Ms. Mercy Valencia joined the meeting for this discussion. The University of Arizona was requesting permission to advertise and sell at auction, to the highest bidder, approximately 320 acres of land located on a portion of the university’s Maricopa Agricultural Center in Maricopa, Arizona. The subject properties are outside the university planning area.

Ms. Valencia stated that this is only a portion of the Maricopa Farm – less than 15% of the farm. The university will continue its presence there, maintaining the Maricopa Agricultural Center as the premier semi-arid land research center for this state.

Upon motion by Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to advertise and sell at auction, to the highest bidder, approximately 320 acres of land located on a portion of the university’s Maricopa Agricultural Center in Maricopa, Arizona.

Mr. Robert Mitchell thanked the Board for its support of the decision packages related to salaries. The AFC hopes that some of the money, if appropriated, can be used to address compression and equity issues. The AFC hopes that faculty will be able to contribute to the decision making process concerning the money.

Mr. Mitchell said the review teams for Learner Centered Education on each campus have finished the first round of reviewing and the finalists will come to the Board in January. Regent Frank and Ms. Stephanie Jacobson have been leading a review process for the entire LCE grant program. Dr. Mel Hall was hired as a consultant. The AFC has seen preliminary versions of his work and has found it to be very impressive and interesting. The AFC wants to thank Ms. Jacobson for her work in coordinating the LCE process.

Regent Boice reported on the University of Arizona Presidential Search Committee. In October 2005, the UA Presidential Search Committee held twenty campus and community forums to gather input from stakeholders regarding the issues facing the UA in the next several years and the Leadership Characteristics that should be sought in the next UA president. The Board is asked to approve the statement of Leadership Characteristics as proposed by the UA Presidential Search Committee.

Upon motion by Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board approved the statement of Leadership Characteristics as proposed by the UA Presidential Search Committee.

The Arizona Students Association thanked Regent Herstam and Regent Jewett and stated they were incredibly grateful for their service and dedication to the public university students. They have set a precedent for being open to students and communicating with students.

Contact us
Arizona Board of Regents
2020 N. Central Ave., Suite 230
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4593
Telephone: (602) 229-2500 / Fax: (602) 229-2555

	MINUTES

MINUTES