 |
MINUTES |
 |
|
MINUTES |
|
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
MINUTES OF A MEETING
JANUARY 20 AND 21, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
RESOLUTIONS OF GRATITUDE FOR REGENTS JOHN MUNGER AND RUDY CAMPBELL
Public Awareness Committee Consent
REPORT FROM HOST PRESIDENT LATTIE COOR
PRESENTATION/DISCUSSION BY REPRESENTATIVE WEIERS
Public Private Partnerships Update
STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE (Continued)
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
INQUIRIES, REQUEST, REPORTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
<<<<<>>>>>
MINUTES OF A MEETING
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
January 20 and 21, 2000
A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held January 20 and 21, in the University Center Building LaSala A, Arizona State University West Campus, Phoenix, Arizona. President Amos called the meeting to order at 1:55 p.m..
| PRESENT: | Regent George H. Amos, III Regent Rudy Campbell Regent Judy Gignac Regent Jack Jewett Regent Chris Herstam Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan Regent Kay McKay Regent John Munger (Thursday Only) Regent Christine Thompson Regent Donald Ulrich |
| ABSENT: | Governor Jane Dee Hull |
Also present were: President Lattie Coor, Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Dr. Elaine Maimon, Dr. Charles Bantz (Thursday Only), Dr. Milton Glick (Thursday Only), Dr. Mernoy Harrison (Friday Only), and Mr. Steve Miller, Arizona State University; President Peter Likins, Dr. Paul Sypherd, Ms. Judith Leonard, Dr. Michael Gottfredson, Dr. Richard Powell, Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Randy Groth, and Mr. Greg Fahey, University of Arizona; President Clara Lovett, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Mr. Kurt Davis, Dr. Mason Somerville, Dr. Michael Mullen, and Ms. Anne Barton, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director Linda Blessing, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, Ms. Louise Houseworth, Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda, and Ms. Norma Salas, Central Office; Dr. William Davey, Past Chair of the Arizona Faculties Council, and Regent Designees Christina Palacios, and Gary Stuart.
All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the January 20 and 21, 2000, Documents File.
Regent Ulrich led the Pledge of Allegiance. President Amos welcomed Regent Designee Palacios and Regent Designee Stuart.
Elaine Scruggs, Mayor of Glendale, spoke on behalf of adding lower division courses at ASU West. She said the City of Glendale considers ASU West to be a valuable asset to both the West Valley and the entire state; however, its potential could be much greater if it were a four-year university. She pointed out this would not only provide a needed educational center for the West Valley, but would also help the air quality as there are many people who now drive to the Main Campus in Tempe.
John Keegan, Mayor of Peoria, said the people of the West Valley would like access to a four-year university without the necessity of traveling to Tempe. New companies moving to the area always ask about the educational opportunities available, and they do not understand why only upper division classes are available at ASU West. As both a Mayor and as a father, he supports adding lower division courses at ASU West.
Danny Ayala, representing Mayor Rimsza, presented Mayor Rimsza's apologies for not being able to attend. On behalf of the Mayor and the City of Phoenix, he offered support for upper division classes at ASU West.
Diane McCarthy, President of Westmarc, a coalition of thirteen communities in Western Maricopa County, says ASU West would serve an area of 500 square miles as a four-year institution. As a legislator, Ms. McCarthy participated in the founding of ASU West and now believes it is time to add lower division courses.
Derick Kuroy, representing the Arizona Students' Association, told the Regents the students are seeking legislation to establish a second Student Regent as a member of the Board of Regents as soon as possible. The second regent would be a non-voting member, serving on a two-year rotating basis, as a mentor or apprentice.
Jonathan Weisbuch, Director of the Maricopa County Department of Public Health, spoke to the request by the University of Arizona to create a College of Public Health. He and his colleagues agree there should be a College of Public Health in the State of Arizona; but he believes, when that College is developed, the educational services, the research environment, the teaching program, and faculty must be associated with Maricopa County as well as the Tucson area. He said Maricopa County is the largest county in the state with the most number of public health professionals.
RESOLUTIONS OF GRATITUDE FOR REGENTS JOHN MUNGER AND RUDY CAMPBELL
Upon motion of President Amos, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board adopted a resolution honoring Regent John Munger for his eight years of service on the Board of Regents. Regent Munger thanked the Regents and said his time on the Board had been one of the greatest experiences of his life. The educational experience and friendship had been overwhelming. He offered any assistance he might be able to render in the future.
Upon motion of President Amos, seconded by Regent Thompson, the Board adopted a resolution honoring Regent Campbell for his sixteen years on the Board of Regents. Regent Campbell thanked the Regents and said he had served with 40 individual Regents during his two terms and had enjoyed working with all of them. He believes the effort to improve the teacher education programs is the most important work the Board has ever done as it will eventually affect all the schools and children in the state.
The items on the Consent Agenda, which are marked in these minutes with an *, were considered as consent matters and were adopted upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Keegan. There was no individual discussion of these items.
The Board adopted the September 23 and 24, 1999, Executive Session minutes.
*Amendment to Board Policy 4-301, Resident Waivers (Second Reading)
The Board approved an amendment to Board Policy 4-301, Resident Waivers, that addresses legislation requiring the public universities to assure fair and equitable access by Arizona students from public, private, charter, and home schools to scholarships and waivers issued solely on academic merit.
*Amendment to Board Policy 4-203, Requirement for Residency Status (Second Reading)
The Board approved an amendment to Board Policy 4-203, Requirements for Resident Status, that expands the provisions of this policy to include students from counties in Nevada and Utah which border northwestern Arizona and impact the programs offered through NAU/Mohave Community College partnerships.
The Board received a written report on the 1999 Fall Arizona University System headcount enrollments. Overall, they increased 0.9% from 103, 974 in Fall 1998, to 104,931 in Fall 1999. Undergraduate headcount enrollments increased 1.6% and graduate headcount enrollments decreased 1.1%. Increases in headcount enrollment were reported by ASU Main, ASU West, ASU East, and NAU.
*Appointment of Regents' Professors
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to promote Dr. Oscar J. Martinez, History, Dr. Soroosh Sorooshian, Hydrology and Water Resources, and Dr. Barbara N. Timmermann, Pharmacology and Toxicology, to the rank of Regents' Professor, to take effect July 1, 2000, and to award the salary increase that customarily accompanies these appointments ($5,000 annually).
Public Awareness Committee Consent
The Board approved a revision to Board Policy 1-117, Naming of Facilities and Programmatic Units for Individuals or Organizations, which delegates the authority for the naming of facilities and programmatic units to the university presidents, in accordance with the Board approved guidelines. Board members will have an opportunity to provide feedback on an individual basis to the university presidents at the early stages of consideration of naming proposals.
*Salt Center Building: Conceptual Approval (UA)
The Board granted Conceptual Approval to the University of Arizona for the SALT Center Project to construct a $2.7M building for use by the Strategic Alternative Learning Techniques Center for students with learning disabilities. The proposed source of funding is gifts. The university received Project Initiation in February 1999.
The Board authorized Arizona State University and the University of Arizona to enter into the Master Grant Agreement with the Foundation for Research and the Research Development Foundation, by which the universities will be agreeing to assign to the Research Development Foundation (RDF) any intellectual property developed under research sponsored under this agreement in order for the Research Development Foundation to own and manage such intellectual property on behalf of the universities. This agreement provides for an assignment fee to the universities for such assigned intellectual property, payable through royalties accruing as the result of RDF licensing the intellectual property for commercial development and dissemination.
*Contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (UA)
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to approve a contract from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to provide the Production of Resource on Mars In-Situ for Exploration (PROMISE) project. The amount of the contract is $2,503,420 for the first year, $7,535,082 for the three years of the project. NASA may provide additional funding for subcontracts that would bring the total funding to the university to an approximate amount of $15M. The contract period is January 1, 2000, through May 31, 2003.
The Board received a written report summarizing the Internal Control Review of the Center for Excellence in Education and the College of Business Administration at Northern Arizona University. Three internal recommendations were conveyed to and accepted by the Center for Excellence in Education. There were no findings reportable to the Board. Two internal recommendations were conveyed to and accepted by the College of Business Administration. There were no findings reportable to the Board.
*Amendment to Lease Agreement with Coconino Community College (NAU)
The Board granted approval for Northern Arizona university to amend the lease with Coconino Community College District to modify the legal description of this property boundary for the purpose of roadway design modifications. It will allow the alignment of the main access roadway to properly coincide with existing adjacent roads.
*Proposed Amendment to Board Policy 3-301, University Investments (Second Reading)
The Board approved an amendment to Board Policy 3-301, University Investments, that provides the universities investment alternatives. It will allow the universities to invest in asset-backed securities and allow broader access to expertise in the investment industry. The amendments are consistent with the investment policy of the State Treasurer.
The Board approved the sale, to Grandilla Inc., and Foot Creek Corporation of Arizona, of a 115 acre parcel in the northeast section of the Cowden Tract at a purchase price of $24,393.60/acre. The Seller will be responsible for the City of Tolleson water assessment fee of $.08/sq. ft. and the Broker's fee of approximately $224,421. Buyer will be responsible for providing all offsite infrastructure as proposed by the Master Plan.
The net proceeds of the sale will be approximately $2,125,112 (including standard closing costs and the cost of the water assessment fee). From that amount, it is proposed that $600,000 be set aside to pay for the offsite improvements which have been required by the City of Tolleson and which have now been substantially completed. The Cowden beneficiaries had previously approved use of funds from the sale of parcels to Utility Trailer and Roads West for this purpose, but both of these sales have been delayed. This will leave approximately $1,525,112 for distribution to the Cowden Beneficiaries, with the Board's share being approximately $587,168.
*Appointment of Bond Counsel and Financial Consultant Services (NAU)
The Board authorized Northern Arizona University to retain the firm of Snell & Wilmer as bond counsel and Dain Rauscher as financial consultant. The term of contracts will be for one year, with four additional one-year renewal options upon mutual agreement. The fees for Snell and Wilmer, based on a $15M bond issue, would be $15,000 plus reimbursement for direct expenses. The fees for Dain Rauscher are $.80 per $1,000 of financing.
The Board approved the appointment of Dr. John D. Haeger as Provost and Professor of History with tenure, effective as early as June 1, 2000, but no later than July 1, 2000. The salary for this position will be at the fiscal year rate of $155,000. Dr. Haeger has a Ph.D. in American history from Loyola University and is currently Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at Towson University in Maryland.
REPORT FROM HOST PRESIDENT LATTIE COOR
On behalf of the members of the Council of Presidents, President Coor expressed appreciation to Regents Munger and Campbell for their service on the Board.
President Coor said the enrollment at ASU West is growing. He informed the Regents about developments on campus and introduced Provost Elaine Maimon.
Dr. Coor introduced Dr. Alice Christie. She teaches both graduate and undergraduate students and was instrumental in developing the concentration in educational media and computers for the Master in Education program at ASU West. Dr. Christie has received both local and national honors. She had the Regents participate in a computer exercise to get an overview of how technology can enhance learner centered education.
Sandy Luedke, a former high school science teacher and currently the technology coordinator in the Deer Valley Unified School District, demonstrated a program for high school teachers. Heather Carter, a 7th and 8th grade language arts teacher from Paradise Valley Unified School District, demonstrated a program for middle school teachers. Valerie Naish, a K-12 teacher in the gifted and talented program in Peoria Unified School District, demonstrated an elementary program. Jennifer Boos, the teacher facilitator in the Washington Elementary School District, demonstrated a primary program. Mary O'Malley, a lecturer at ASU West, demonstrated an elementary program. Dr. Christie demonstrated an elementary or primary group program.
Regent Ulrich asked how parents were reacting to their students being taught by learner centered methods and was told parents are appreciating the opportunity to more fully understand what their children are doing. Regent Keegan asked how teachers guard against students losing themselves on the Internet rather than keeping their focus. She was told teachers are told to start small, become comfortable with the technology, and make certain it fits with the curriculum. It is not an add-on. The most important thing administrators can do is to train the teachers.
Regent Herstam congratulated Dr. Coor on his 10th anniversary as President of Arizona State University.
Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting.
Faculty Tenure/Post Tenure Report
Dr. Tom Wickenden, Provost Milton Glick, Interim Provost Mason Somerville, and Provost Paul Sypherd joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett reminded the Board the report on Faculty Tenure and Post-Tenure Review is an annual report. Dr. Glick described the process that had been developed for post tenure review and then highlighted some of the items in ASU's report. There are very few faculty members at ASU whose performance is less than satisfactory. At ASU Main, of 27 persons who entered a faculty development program or performance improvement program, 85% completed the plan and are now fully contributing to the mission of ASU. Of the rest, most left the university voluntarily. There was a 100% increase in the number of people choosing to retire rather than undergo post tenure review.
Dr. Glick said the deans' audit turned out to be one of the best parts of this review as it gave the dean and an external faculty committee an opportunity to really take a retrospective look and see how well the unit has been doing its job. This year thirteen units got direction from the dean's committee that there are ways they should be doing their job better.
Concerning the Tenure Report, Dr. Glick reported that roughly half of the faculty that were hired in that cohort received tenure. Most of them are not denied tenure, because when the system works well, there is an understanding reached much earlier that these people are not likely to get tenure, and most cancel out earlier. Roughly half of the faculty that are hired receive tenure. The data on minority and women faculty show almost identical percentages; approximately 50% of those hired receive tenure. The fact that few are denied tenure demonstrates good counseling and mentoring during the process.
Dr. Sypherd said the University of Arizona report is similar. Most of the faculty were satisfactory or more than satisfactory in their evaluations. The very small number that were found to be unsatisfactory correlated almost perfectly with the student review of teaching conducted by survey at the end of each semester.
Dr. Somerville pointed out that by the time an individual has prepared him or herself to compete for a faculty position, there has already been a substantial filtering process. Northern Arizona University's experience was similar to that of the other two universities. He believes the process is working very well and believes it has resulted in substantial improvement over the past three or four years. He thanked the Board for its support and help in developing this process.
Regent Campbell said he was very proud of having participated, with the faculty, in developing this process. He understands other schools around the nation are now looking at Arizona when developing their own processes. Regent Amos thanked everyone for working together to develop a good working process.
Regent Gignac said she especially appreciates the candidness of the deans' reports as to where the problems are and what is happening. In the past, the Regents received a tenure report on women and minorities. She asked if those figures could be added to subsequent reports.
Dr. Wickenden said the Report includes all the information requested in Board policy, but the data is available and could be added to the Report. Data on faculty whose workload is reassigned in terms of research, teaching, or service and data concerning faculty who enter the post tenure review process but leave prior to completing the process is also available and could also be added to the report.
Regent Herstam agreed he would also like to see the data on women and minorities included in the report. Regent Jewett asked the Chief Academic Officers to customize the Report as requested in the discussion. Provost Sypherd asked if it should just be incorporated into next year's Report, or if the Board would like to see what data is currently available. He was told the Regents would like to see the current data, but would also like to see it incorporated into succeeding Reports.
Regent Keegan asked if those figures might then create tension within the committees as this puts emphasis on one or two areas. Provost Glick said he did not believe that would be a problem. The issue demanding care is to make sure no individuals are personally identified when dealing with small numbers.
University Consolidated Accountability Report
Provost Glick, Provost Sypherd, Interim Provost Somerville, Dr. Inez Chisholm, Dr. Elizabeth Ervin, Dr. Marie Zeglen, and Ms. Kate Dillon Hogan joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett reminded the Regents they had approved the concept of the University Consolidated Accountability Report (UCAR) at the June 1999 meeting and asked the universities to bring a draft report forward for approval. In addition to approving the draft report, the Regents are also asked to consider and take action on the replacement of three previous reports with the UCAR. The three previous reports include the Minority Student Progress Report, the Annual Report on Measurable Goals for Linking Faculty Teaching Effort to the Quality of Undergraduate Education, and the final Report of the Faculty Workload Study.
Ms. Dillon Hogan reminded the Board it had reviewed and approved the measures in the Report in June 1999 and asked the universities to return with information on those measures regarding the baseline and baseline years and the goals and the goal years. Based on the discussion and actions today, the first official report will be presented in June. As such, it will replace the three reports listed above. The first part of the Report are the so-called "process measures"; the second part is the so-called "outcome measures"; and the third part deals with the "systems measures".
Ms. Dillon Hogan explained the components of the Report. The universities have proposed the addition of four new measures in Category 10, Excellence Measures. They would be provided as information only. This has been described as value added since it gives a better representation of the kind of experience students have had at the universities. Some of the new measures, as they appear in the report, do not have information beside them. It is because these new measures will be based on survey data that will be compiled during this academic year. The baseline data will be available once the surveys have been completed.
The work group has recommended some changes to the goals and goal years of measures that existed in some of the previous reports. These changes have been based on several factors. One, they have already achieved some of the goals and felt it was appropriate to increase the goal. Two, the goal year was 2004 or 2005, and so it seemed appropriate to make the goal the same year. Third, based on the experience of the last four years, the universities have been able to obtain a more realistic viewpoint of what is achievable and have reset the goals to be more realistic. Attached to each university report is an explanation of these changes. The June report will include any recommendation from today as well as one more careful review of each measure to insure consistency.
Regent Gignac said two of the universities had set goals as a single number, but the University of Arizona set a range. She was not sure which way would be more appropriate, but she would like all three universities to agree to either ranges or a single number. Provost Sypherd explained the reasoning behind the use of a range instead of a single number; but said if it was the wish of the Board, a single number could be used.
Regent Gignac said she believed the issue of students who begin at the university and graduate within six years is meaningless because there is such a large amount of "swirl" among the universities and between the universities and the community colleges. She asked if we have the ability to track students as they transfer among the universities and between the community colleges and the universities. Ms. Dillon Hogan said the work group had done research to see if it was feasible; and at this moment, it is not. However, when changes are made to the transfer student data warehouse this summer, it may become feasible; so the information should be able to be gathered in the next couple of years.
Provost Glick said the issue that would always make this more difficult than imagined is the law passed by the legislature denying the use of social security numbers as a normal student ID. That means a student who uses a different ID at different institutions will be hard to track.
President Amos said he had several problems with the proposed goals and did not feel comfortable with what was suggested. He did not like the ranges; he preferred a single number goal. He also did not like lowering the graduation rate goal, and did not like raising the number of students who graduate with more than 160 hours. He did not like having the goal for students taught by tenure and tenure track faculty to be set lower than the current level of achievement. He also suggested some of the items should be selected to be audited so the report would have credibility with outside constituencies.
President Likins said he believed the guidance of the Regents had been heard on ranges. He said the University of Arizona would conform to the pattern established by the other institutions as long as there was an understanding that the optimum number cannot actually be identified, but the universities would strive to meet the goal and that changes would be considered as time unfolds.
Presidents Likins and Coor said it is hard to determine the correct graduation rate due to the "swirl" of students among the three universities and the fact the Arizona universities provide access to students with lower grade point averages than private colleges. Both believed tracking students across institutions will be helpful. President Coor said he would like to keep in mind the faculty classified as lecturers are excellent teachers and credit should be given to them as well as ranked faculty. He also would support an audit of measures and goals included in the report.
President Amos suggested the graduation rate be established at a level that would be similar to peer institutions. Regent Munger said he was not concerned with the graduation rate as many students have no intention of graduating in a certain number of years. He believes it is more important to be able to say any student who enters college, stays in the same major, and receives counseling, can graduate in four years. He believes a survey would provide enough data to determine the "swirling" rate. He would still like to see students who accumulate more than 160 hours pay the non-resident tuition rate. He also said a lot of work and thought went into establishing the goal numbers and he would not like to see any of them changed without the same amount of work and thought.
Regent Ulrich said he agreed with Regent Munger that the graduation rate did not have much meaning in today's society as there are many fewer traditional college students. He does not want to see the report grow. As more data is available and is added, he would like to see measures that have little meaning removed. Regent Thompson said she believed the number of credits accumulated by students is a better measure than time to graduation. President Amos restated his belief that time to graduation was an important measure.
President Amos moved the universities move forward to consolidate the report and to have the academic officers return at the next meeting with the discussion heard today incorporated into the measures and goals. Provost Glick said the universities were not going to do anything between now and June that would be driven explicitly by the goals; so if the measures are approved, the refined goals could be brought back at the next meeting or they could be set in June when the first report is brought to the Board. Regent Gignac suggested the Board approve Recommendation A with the exception of the goals, Recommendation B which approves three additional measures for the UCAR, Recommendation C, which approves the changes as proposed to the measures, and Recommendation D which approves the substitution of the UCAR for the three existing reports. Regent Amos said he was happy with everything but some of the goals and the ranges which he would like to see return to the February meeting.
Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board approved Recommendations B and D.
Authorization to Plan and Implement New Degree Programs and Review of Planning Inventory
ASU East Vice Provost David Schwalm, ASU West Provost Elaine Maimon, ASU Provost Milton Glick, UA Provost Paul Sypherd, NAU Interim Provost Mason Somerville, and Dr. Thomas Wickenden joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said the Regents were being asked to authorized the universities to have authority for the planning or extension of the planning period for two programs, the implementation of 16 new academic degree programs, two new departments at ASU, two new Centers at NAU, one new Institute at the UA, and one new College at the UA.
Each of the Provosts explained their respective planning and/or implementation requests. President Amos asked why, when the universities have trouble being competitive with their salaries now, they are asking to establish more centers. Dr. Somerville and Dr. Sypherd explained why the requests were being brought forward.
Regent Gignac said she would like to see additional budget information presented with the requests. In the future, she would like the budget information to be more clearly presented and when reallocated dollars are used, she would like to know where those dollars are coming from. She also asked what would happen to the proposed UA College of Public Health if it did not receive any funding through the tobacco funds. Dean Dalen focused the discussion to respond to Regents Gignac's question. He explained the need for the proposed College of Public Health and what current faculty would be a part of that College. He said the tobacco funds would help make the College better, but the UA would proceed even without those funds and in fact, had already received gift funds dedicated to the new College.
Dean Dalen explained how the UA works with Maricopa County in the health field. Regent Gignac asked for an inventory of all existing centers and institutes at the three universities. She also noted the Institute of String Music had a sunset review date while the other requests did not. She was told that all centers and institutes have sunset dates and that such information can be provided to the Board.
Upon motion of Regent Campbell, seconded by Regent Thompson, the Board approved the planning and implementation of the academic programs as proposed, with President Amos voting no. Upon motion of Regent Campbell, seconded by Regent Thompson, the Board approved the Departments, Center, Institutes, and the College of Public Health as proposed.
Academic Performance of Arizona's High School Graduates
Mr. Don-Paul Benjamin joined the meeting for this discussion. Mr. Benjamin said this report includes data reflecting admissions status and academic performance of Arizona's high school graduates who entered the universities before and after the Board's new admission requirements went into effect in Fall of 1998. He said there has been an increase of 20% in the number of students admitted with deficiencies and it appears this is confined to an increase in deficiencies in the fine arts area. This and other concerns will be the subject of more discussion this Spring when the current study of high school transcripts, known as the Eligibility Study, is concluded. There did not appear to be any significant issues at this time. Regent Campbell said he was concerned the fine arts requirement was being abused by the high schools and he was glad to hear there would be more discussion on the issue.
Regent Keegan said she had some questions she would submit in writing and Mr. Benjamin said that would be helpful now and for preparation of the Eligibility Study. In addition, she said the study seems to lead to the conclusion the high schools are preparing students quite well in the language arts and in mathematics and that does not mesh with information received from testing or from the universities. She wondered if the SAT scores of entering students went up in language arts and math. She noted there seems to be an increase in grade point averages (GPA), and asked if the GPA was higher for these students then the general student body. She asked what was meant by the conclusion the new requirements led to an improved success of students.
Mr. Benjamin said one year does not a trend make; so future data will show whether the conditions hold. He explained the data showing 78% of students who took the intermediate algebra course got a C or better this past year, as opposed to 66% the prior year. There were also fewer students taking the remedial course. This seemed dramatic because prior to this year, there was just a slight decrease in those taking precollege algebra, a slight increase in GPA, and a slight increase in the percentage of those making a C or better. It was agreed the data is incomplete at this time. One reason for the increase could be the more rigorous admission standards may have resulted in more students starting at the community college level, especially since the articulation agreements have made transfer to the universities easier.
President Likins agreed conclusions should not be made from just one year's data. However, if you look at the calculus courses, rather than looking at the low level math courses, you see the students who are prepared had not changed. That would suggest the change in the mathematics requirements for entrance to the universities has not impacted the best students at all; however, it has impacted the math students who were historically underprepared. It will be interesting to see if more years data proves this point.
Dr. Thomas Wickenden joined the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Wickenden reminded the Regents, after the Board discussion in November, they had asked the members of the Council of Presidents to consider a policy that would affirm for students the importance of public service by requiring the universities to provide periodic reports on their public service activities.
Dr. Wickenden said Paragraph C of the proposed policy calls for reports to be submitted that describe three categories of public service activity--unpaid volunteer service, service related to credit courses, and service related to employment. However, the discussion in November did not give clear direction as to whether the Board felt this policy should also address the public service activities students have engaged in before they are enrolled by collecting relevant information when students apply for admission. Paragraph D is not part of the language proposed, but was part of one of the options reviewed by the Board at the November meeting. It contains more details than may be appropriate for policy, but is included for consideration by the Regents.
Regent Ulrich said the discussion at the November meeting concerned whether the policy should contain a mandate. He spoke in support of the proposed additional language. Regent Thompson stated a concern with the specific language in A; she liked the language as stated in the opening paragraph. She said she would like to have all the graduate and professional schools included, not just the law and medical colleges. She also had a problem with the mandate language in the proposed additional paragraph.
President Amos said he believed the stronger language would emphasis the Board's intention to make public service important and he thanked Dean White for writing the paragraph. Regent McKay said she was comfortable with the policy as long as the additional paragraph was not included as she considered it micromanaging. Regent Campbell said he had always participated in public service and was an advocate for everyone to perform public service. However, he stated his opposition to the additional paragraph. Regent Munger said he believed the additional paragraph just said the Regents believed public service was important and he had no objection to adding Paragraph D to the policy.
Regent Herstam said he believed this was discussed in depth at the last meeting and it did not appear to him Regents had changed their opinions. Regent Campbell and Regent Thompson had expressed his viewpoint; so he hoped this first reading would be for the policy as presented without Paragraph D. President Likins said he believed Paragraph D would revise the application forms for the Colleges of Law and Medicine and asked that the Regents not redesign the application forms without at least reading them.
Regent Gignac said she believed Paragraph D was too specific; she could support a paragraph stating the Regents encourage the Colleges of Medicine and Law to include this in their applications. Regent Jewett moved to add Paragraph D to the proposed policy. President Amos seconded the motion. President Amos said he was not concerned with the students already in the Colleges of Law and Medicine; it was the student being admitted into the schools. He spoke on behalf of adding Paragraph D. President Coor said he did not believe Paragraph D articulated the ideas expressed by the majority of Regents at the last meeting. The motion failed with Regents McKay, Jewett, Campbell, Thompson, Gignac, Herstam, and Keegan voting no. Regents Munger, Ulrich, and Amos voted yes.
Because President Lovett would not be present on Friday, the Board agreed to take Item 12, Health Professions Clinical Services Building, out of order.
Regent Herstam chaired this portion of the meeting.
Health Professions Clinical Services Building: Project Initiation (NAU)
Interim Provost Mason Somerville, Dr. Michael Mullen, Dr. Art Ashton, and Dean James Blagg joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam explained Northern Arizona University was requesting Project Initiation Approval for a facility to consolidate and expand its health professions programs and clinical facilities. The estimated total cost of the project is $20M.
President Lovett thanked the Board for taking the item out of order. She said putting this project together provided a great opportunity to strengthen NAU's relationship with the community it serves. Regent Herstam asked if the university planned to include this project in a future Capital Improvement Plan if Tobacco Settlement funds are not received and was told yes. The university is also making efforts to get private foundations interested in this project.
Regent Gignac said she did not believe it is the mission of the universities, with the exception of the College of Medicine, to be serving underserved clients in health care directly. She appreciates that this document has been recast since the last meeting to make education the primary function, rather than treatment. Regent McKay stated her support and the Flagstaff community's support for this proposed provision of services.
Regent Ulrich said he was hearing there could be different models for this building. Dean Blagg said NAU was hoping to expand the current space to increase the size of the current clinics and add two new clinics, a health and wellness clinic and a nursing clinic. These clinics would serve indigent and under-insured clients. This would provide more slots for needed clinical service for students. Regent Ulrich asked if a revenue stream had been considered and was told the current clinics are self-supporting and it is assumed these would be also. They also believe the increase in students will bring increased 22 to 1 formula money to pay for faculty.
President Amos said he was concerned the lines between education and health clinics were being blurred and he believed NAU's mission is education.
Regent McKay moved to grant Project Initiation to Northern Arizona University for the Health Professions Clinical Services Building addition and renovation of the Health Professions Building. The motion was seconded by Regent Jewett. There was a discussion on whether this project would be constructed only if there are tobacco funds available and it was stated by NAU they intend to put the project into the Capital Improvement Plan and proceed with the project whether they receive tobacco money or have to obtain other funding. The Conceptual Approval stage will require the university to bring forward more information on funding if the tobacco money is not available. The motion carried with Regents Campbell, Jewett, Herstam, Munger, Keegan, McKay, Thompson, and Gignac voting yes, Regent Ulrich abstaining, and President Amos voting no.
The meeting recessed at 5:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 a.m. on Friday with Regent Munger absent and with Interim Provost Somerville setting in for President Lovett.
PRESENTATION/DISCUSSION BY REPRESENTATIVE WEIERS
President Amos introduced Representative Jim Weiers. Representative Weiers said he was speaking as a parent, father, and businessman, not as a legislator. He has chosen to live in the West Valley. He said ASU West is currently a diamond in the rough. Students that want the university experience are forced to travel to ASU Main, which is filled to capacity; and he believes it would be helpful to the university and the West Valley to add lower division classes to ASU West. He believes ASU West can become a shining star in the West Valley and can still continued its partnership with Glendale Community College.
President Coor thanked Representative Weiers for his comments and for initiating the process that led to the feasibility study to determine whether ASU West should add lower division classes.
PROGRAMS COMMITTEE (Continued)
Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting.
Learner-Centered Education: Academic Program Example and Report from Arizona Team
Dr. Thomas Wickenden, Dr. Inés Chisholm, Dr. Jane Carey, Dr. Douglas Johnson, Dr. Vincent Waldron, and Dr. John Krueckeberg joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett reminded the Regents the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) has been asked to provide the Board with an example of a Learner-Centered Academic Program based on the definition reviewed by the Board in November.
The AFC presented profiles of three different students who are communication studies majors at ASU West with the career goals of becoming attorneys. They are all subject to the same requirements in their degree programs. The difference is how instructional tools and scheduling options were mixed and matched so the students can achieve their goals in different ways. The presentation focused on the last sixty units the students were completing.
Regent Gignac asked if the presentation was representative of what is currently available and was told these options are available, but not to all students in all disciplines. It would take more resources to make them available to everyone. Regent Thompson said she would like everyone to keep in mind the changes in measurement, such as time to graduation and faculty evaluation, that will become necessary as flexibility becomes the norm.
Regent Ulrich said it would be helpful to have the student actors come back and talk about what actually worked and what had to be modified as they moved through their studies. This demonstration could use a mix of internships, coalitions, partnerships, group study, and technology, for example. He believed this would be a good way to demonstrate the flexibility to interested parties in the private sector who do not understand learner centered education. The AFC said they could produce something like what was requested, but it would take some resources. Regent Ulrich asked to be informed what resources would be needed and he said he would help secure what would be necessary. It was suggested it would be good to capture the student perspective on this new way of learning, and it would also be helpful to capture how faculty has to change. It is a significant change in the way of approaching education that requires training in new methods of instruction and great time flexibility.
Dr. Chisholm said learner centered education has also been integrated in traditional courses, not just in courses delivered by technology or at flexible times. She also said not all the various options demonstrated today will work equally well in all disciplines. For example, nursing and education need to have some "hands on" experience.
Regent Gignac gave a brief summary of the national conference in Florida attended by herself, Regent Ulrich, Dr. Jerry Hogle, Dr. Judith Sellers, and Dr. Thomas Wickenden in January. It was the first workshop sponsored by the National Academy for Academic Leadership. The workshop was entitled, "Leading Institutional Change." Regent Ulrich and Dr. Davey also described their experiences.
Regent Jewett reiterated that the aforementioned group would generate a report with various recommendations proposed, perhaps as early as the February meeting.
Regent Herstam chaired this portion of the meeting.
Governor's Task Force on Higher Education: Status Report
Regent Herstam reported the Task Force had met four times, most recently on January 13. The January meeting focused on the new economy and what the business community needs from higher education in Arizona. Mary Jo Waits of the Morrison Institute made a presentation on the New Economy in Arizona. A videotaped segment by Craig Barrett of Intel focused on the importance of quality programs and research in our universities, and Steve Zylstra of Simula Corporation presented the innovation needs of the GSPED High Technology Cluster.
Regent Herstam said the Task Force has identified broad goals and priorities; it has identified the future enrollment demand for higher education; and has heard what business wants from higher education in the context of the "New Economy." Some of the Task Force members are ready to get beyond generalities and into addressing specific proposals on how higher education will support the "New Economy." The next meeting will be in February.
Regent Ulrich chaired this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda, Ms. Louise Houseworth, Ms. Gale Tebeau, and Mr. Dick Roberts joined the meeting for this discussion. Ms. Houseworth explained the FY 2001 Supplemental Budget Request and the Governor's recommendation, as presented in a summary chart. The Arizona University System request from General Funds was $2.1M and a reduction in State Collections of $7.9M. The Governor's recommendations included a $4.9M reduction in General Funds and a $7.6M reduction in State Collections. The Governor's General Funds recommendation was $7M less than the amount requested by the universities. The recommendation by the Governor for revisions based on the 22 to 1 enrollment growth formula was a reduction of $1M greater than the amount requested by the universities. In addition, while the Governor's recommendations generally included reduction in State Collections as requested, any corresponding increases in General Fund appropriations to offset these collections shortfalls were not recommended.
The Critical Issue requests for capital funding were full funding of the Building Renewal Formula and a portion of the costs for digital TV conversion at UA and ASU. Neither were included in the Governor's recommendations. Statewide salary adjustments, scheduled for April 2000, are recommended to increase from 2% to 3%, which represents an additional $9.2M for the Arizona University System. No increase was recommended for the 2% statewide salary adjustment that was allocated and scheduled for April 2001.
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) did not recommend any supplemental adjustments for the universities.
President Amos said he had visited the legislature and he believed the there was a lack of commitment to make an investment in higher education. Once all the formula driven increases are plugged into this year's budget, there will be little money left to divide among the rest of government needs. Mr. Seese-Bieda said there may be stand alone bills that may provide more resources than were recommended in the budget process.
President Ulrich continued with other legislative items, informing the Regents the preview included preliminary information about policy issues taking the form of bills in this year's legislature. He reminded the Board the presidents would come back in February with recommendations about the position the Board should adopt on each of the bills. Mr. Greg Fahey and Mr. Steve Miller joined the meeting for this discussion.
Since the Board was not being asked to adopt positions, Regent Ulrich suggested any Regent that had a strong feeling about a bill should contact one of the Government Affairs representatives.
Regent Thompson said she believed the Board should support HB 2424, Financial Aid Trust Fund Match. This bill would change the language to allow the legislature to appropriate more than the amount raised from student fees at the universities for the Arizona Financial Aid Trust Fund. Upon motion of Regent Thompson, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board voted to support HB 2424 to allow the legislature to appropriate more than the amount raised from student fees at the universities.
Regent Gignac stated her concern with several of the bills. Regent Thompson stated she would like to see the Board take positions on the bills as soon as possible. Regent Ulrich and Regent Keegan said they believed the educational entities should work together to make the legislators and the public more aware of educational needs and how those mesh with economic development.
Public Private Partnerships Update
Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda and Mr. Joel Valdez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Ulrich said this was presented to review where the universities are in adopting the ideas and suggestions that came from the External Review Committee on Privatization chaired by Warren Rustand. Summary information was provided in the meeting materials.
Regent Herstam chaired this portion of the meeting. Dr. Art Ashton joined the meeting for the Strategic Planning Committee discussions.
Status Report on ABOR Action Plan for FY 2000
Regent Herstam reminded the Regents they had approved their 1999/2000 Action Plan in August, 1999. The plan contains fifteen objectives. The progress and plans for each objective to-date were reported in the summary material.
Learning Services Building: Project Initiation and Ground Lease (UA)
Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Michael Gottfredson, and Mr. Bob Smith joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam informed the Regents the University of Arizona was seeking Project Initiation Approval for a new Learning Services Building which was intended to partially address the university shortage of faculty offices. It will also provide space for Student Advisory Services. The projected cost of the new facility is $5M and financing and construction is based upon a proposed public/private lease-purchase agreement. This project was first seen by the Board at the November meeting and was previously called the Faculty Office Building. The Board will next review this project after the bid proposals are received by the university and when the ground lease is brought forward for Board approval.
Regent Herstam said he understood the UA was considering relaxation in university design standards for this project in order to make it more affordable. He asked what standards they intended to relax and why and if the university would identify the standards to be relaxed in the RFP. Mr. Smith said university standards are related to classrooms and research type facilities. They believe the standards for office buildings and residence facilities can be more like private sector facilities since the usage is not as hard on the buildings.
President Amos asked if these new standards would meet with the DeMichele Committee standards, particular since the committee had said the university already had too much office space. Dr. Gottfredson said the university is moving toward the DeMichele Committee standards, but cannot do it all at once. For instance, reducing the size of offices. Reducing the size of one office in a building makes it smaller, but that space cannot be added to an office in another building. Therefore, when you figure the total amount of office space per faculty, it appears the university has more space than it actually does.
Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Ulrich, the Board granted Project Initiation for the Learning Services Building and authorized the university to issue an RFP to select a development team. The ground lease will come back to the Board for approval.
Graduate Housing: Project Initiation and Ground Lease (UA)
Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. Jim Van Arsdel, and Mr. David Duffy joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam said the University of Arizona was seeking Project Initiation approval to construct a 150 unit Graduate Residential Housing Complex which will provide affordable, modern housing at a location on campus that addresses the needs of graduate students. It will replace a portion of the aging facilities located at Christopher City for a projected cost of approximately $25M.
President Likins reminded the Regents of the sense of crisis experienced by the university in each of the last two years as freshmen were welcomed to the campus in the fall because there is inadequate housing for undergraduates. The university would like to move this project forward as rapidly as possible so in the fall of 2001 this residence hall can be used in a transition period for undergraduates. By the fall of 2002, two new undergraduate residence halls should be constructed and this facility could then be used for graduate students.
President Likins reminded the Board that Christopher City currently provides housing for graduate students, married students, and students with families. This proposed structure would accommodate the unmarried graduate students. Regent Herstam asked if the students who were affected by this project had been notified and was told yes.
Regent Gignac asked if this could be named a "Housing Project" rather than a "Graduate Housing Project." President Likins said this project would provide more "apartment-like" accommodations than are provided in undergraduate housing complexes. Mr. David Duffy described the project. President Amos said he supported better graduate housing, but he believed this project was over-priced for the Tucson market. He believed it would be cheaper to buy an apartment complex. President Likins said the university would be interested in purchasing an apartment complex that is within the university planning boundary; however, those facilities are currently available for lease only.
Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board granted Project Initiation approval for the Graduate Housing Project and authorized the university to issue an RFP to select a development team. The ground lease will come back to the Board for approval. President Amos voted no.
The meeting recessed at 11:20 a.m. and reconvened at 11:29 a.m.
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
Dr. William Davey said the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) met with the Arizona Students' Association (ASA) earlier. They plan to work together on the learner centered initiatives and legislation. Both groups believe proposed legislation characterizes faculty and students in ways that are not reflective of reality and this defers the focus from the serious issues of the university and returns the universities to the old days of in loco parentis. Not only is this micromanaging, the legislation is largely unenforceable and very expensive.
The AFC also passed a resolution asking the Board to support the legislation which makes a technical correction to the Optional Retirement Program to allow people to withdraw the employer's contributions as well as their own as is now allowed in the State Retirement Plan.
Regent Gignac reported the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges (SBDCC) and the community college presidents thanked the Regents for providing the two-year waivers for the All Arizona Scholars. The presidents and trustees raised concerns about procedures in establishing new rules, such as a new rule on community college teacher certification standards and have requested more input before the rules go to a public hearing. New certification standards were adopted and the SBDCC approved the Joint Report to the Legislature on the Transfer Articulation and Meeting Statewide Postsecondary Needs, as did the Regents the same day. The SBDCC also approved the issuance of a possible letter of intent to relocate their central office to the same building which houses the Board of Regents' central office.
President Amos thanked Regent Gignac for her service as the Board's representative to the SBDCC.
Regent McKay chaired this portion of the meeting.
ASU Research Park Development Status (ASU)
Regent McKay reminded the Regents that Regent Campbell was the first President of the Board of Directors of the ASU Research Park and he has continually served on the Board since its inception in 1984.
Regent Campbell explained the Research Park began as the ASU Experimental Farm. In the early 1980's it was decided the University of Arizona should house the agricultural programs as it was the state land grant college. Therefore, the focus was changed to businesses actively creating and growing the new economy for Arizona and the world. Regent Campbell explained the procedures needed to establish the Park, such as enabling legislation.
Ms. Eileen Parisi, Associate Director of the Park, told the Board about what is currently happening at the Research Park. It is home to 28 corporations employing over 3500 Arizonans in technology endeavors, including over 250 ASU graduates and interns. Promoting economic development by bringing high technology companies and corporate headquarters to Arizona, the ASU Research Park plays a meaningful role in enhancing opportunities for all Arizonans. The Research Park is now in a position to begin repaying ASU for previous years' loans.
Proposed Process for Setting Tuition for the 2000-2001 Academic Year
Ms. Louise Houseworth and Ms. Gale Tebeau joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay explained the Board was being asked to adopt a tuition setting process and calendar for the 2000-2001 academic year. It is anticipated the Board will set tuition at its April meeting. New legislation was passed in 1999 which requires the Board to restructure its tuition setting process.
Ms. Houseworth reported, under the proposed calendar, the Board will set tuition, university-wide fees, class fees over $50, and residence hall rates at the April meeting. A public hearing on the proposed tuition and fee increases will be held one week prior to the April meeting, on March 30. The tuition hearing will be broadcast at all the main and branch campuses through closed circuit television. Ten days prior to the public hearing, notice of the hearing will be published in newspapers and at this time the presidents will disclose their recommended tuition and fee increases. The role of the tuition and financial aid work group, consisting of representatives of students, universities, and central office, will be better defined than in years past.
Regent Herstam asked how the two-year budget cycle impacted the tuition setting process. Ms. Houseworth said the current plan is to set tuition for just one year. President Coor said this was an unexamined feature of the biennial budget process and he believed there should be some examination before the next tuition setting as to whether it would be wise to set tuition for two years to match the budget cycle.
Regent Thompson agreed this was something that should be examined. She also thanked the Central Office staff for working with her on the tuition timeline. She said she believed publishing all the proposed residence hall rate increases in an advertisement would be a bit large; so she believed an executive summary would be satisfactory if it contained a statement saying where more detailed information could be obtained.
President Likins said he could understand setting resident and nonresident tuition with a hearing and perhaps setting it for two years. However, he wanted everyone to remember tuition is also set for evening MBA programs and for distance learning programs that serve the corporate market place, and those tuitions are market driven. Setting those tuitions essentially three years in advance does not allow them to respond to external factors.
Executive Director Blessing said she had become aware, while working with Regent Thompson, how important students consider it to be for Regents to attend the tuition hearings. If the Board adopts the proposed calendar, she would like the Regents to be sure to put the date of March 30 on their calendars so they can attend the nearest hearing site.
Upon motion of Regent Thompson, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board approved the tuition setting process and the calendar for the 2000-2001 academic year as proposed.
Digital Television Conversion: Conceptual Approval (ASU)
Dr. Mernoy Harrison and Mr. Chuck Allen joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay reminded the Regents they had granted Project Initiation for this project with a $4.9M budget in September 1999. Funding sources are projected to include federal grants and private gifts of $3.4M and a state appropriation of $1.5M. Since the "critical issue" request for funding for this project does not appear in either the JLBC or OSPB recommendations, she asked if there was an intent to seek legislative support by means of a separate funding bill. Mr. Allen said there will be a separate bill, but the university is also increasing its efforts to raise private funds to keep the project on schedule since it is a federal mandate.
Upon motion of President Amos, seconded by Regent Ulrich, the Board approved Arizona State University's request for Conceptual Approval for the DTV Conversion Project.
Agricultural Research Complex: Revised Project Approval and Budget Increase (UA)
Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Eugene Sander, and Mr. Bob Smith joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay reminded the Regents they had granted Project Approval with a $4.5M budget in October 1995 for this project. It is now estimated to cost $6.4M. The budget increase of $1.9M will be funded from agricultural endowment funds.
Dean Sander said this is a unique prototype facility which will provide specialized space for research aimed at understanding the effects of thermal stress on agricultural livestock. This will be the only installation worldwide with the ability to simulate temperature, humidity, and solar insolation conditions in a single controlled environment.
Upon motion of President Amos, seconded by Regent Thompson, the Board granted Revised Project Approval and a Budget Increase to the University of Arizona for the Agriculture Research Complex project at the Campus Agricultural Center in Tucson.
Capital Equipment Lease-Purchase (UA)
Mr. Joel Valdez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay said the University of Arizona was requesting authorization to lease-purchase chillers and gas powered turbines to replace existing electrical powered units at two of the Central Heating and Refrigeration facilities and to install a combined heat and power system. This will enable the UA to generate a portion of the electricity used by the university which should help reduce costs. If the Board authorizes the university to proceed, a Request for Proposals (RFP) will be issued to seek qualified vendors. Mr. Valdez said the university will decide whether or how to proceed after weighing the results of the RFP.
Regent McKay asked the other universities to comment. President Coor said ASU examines this issue about every three years. Because the market conditions are different than in Tucson, it has not yet become an attractive alternative at ASU. Dr. Somerville said it is an established technology and NAU is supportive of the UA request.
President Amos moved to approve the University of Arizona's request for a Capital Equipment Lease- Purchase to acquire chillers and gas-powered turbines and the installation of a Combined Heat and Power system. The motion was seconded by Regent Thompson.
Regent Jewett said he appreciated the universities' willingness to explore all options. Regent Gignac asked what the interest rate would be and was told approximately 5.23%. She asked what the life of the steam turbines would be and was told around 20 or 30 years. Regent Ulrich asked if NAU had considered this approach and was told they had in 1997, but the use and market did not make it cost effective. They will certainly explore this option when it comes time to replace their boilers.
The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Mr. David Duffy, Mr. Dave Harris, and Mr. Joel Valdez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay said the University of Arizona was requesting approval of an exception to Board Policy to allow the university to exceed the $100,000 capital planning threshold in order to expend up to $250,000 in advance planning and programming for the Chemistry Building Expansion.
Upon motion of Regent Ulrich, seconded by Regent Thompson, the Board approved the University of Arizona's request for an exception to Board Policy 7-106. B. 4. in order to allow the university to expend up to $25,000 in advance planning and programming on the Chemistry Building Expansion project.
INQUIRIES, REQUEST, REPORTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
The Regents and presidents and Executive Director thanked President Coor and Provost Maimon for their hospitality. They also thanked Regents Campbell and Munger for their service, dedication, and humor as they served on the Board.
The meeting adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
______________________________________
Judy E. Garza, Secretary to the Board
APPROVED BY:
_______________________________________
George H. Amos, III, President
ATTEST:
____________________________
Jack B. Jewett, Secretary