 |
MINUTES |
 |
|
MINUTES |
|
<<<<>>>>
Paul Peterson
Matthew Schuh
Joseph McCallum
Amy Hamilton
David Menehaca
Catherine Chaput
Mary Louise Babineau
Gizella Meneses
Linda Pierce
Sara Presler
Meghan Cox
Alex Bainbridge
Kristina Collins
*Internal Audit Reports: Fall 2000 Enrollment Audit (ASU) and NCAA Compliance Audit (UA)
*Reappointment of University Medical Center Corporation (UMCC) Board of Directors
*University Medical Center Corporation (UMCC) Audited Financial Statements for FY2000
*Appointment of Directors for Arizona Research Park Authority (UA)
*Approval to Initiate Litigation Against Impact Sports, Inc., and Paul Sorenson (ASU)
*Authorization of a 25-Year Lease with the Arizona State Savings and Credit Union (ASU West)
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
LUNCHEON MEETING WITH LEGISLATORS
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
REPORT FROM THE BOARD'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, REPORTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
<<<<<>>>>>
A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held January 25 and 26, 2001, in Ventana C of the Arizona State University Memorial Union in Tempe, Arizona.
|
PRESENT:
|
Regent Mary Echeverria |
| ABSENT: |
Regent George H. Amos, III |
Present in addition to the Regents were: President Lattie Coor, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Tom Trotter, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Dr. Elaine Maimon, Mr. Steve Miller, Mr. Allan Price, Dr. Charles Backus and Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Arizona State University; President Peter Likins, Dr George Davis, Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Randy Groth, Dr. Richard Powell, Mr. Greg Fahey, and Dr. Elizabeth Ervin, University of Arizona; President Clara Lovett, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Ms. Anne Barton, Mr. Kurt Davis, Dr. John Haeger, and Dr. Michael Mullen, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director Linda Blessing, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Mr. Dave Harris, Ms. Louise Houseworth, Ms. Norma Salas, Mr. Matt Ortega, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, and Dr. Art Ashton, Central Office Staff; and Dr. Judith Sellers, Arizona Faculties Representative.
President Ulrich called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. and Dr. Thomas Wickenden led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Regent Herstam chaired this portion of the meeting. Also present were Dr. Sally Johnstone and Mr. Russ Poulin, consultants from the Western Cooperative for Educational Technology (WCET).
Dr. Sally Johnstone presented the results of the WCET phone survey with twenty-two people. Eleven represented higher education institutions, seven represented government agencies or held legislative office, and four represented the corporate world.
As a group, respondents agreed that ARU should be a priority for the Arizona Board of Regents, provide incentives for institutions to develop programs and for faculty to develop courses, and be easy and convenient for students to use. They supported cooperation with community colleges. They looked for the establishment of a governance system for ARU that includes both the chief executives of ABOR and the three universities and the hiring of an executive director for ARU who is highly trusted by the universities. They felt ARU should move forward quickly but not so quickly as to set up something that will fail. They also thought that ARU should rely on the credibility of the degrees granted by the three universities, especially in its early years. Respondents were split on whether curriculum and student services should be centralized or decentralized.
Dr. Linda Blessing presented a brief history of the development of the ARU project. At the Regents direction, and with their approval, Dr. Blessing said a biennial budget decision package for $2M was advanced to the Governor and the Legislature. With the passage of Proposition 301, it is unlikely ARU will be funded from state appropriations. This leaves the ARU package in a similar position to many of the research packages the universities have submitted. At the direction of President Ulrich, the Central Office staff has been working directly with Regents Chris Herstam, Kay McKay, and Jack Jewett to prepare the framework document submitted for review.
Dr. Art Ashton presented a collaborative framework which provides coordination by an ARU coordinator who will work with the ARU teams. The framework provides incentives through degree program funding and student services funding. The ARU teams and advisory structure include the Arizona Board of Regents as the policy making body with the Council of Presidents as the sponsors. It is anticipated an inclusive, diverse group will be involved in the planning and implementation of ARU.
A student will register with one of the three universities which becomes that student's "Home University." The "Home University" is responsible for Student Services (admission, registration, financial aid, etc.), but the courses will be available to students from all three of the universities.
The proposed $2M annual budget will be allocated to education grants, student service grants, management and consulting services, and operating expenses. In addition, other e-education programs which specifically address access and workforce development issues are proposed under separate funding to work with ARU.
President Coor addressed the issue of needs assessment. A question was asked about undergraduate vs. graduate programs; however, that was not addressed in the questionnaire. Dr. Blessing addressed centralization of student services. President Lovett said she believed the universities could do the needs assessment. She saw two options in the area of student services: developing a common protocol among all three universities or contracting out student services.
Mr. Poulin said Kentucky did such a good job of creating a delivery system for off campus student services that on campus students were driving to off campus locations for services. It was pointed out that poor student services would be a major cause of a loss of students. There should be cooperation instead of competition among the universities and good student services will require an increase in the amount of money spent. Ms. Johstone said those institutions that have failed in the e-learning arena have not failed on academic grounds; they have failed in student services delivery.
Regents agreed there were many operational issues to be determined. President Coor questioned if ARU would be degree, nondegree or all of the above. He offered his strong affirmation and encouraged implementation. He cautioned that all degrees and certificates must have the university stamp.
Regent Herstam asked if anyone disagreed with adding 5% per year to the ARU budget in a manner consistent with other proposals for Proposition 301 funding. There was no dissension. It was asked if the proposed budget included services and Dr. Blessing replied that this was a minimal budget for minimal programs. If the preliminary budget is approved, a more complete budget would be developed.
One Regent said $2M was not large enough. Curriculum development will be a big issue and it will be expensive. It was believed needs assessment is very important. Marketing can cost a lot of money. Work force development and access are important. Arizona citizens are the primary customer of ARU; however, it is part of the new economy and should attract people to Arizona. Universal and total articulation and transfer of courses is imperative. Faculty has control of curriculum, but the Regents should have control of what is or isn't offered. There must be cooperation. In order to be successful, ARU must stay flexible and agile, not tied to a structure. This is a developing economy in which the electronic medium takes delivery barriers away.
Another Regent agreed the budget will start at two million and will need to go up from there. Three keys to success are the need for articulation, to steer and coordinate the project, and a learner centered perspective. There is a need for marketing and entrepreneurial work.
Regent Gignac moved to approve the proposed ARU framework as presented and Regent McKay seconded the motion.
It was suggested contracting outside our system for support services might be advantageous as it would not cause problems among the three universities. Some Board policies may need to be modified as they may not be conducive to working with entrepreneurial situations, such as the important areas of optics and biosciences. It was suggested an economic needs assessment would demonstrate there is a great need in Arizona for more teacher preparation and health care management, especially nurses.
The Arizona Faculties Council believes faculty should be included in the team working on ARU, especially curriculum development. A faculty advising team in a coordinator role was suggested.
President Likins pointed out that on-line courses are taken by both on campus and off campus students as currently 2/3 of the institutions in Arizona offer both. It was agreed there was need for flexibility in the framework.
Regent Stuart said he was not prepared to vote on the framework as he was not certain about the "Home University" concept. Dr. Ashton explained the "Home University" was the university the students would choose to be associated with. Regent Herstam said the Regents on the committee had negotiated the Home University concept with the universities to try to move the ball forward.
Regent Gignac said she believed Pages 2 through 6 of the proposed framework for ARU were various scenarios for discussion and Pages 7 through 9 were identified activities. None of this was set in concrete; it was a means through which a work group would come back with a proposal. Several people expressed comfort with this interpretation. There were concerns expressed with the restrictions on transfer credit. An approach is needed for grades received from a remote area. There was a problem with the filtering of other universities' available online instruction.
The motion to approve the proposed ARU framework and to bring back a proposed budget at the March meeting passed by unanimous voice vote.
President Lovett expressed concern about developing protocols for the home campus model and the process to work out payment procedures. It was suggested some work be done on expected tangible and intangible outcomes.
Dr. Sally Jackson, University of Arizona, outlined a proposed operational model for ARU. She presented information focusing on pilot programs and outcome measures. She pointed out the importance of an explicitly negotiated cost and revenue sharing system for imported and exported courses and cooperation among the universities. She discussed seamless co-registration while maintaining institutional integrity as a primary framework goal.
The meeting recessed at 11:32 a.m. and reconvened at 1:42 p.m.
Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting. He thanked the Governor for her hard work in securing passage of Proposition 301. Regent Jewett introduced Mr. Jaime Molera, the Governor's Policy Advisor for Legislative Affairs, who was representing the Governor at the meeting. Mr. Molera had served as the Governor's Education Advisor and was also a member of the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education. Mr. Molera explained Governor Hull had planned to attend, but was in a meeting in Washington with President Bush.
Mr. Molera talked about the various groups from the business community and the education community who came together to work for the passage of this proposition. He suggested an advisory group of business people be appointed to make suggestions and to see if the projects funded by Proposition 301 are accomplishing their goals. He said the Governor would like to see the money used in target areas where the state could get "The Biggest Bang for the Buck," perhaps where additional funds such as grant money could be added to the 301 money.
Regent Jewett asked Mr. Molera to express the Board's thanks to the Governor for her leadership in securing the Proposition 301 funds and for her continuing efforts to secure budget money for the universities. Regents asked Mr. Molera to convey their appreciation to the Governor for sending the money to the Board to be distributed to the universities rather than sending the money directly to the universities. Mr. Molera said the Governor believes the Regents provide the oversight for all the universities and this money should focus on the entire system.
Provosts George Davis, John Haeger, and Milton Glick and Dr. Wickenden joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett explained the Regents are charged with administering funds which are estimated at about $45M in the first year. In March it is expected the Regents will vote on a plan for the use of these funds which will determine the amount, duration, and purpose of the awards made to the universities. A proposed policy framework was reviewed at the November meeting. The purpose of today's study session is to get a better understanding of the proposals and to provide guidance on how they should be brought back in March.
President Likins provided a "big picture" overview of the role of the universities' research initiatives in shaping and fueling Arizona's economy. Provost Davis presented the Arizona University System (AUS) proposals for Bioscience/Biotechnology.
The question was raised concerning the time frame and the likelihood of direct results of the research affecting related industries. The Regents were told there is a great need for infrastructure to support biotechnology companies. There are spin off companies now and there will be more in two to three years. In ten years Arizona will be recognized as a player in biotechnology. Business and university people need to work together for technology transfer and Regents would like industry/business partner profiles. They would also like information on patents and inventions, curriculum changes, and current and 5-year projected graduates by field, tied to faculty positions. Competitors should be identified, including a report on their status. Regents and faculty agreed there is a need to use Proposition 301 funds to leverage Federal dollars.
Provost Glick presented the AUS proposals for Information Science/Technology. There is a need to diversify as technology moves fast and no one knows what area will be the most important in ten years. Regents believed undergraduates as well as graduates should benefit from the technology programs and potential certificate or continuing education components should be identified.
Provost Haeger presented the Arizona University System Workforce Development and Access proposals. Regents requested the packages be put together so the linkages among them could be highlighted. There should be business plans for the system-wide initiatives. Workforce development programs should be leveraged with community colleges, including the 2+2 and the BAS degree programs. There should be statewide coordination of access issues. Regents asked for individual proposals to be quantified to show outcomes at the end of three years. The return on investment, both tangible and intangible, needs to be expressed.
Dr. Wickenden presented the two Central Office proposals for Arizona Regents University and the Regents Innovation Fund. President Lovett introduced the individual university initiatives. Provost Glick presented the ASU initiatives. Provost Haeger presented the NAU initiatives. Provost Davis presented the UA initiatives. The question was raised concerning a benchmark establishing the size of the industry now so there could be a check in a few years to see what has grown. There are currently more precise benchmarks for Optics at the UA than for ASU projects.
President Coor summarized technology transfer and addressed performance measures. The university and Central Office staffs were asked to fine tune the proposals and bring them forward in March with numbers attached. President Ulrich thanked everyone for the staff work which was done on these projects.
President Lovett announced that Dr. J. Michael Mullen, Vice President for Administration at NAU, had accepted the position of Chancellor of the West Virginia System of Higher Education.
The meeting recessed at 5:30 p.m.
President Ulrich called the January meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents to order on January 26, 2001, at 9:40 a.m. in the Ventana C Room of the Memorial Union, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
Present in addition to the Regents were: President Lattie Coor, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Gary Krahenbul, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Dr. Thomas Trotter, Mr. Steve Miller, and Mr. Allan Price, Arizona State University; President Clara Lovett, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Dr. John Haeger, Mr. Kurt Davis, Ms. Anne Barton, Mr. Dean Pickett, and Mr. Sam Polito, Northern Arizona University; President Peter Likins, Dr. George Davis, Dr. Richard Powell, Ms. Judith Leonard, Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. Greg Fahey, Dr. Elizabeth Ervin, Dr. Randy Groth, and Ms. Janet Bingham, University of Arizona; Executive Director Linda Blessing, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, Ms. Louise Houseworth, Mr. Matt Ortega, Dr. Art Ashton, Mr. David Harris, and Ms. Norma Salas, Central Office.
Ms. Judy Garza led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Paul Peterson, Executive Director of Arizona Students' Association (ASA), thanked Regent Echeverria for organizing a discussion with members of ASA and university and Board of Regents staffs. He thanked the students who attended the university budget hearings at the Legislature. He also spoke on behalf of the students proposed legislation to increase the Arizona Financial Aid Trust Fund match. Both the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education and Town Hall supported the increase.
Matthew Schuh, ASU student, said Kappa Alpha Order, an ASU fraternity, has asked two legislators to introduce a bill that would made hazing a criminal act. He thanked the presidents and Regents for their efforts to stop hazing, but said this would be one more tool to use in the fight.
Joseph McCallum, also a member of Kappa Alpha Order, explained the proposed statute and asked for support from the Regents.
Benjamin Graff, UA Student body President, said ASA is in favor of the proposed "Whistleblower" policy which was on the Agenda later, but asked for Regents to consider adopting a similar policy for students who are not employed as they are not covered by this policy.
Amy Hamilton, UA English graduate student teaching assistant, spoke on behalf of lower workloads and tuition for graduate and teaching assistants (GTAs). She said all three universities pay their GTAs less than peer institutions. She asked the Regents to address the issue at the March meeting to avoid the necessity for GTAs to consider joining a union.
David Menehaca, member of English Graduate Union (EGU) and the Coalition to Organize Graduate Students (COGS) for the University of Arizona, said studies the last few years had shown the University of Arizona GTAs were well below their peer institutions as far as salaries were concerned. He asked for the issue of tuition waivers for GTA's to be placed on the March Agenda.
Catherine Chaput, member of the EGU and COGS, urged the Regents to place the issue of GTAs workload and stipends on the March Agenda, with a proposed time line for implementation.
Mary Louise Babineau, ASU Spanish Ph.D. student, asked that the waiver of tuition for GTAs be added to the March Agenda. She said international students are forced to rely solely on the money they earn at the university and can barely afford to live. She believes GTAs make a substantial economic contribution to the university and should receive more for their efforts.
Gizella Meneses, ASU Spanish Ph.D. student, said in her department, GTAs were not assisting professors, they were solely responsible for their courses. They teach two courses per semester. She asked for tuition waivers for GTAs and asked that it be placed on the March agenda. She said some graduate students are responsible for families as well as themselves.
Linda Pierce, Cochair of the UA English Graduate Union, said the UA Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committee released a report in March 1998 on maintaining and improving the quality of GTAs education. The recommendations included providing health insurance, increasing stipends, adjusting workloads, and eliminating registration fees. Registration fees affect GTAs at all three universities. Waiving fees would make the Arizona universities more competitive with their peer institutions. She asked for the issue to be discussed on the March agenda.
Sara Presler, NAU Student Body President, spoke on fostering an academic community that is prepared for the new economy. She asked for a whistleblower policy that would cover all students. She reported on the discussions that took place at the NAU student legislative discussions and asked Regents to support the student sponsored legislation to increase the legislative contribution to the Arizona Financial Aid Trust Fund.
Meghan Cox, ASASU Assistant Director of Government Relations, introduced herself and her team. She thanked the Regents for their continuing support and commitment to quality education that allows Arizona families to provide for their children.
Alex Bainbridge, Student Body President of Arizona State University, thanked the Regents for their support of Proposition 301 and said he hoped the Regents would work with the students to support the Arizona Financial Aid Trust Fund bill. He introduced Kristina Collins. She explained the ASU Centennial Professorship, two scholarships ASASU will be awarding this year. After a nomination and application process, two professors will receive the title Centennial Professor and will each receive $20,000. The award will include a $10,000 cash award and a $10,000 stipend to be used for the benefit of the students, including improving technology, or hiring students assistants.
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 McKay. Regent Gignac declared a conflict of interest on Item 23. Reappointment of University Medical Center Corporation (UMCC) Board of Directors, Item 24, Approval of Amendments to Amended and Restated Bylaws of UMCC, and Item 25, UMCC Audited financial Statements for FY2000, due to her membership on the UMCC Board of Directors. There was no individual discussion of these items.
The Board approved the November 14, 2000, Special Executive Session, November 14, 2000, Special Meeting, November 16 and 17, 2000, Regular Meeting, and the November 17, 2000, Executive Session minutes.
The Board approved the proposed revisions to Board Policy 4-309, "Tuition Collections Retained for Need-Based Student Financial Aid." The revision will clarify under what circumstances the universities are required to adjust the Regents Financial Aid Set Aside in the fall to reflect actual 21st day fall semester enrollments. It allows each university to either maintain the initial set aside calculated in June or make a fall adjustment if the university determines that an adjustment is necessary. However, if the revised set aside varies form the initial estimate by more than 3 %, the university would be required to adjust its financial aid set aside amount.
The Board approved the proposed revisions to Board Policy 6-804 and 6-806. The revisions permit employees to receive paid bereavement leave upon the death of a brother-in-law, sister-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law in addition to the other relatives already specified in the policy. They also permit employees to use accrued sick leave, up to three days, upon the death of other family members who would not be covered under the proposed revisions to the Bereavement Leave policy. Employees would be permitted to use up to two additional days of sick leave to attend or arrange funeral services out-of-state.
The Board reviewed and accepted the two audit reports completed by the Central Office internal audit staff. There were no findings reportable to the Board from either audit. Through the fall enrollment audit at ASU, the internal audit staff concluded the internal control structure in effect at ASU is adequate and provides reasonable assurance that enrollment counts conform to Board policy. Headcount and full-time equivalent student data reported to the Board in the Fall 2000 Enrollment report were accurate.
The NCAA requires that every Division I institution's NCAA rules-compliance program be evaluated by an authority outside the athletics department at least once every three years. Rules-compliance at ASU has been evaluated by its own internal audit staff and at NAU by the Big Sky Conference. The auditors concluded the internal control structure at the UA is adequate and the university has a strong and comprehensive program for monitoring compliance with NCAA regulations. Fourteen internal recommendations were made, which is a reasonable number given the scope of ICA activities. Thirteen of the recommendations dealt with procedural improvements in the rules-compliance program and one with routine follow-up of issues raised during the audit.
In accordance with A.R.S. §15-1637 (K), appointments to the University Medical Center Corporation (UMCC) Board must be approved by the Board of Regents. In response to a request from the UMCC Board of Directors, the Board reappointed Esther N. Capin, N. Philip Strause, and Douglas J. Wall to four-year terms (10/00 - 10/04) and James M. Woolfenden, M.D., to a two-year term (2/1/01 - 2/1/03) on the UMCC Board of Directors.
A.R.S. §15-1637 (K) requires the Board of Regents to approve changes in the University Medical Center Corporation (UMCC) Bylaws. The UMCC Board of Directors, at their October 27, 2000, meeting, amended Article V, Section 2, to conform to a title change by the University of Arizona. Article V, Section 7, was amended to allow the appointment of directors who come from the southwest United States. Article V, Section 9, was amended to change the title Directors Emeritus to Life Trustee. The Board of Regents approved the amendments to the Amended and Restated Bylaws of the University Medical Center Corporation as requested by the UMCC Board of Directors.
The Board received a summary of the FY 2000 audited financial statements for UMCC. For FY 2000, UMCC reported $259.3M in revenues and $255.9M in expenses, resulting in an excess of revenues over expenses of $3.4M. In comparison, for FY 1999 $244.9M in revenues and $249.4M in expenses were reported, resulting in an excess of expenses over revenues of $4.5M. For FY 2001, UMCC projects revenues of $256M to equal expenses.
The Arizona Research Park Authority (ARPA) was created by the Board of Regents in 1994 to assist in the acquisition, improvement, and operation of research parks and related properties. ARPA played a pivotal role in financing the Board of Regents' acquisition of the University's Science and Technology Park from the IBM Corporation.
The ARPA Board of Directors is composed of a minimum of three directors who are appointed to six-year, staggered terms by the Board of Regents. The current directors are Reg T. Morrison of Tucson, Herman Chanen of Phoenix, and Fred Boice of Tucson. Mr. Morrison, who has served on the board since ARPA's formation, recently submitted his resignation. Mr. Chanen's term has expired, and Mr. Boice's term will expire on July 20th of this year.
The Board appointed the following people as directors of the Arizona Research Park Authority: Rudy Campbell for a term expiring on July 20, 2002; Fred Boice as a director for a term expiring on July 20, 2004; and John Munger as a director for a term expiring on July 20, 2006.
Arizona State University and the City of Tempe entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) on May 31, 2000, for the construction of certain utility lines consisting of two projects for chilled water supply and return, electrical infrastructure, and a relief sewer flow study. It was believed the costs would be less than $1M. However, after the opening of competitive bids, the total estimated construction costs for the two projects are now $1,216,634 plus approximately ten percent in design and project management costs.
The Board authorized ASU to enter into the Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Tempe in connection with the construction of the utilities and the relief sewer study described above; and the IGA dated May 31, 2000, as amended was ratified.
Beginning in 1998, Impact Sports failed to remit certain funds it received from sponsors under a contract Impact Sports had with ASU to solicit sponsorships for ASU Intercollegiate Athletics (ICA). The present outstanding balance owed to ASU and ICA is over $125,000. Collection expenses and attorneys' fees could increase that amount to more than $150,000. Impact Sports and its chief officer, Paul Sorenson, have admitted to the debt; but have failed to follow through on proposed payment plans with ICA.
The Board authorized Arizona State University to initiate litigation against Impact Sports, Inc., Paul Sorenson, and any other party determined to be necessary and appropriate for a just adjudication of this matter, as determined by the ASU Office of General Counsel.
The position of Senior Vice President is a new position for ASU. The responsibilities will include taking a comprehensive view in leading several initiatives related to ASU's enrollment growth program development and institutional expansion that will be required over the next 15 years. More specifically, this will entail working with ASU West, ASU East, and the ASU Main College of Extended Education to develop and coordinate the ASU blueprint for meeting the expanded enrollment and distance learning demands placed upon the university, and developing a strategic plan to further ASU's relationship to Metropolitan Phoenix.
The Board approved the appointment of Dr. Gary Krahenbuhl, current Dean of the ASU College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, as Senior Vice President, effective January 1, 2001. Dr. Krahenbuhl will receive a fiscal year salary of $190,000.
Dr. Charles Backus has served as Provost of ASU East since 1996. This change in title makes clear that Dr. Backus is the Campus CEO of ASU East. He serves as a member of the President's Cabinet. The change in title involves no change in salary. The Board approved the change of title of Dr. Charles E. Backus to Vice President and Provost, ASU East, effective immediately.
The Arizona State Savings and Credit Union has been operating a branch at ASU West since November 1993, leasing 1,200 square feet of space in the basement of the University Center Building (UCB). In anticipation of the arrival of ASU West's first freshman class in the fall of 2001, the campus has identified an urgent need to free up space in the UCB for a game and lounging area and to expand student advising.
ASU West has developed a plan to design and build a 3,600 net assignable sq. ft. building on a portion of the current Visitor Lot. Approximately 1,800 sq. ft. of the space will be leased to the Credit Union, about 1,100 sq. ft. will be assigned to house Parking Services and the new Information and Security Station; and the balance will be designated as interim use space. The estimated total cost for the project is $800,000.
Arizona State Savings and Credit Union has accepted the university's proposal to enter into a leasing agreement under which the Credit Union will advance, in the form of a prepayment of rent, the $800,000 to allow the design and construction of the building and the relocation of its branch office from its existing leased space in the UCB to this new building under a new lease.
The Credit Union will lease about 1,800 sq. ft. in the new building for a 25-year term, with an option to extend for 2 additional 5-year terms. It will also have an option to take over an additional 700 sq. ft. of adjoining space any time after the 10th year upon giving a 1-year advance notice. If the Credit Union exercises its right to extend the lease beyond the initial 25-year term or take over the additional 700 sq. ft., it will pay rent at the market rate existing at the time such exercise of option occurs.
The university may terminate the lease any time after the 10th year by giving a one-year notice and paying to the Credit Union the "unamortized value" of the prepaid rent, on the basis of 1/15th (or $32,000) for every year left in the lease at the time of such early termination. The $800,000 the Credit Union has agreed to prepay to finance the project is significantly higher than the present value of the stream of market-based rent that it would have been paying over the 25-year lease term.
The Board authorized the President of Arizona State University or his designee to complete negotiations and enter into and sign a lease agreement with the Arizona State Savings and Credit Union for approximately 1,800 net assignable sq. ft. of space in a new facility to be designed and constructed on substantially the same terms and conditions set forth above.
The Board received a written summary of the 2000 fall Enrollment Report. Overall, Arizona University System headcount enrollments increased 0.9%, from 104,931 in Fall 1999 to 105,842 in Fall 2000. Undergraduate headcount enrollments increased 0.8% from 78,995 in 1999 to 79,608 in 2000. Graduate headcount enrollments increased 1.1% from 25,936 in Fall 1999 to 26,234 in Fall 2000. Total Headcount in Fall 2000 was 44,126 at ASU Main, 5,325 at ASU West, 1,939 at ASU East, 19,964 at NAU, 350 at UA South, and 34,138 at UA.
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to promote Dr. Brian A. Larkins, Department of Plant Sciences, Dr. Nancy A. Moran, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Department of Entomology, and Dr. Frances Ann Walker, Department of Chemistry and Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, to the rank of Regents' Professor, effective July 1, 2001, and to award the $5,000 salary increase that customarily accompanies these appointments.
President Coor introduced Dr. Gary Krahenbuhl and commented on his new assignment as Senior Vice President. He also commented on Dr. Charles Backus' new title as Vice President and Provost at ASU East.
President Coor introduced Dr. Charles Arntzen to discuss how Proposition 301 funds can be leveraged with private and corporate funds. Dr. Arntzen, Distinguished Professor of Plant Biology, is the first holder of the Florence Ely Nelson Presidential Chair. He has been asked to become the Founding Director of the ASU BioSciences Institute.
Dr. Arntzen explained the use of traditional systems to accomplish something new. If everyday foods, such as bananas, could be created with a gene containing a vaccine for infectious diseases such as hepatitis B, cholera, and various deadly types of diarrhea, children in poor countries could receive the vaccine. Bananas are usually one of the first foods fed to babies as they can be digested easily by most children. The bananas could be locally grown and the cost would be low. The current cost of the vaccines, delivered by injection, make them beyond the reach of many third world residents.
President Coor thanked Ms. Lori Briese and Ms. Adelaida Valasco-Severson for their assistance with the Board meeting and the Regents' Award Luncheon.
Regent Stuart chaired this portion of the meeting. Mr. Matt Ortega joined the meeting for the Public Awareness agenda.
Mr. Sam Polito and Mr. Blake Anderson joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart explained there are three sets of bills presented for review by the Regents. The first set are bills that would be of benefit to the universities and the Regents could support. These include HB 2048 and 2049 Retirement, ASRS Multiplier; HB 2093 Pima College/UA Appropriation; HB 2141 Teachers, Master's Degree, Loans.
The second set of bills are those that would affect the university system, but that may require additional discussion before a position is adopted or may require a position of neutrality at this time. These include HB 2108 Parkinsons Disease Research; HB 2111 Retirement, State Service Credits, Transfer; HB 2143 Hazing Prohibition, Fraternity; HB 2192 Alzheimer's Disease Research Appropriation; HB 2207 Yuma Education Complex, Appropriation; HB 2250 Rural Telemedicine; HB 2299 Fredonia Learning Site Appropriation; HB 2417 State Employee Salaries; SB 1026 Community Colleges, Universities, Indian Reservations; SB 1038 Rural Medical Services; SB 1040 Tax Credit for Rural Health Providers; SB 1109 Medical Student Loans; SB 1126 Appropriation, Capital Grants, Health Services; SB 1172 Schools, Character Education; and SB 1180 Uniform Athlete Agents Act.
The third set of bills would adversely impact students, faculty, or other employees, or the ability of the Board and the universities to carry out their mission and roles effectively and the Regent would not support. This includes HB 2262 Performance Based Incentive Program. One bill, Postsecondary Textbook Accessibility, would not directly affect the university system, but should be monitored closely.
Regent Stuart reminded the Regents there had been a request at the Call to the Audience for the Board to support the bill prohibiting hazing. He reminded the Board the proposed legislation to increase salaries deals with salary increases based on merit and classified maintenance review. Mr. Ortega called the Board's attention to proposed legislation that did not yet have a bill number but had been proposed. This included a bill to revise the ABOR Optional Retirement Plan to permit employees to withdraw both the employer contribution and their contribution upon leaving the universities or ABOR office; an appropriation of $500,000 for a master articulation plan to be developed by ABOR, the State Board of Directors of Community Colleges, and the Board of Education; and an increase in the State's match for the Arizona Financial Aid Trust Fund.
Regent Gignac said there should be a resolution before the Board in March as a direct result of the Arizona Education Conference Committee recommending the process of developing an educational master plan for the state to move forward if adequate funding is provided. She reminded the Board the budget submitted to the Governor contained funding for the expanding access items which did not move forward in the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) or Governor's (OSPB) recommendations for funding. During the budgeting process, those items for ASU East, ASU West, UA South, and the Arizona Health Sciences Center, had been included in the budget under expanding access and program development, rather than in the decision packages. She asked if each one was now going to be proposed to the legislature as a separate budget item or if they should be consolidated into one. President Coor said ASU considers the need for ASU East as the top priority due to the growth of enrollment and a separate bill is being proposed for the ASU East funding. Regent Gignac said she was afraid separate bills would lead to the type of fragmented legislative approach that has happened in the past.
Regent Gignac said neither OSPB or JLBC had recommended any funding for the Arizona Learning System (ALS). She also said the $600,000 request by community colleges for transfer articulation funding was cut to a $200,000 recommendation. She asked the universities to provide some support or encouragement for funding for both as she believed both would be beneficial to the universities in the future.
President Coor said the original request for funding for ASU East had been approved by the Board as part of the FY2002-2003 budget submittal. He said each of the universities had selected an issue, which had been approved by the Board but had not received recommendation for funding, that they believed was of utmost importance; and they were working for funding. President Lovett said NAU was requesting an appropriation of $5M to be used to replace tuition money in the next biennium that would be reallocated by the university from operational funds to support debt service payments. This is because of huge needs for renovation and repair in infrastructure on the mountain campus. This item falls in the same category as President Coor's description of the funding for ASU East. It was approved by the Board as part of the budget request; however, neither JLBC or OSPB has recommended this funding move forward. She believed it was important to separate these items from others that might be "free-lancing" on the part of legislators.
Regent Palacios said she believed the Board should know when a project has been singled out from the others for special funding bills as there were many things that were not sent forward by the OSPB and the JLBC. President Coor said the Presidents should find a way to let the Board know what they will answer when asked what is the most important project that has not been sent forward. President Likins said there had been sentiments expressed at the Legislature that universities have an advantage over other agencies by having decision packages. It has been suggested the universities should run separate bills instead of submitting decision packages. He said next year the universities should prioritize their requests for the Regents.
Regent Gignac asked if the bills could come back with more specifics at the March meeting, including some coherent presentation, at least in writing, on separate budget bills, how they fit together, and what was taken out of the budget because of 301.
Regent Stuart said he did not want this Board to make awards based on the priority system and collaboration and then have pressure put on presidents to make a separate approach to the legislature for projects that were not funded by 301 money.
President Coor said he did not believe one university would ever move something forward without the other two universities having advance knowledge and there being a clear understanding of what it would mean to the whole system, even if there was not total agreement on what should move forward. He believed he did not see any change in that this year, rather he saw a deeper commitment to collaboration. He believes the only difference this year is the universities are being told they need to run separate bills for funding requests that were not included in the JLBC recommendation.
Regent Stuart introduced President Don Schoening, Arizona Western College, who was present because of HB 2207, Yuma Education Complex which would appropriate $6M from the state general fund to ABOR for a higher education and science complex to aid NAU, UA, and AZ Western College. President Lovett said NAU did not have this project in its Capital Improvement Plan and the bill was not initiated by NAU. It was introduced by Representative Carruthers of Yuma. However, this project would allow NAU to teach some courses it is unable to teach now due to lack of laboratory space. She believes it is a very worthwhile project and it will allow for collaborative programs. However, she wanted to make clear NAU's priority was to repair infrastructure at the Mountain Campus. President Likins said when the community colleges are successful in securing financing for their projects, it usually provides a benefit to the universities, too, due to the collaborative programs.
President Lovett said NAU did not initiate the Fredonia Learning Site legislation, but was in conversation with Representative Laughter to see if something could be done for Fredonia without separate appropriations. She said SB 1172 would move administration of the character education matching grant program from the Department of Education to the K-12 Center at NAU. She said NAU could manage the funds if the transfer occurs, but NAU did not initiate the bill; and she recommended the Board remain neutral on the subject.
Regent Echeverria thanked Mr. Paul Peterson for his work at the legislature on behalf of the Arizona Financial Aid Trust Fund (AFAT). She asked for the support of the Board and the presidents for AFAT. She also thanked Mr. Matthew Schuh and Mr. Rob Miller and the Kappa Alpha Order for their work with the hazing law.
Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board adopted the positions on the proposed legislation as recommended in the Executive Summary.
Mr. Matt Ortega, Dr. Jerry Hogle, Dr. Doug Johnson, and Dr. Dayle Hardy-Short, joined the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Sellers said the proposed policy represents a collaborative effort among Board staff, Board and university counsels, Arizona Faculties Council, and human resources staff from the universities.
Dr. Hogle said each university had a whistleblower protection policy, but this issue keeps resurfacing in the legislature. He said this policy was produced in recognition of legislation regarding whistleblower protection for state of Arizona employees. However, the universities were exempted from that statute because they are under the control of the Board of Regents.
The proposed policy was written with the legislation concerning the standards for hearings in mind. It is believed this policy offers all the rights and protections to encourage whistleblowers to come forward and yet contains a workable process so fair hearings can take place. President Ulrich asked if all who were involved in this process were positive about the results and was told not only were the AFC and the faculty senates consulted, but the staff advisory councils and the appointed personnel councils from all three universities were also involved. Dr. Hogle said some members of the Arizona AAUP do not believe the policy goes far enough, but the rest of the people believe the AAUP would have the policy go too far.
Dr. Hogle said the AFC was in full agreement there should be a separate whistleblower policy for students who are not employees. President Ulrich asked him to put together a committee to draft such a policy. Dr. Hogle said he would be happy to work with Mr. Sideman in the Board office to accomplish the request.
Regent Gignac questioned whether the days as described in F, Making a Disclosure, were counted under the definition of a day contained in Section E. 4. which describes calendar days. She was told the intent was 365 calendar days for F., Making a Disclosure, and that would be fixed prior to the second reading.
Regent Echeverria asked that Student Affairs people be included in the committee to draft a whistleblower policy for students.
Mr. Matt Ortega and Dr. Richard Powell joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart called the Regents' attention to the annual reports submitted by the three universities on Technology Transfer.
The meeting recessed at 11:15 a.m.
The Regents met for lunch with Senators Randall Gnant, Jack Brown, Chris Cummiskey, and newly elected District 30 Senator Jay Blanchard, at approximately 12:10 p.m.. Also in attendance was Mike Gardner, Special Assistant to the Senate President and Nicole Amberg, communications director for the Senate Democratic Caucus, as well as university legislative liaisons.
Regent Jewett introduced the Senators and their staff. Senator Gnant said he appreciated the Regents' invitation and opportunity to discuss issues important to the Board and Council of Presidents. Senator Gnant is meeting with constituencies around the state as part of his traveling "Senate Road Show."
The university presidents discussed the new era that Proposition 301 has opened up and the need for its funding stream to be continued and protected by the Legislature. The Presidents also discussed the need for broad collaboration among stakeholders (i.e., the business community, Legislature and Governor's office). Both Regents and Senators discussed the fact that working groups like the Arizona Partnership for a New Economy (APNE) have made it clear that no stakeholders should be left behind or forgotten as the Proposition 301 discussion continues. They discussed the need for the university system to remain an important part of, and contributor to, the Arizona economy. They also discussed the need for the universities to be a positive influence on the K-12 system.
President Ulrich opened up discussion on this year's state budget and specifically addressed the loss of qualified faculty due to higher salary offers from out-of-state universities. President Ulrich also explained the need for legislative support of system-wide building renewal efforts, citing Northern Arizona University as a campus in dire need of funding.
Senator Gnant praised the university system for delivering quality higher education at a far lower cost than other states. He also said universities must attach names and faces to the statistics addressing areas such as salaries - legislators must be able to see the faculty we are losing and their contributions to higher education.
Senator Brown explained that the universities have solid budget support in the State Senate, but that the House of Representatives needed work. He suggested talking with House members about the positive effects the universities have on their district's constituents.
Senator Blanchard discussed the need to address and recognize business clusters. President Ulrich talked about the need to identify and attract venture capitalists eager to form partnerships with the universities. President Likins said that many start-up companies are not aware of the resources and partnerships the universities can provide them.
Senator Cummiskey said that he appreciated the overall discussion and both the Regents and legislators needed to continue open dialogue. He said he appreciated hearing from the university legislative liaisons but that hearing from Regents and Presidents directly was always welcome.
The Regents promised the Senators follow-up on both Proposition 301 and a continuing dialogue. The lunch meeting concluded at 1:20 p.m.
The Board meeting reconvened at 1:45 p.m.
Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting.
Ms. Louise Houseworth and Ms. Gale Tebeau joined the meeting for this discussion. President Ulrich said the Board was being asked to review a tuition setting process and calendar for the 2001-2001 academic year. It is anticipated the Board will set tuition and fees, financial aid, and residence hall rates at the April meeting. Ms. Houseworth informed the Regents the tuition hearing would take place from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on Thursday, April 5. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board approved the tuition setting process and calendar for the 2001-2002 academic year as recommended.
The Annual Student Financial Aid Report will be distributed (prior to the tuition hearing) and the university presidents will meet with student leadership in March. Public Notice of the tuition hearing and public disclosure by each university for recommended tuition and fees increases will be given at least ten days prior to the hearing.
Regent Herstam chaired this portion of the meeting.
President Ulrich asked to take this item out of order because there were members of the Native American community who had come for this issue and he did not want them to have to wait several hours since the Board was behind schedule.
Provosts Glick, Davis, Haeger, Maimon, and Backus joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam reminded the Board it had amended Board policy on new program requests to require the inclusion of defined outcomes and an indication of how those outcomes will be assessed. The new policy has an implementation date of March 1, 2001, so the programs being approved at this time, whose development began before this change in policy, will not have outcomes or assessments. However, those that are brought back for implementation authority at the March meeting and all programs approved from that point forward will.
Dr. Glick said ASU was asking for implementation of a Bachelor of Science in American Indian Studies. There are now more than 1000 Native Americans on the ASU campus and the retention rate has gone up. Regent Gignac said the fact this comes in "under the wire" should not deter the university from working on learning assessments. Dr. Glick said the Regents would be provided, by the next meeting, with learning objectives for each of the programs the Board approves at this meeting. Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board approved the implementation of a Bachelor of Science in American Indian Studies. The remainder of this agenda item was held for discussion with the Programs Committee agenda.
President Ulrich welcomed former Regent Rudy Campbell.
Regent Jewett said the Board was being asked to review and consider proposed policy revisions that are responsive to legislation requiring the Board to adopt rules governing its tuition and fees setting process. The Board has already taken steps to comply with the legislation; however, Board policy must be revised to reflect these changes. The item will be brought back for action in March.
Regent Jewett said the Board was being asked to consider a Board policy framework to govern the administration of the Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF) as mandated by the recently passed Proposition 301. Regent Gignac asked for a change in Section B. 3., to say Recommendations from the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education and/or the Arizona Partnership for the new economy. She also asked for D. 1. to say ...proposed project or activity, and/or an explanation as to the ways in which the project promotes the purposes of the legislation.
Regent Jewett said the universities were requesting revision to Board policy to facilitate technology transfer between universities and Arizona state agencies. This policy will be brought back to the Board for adoption in March.
Mr. Joel Valdez and Mr. Bob Smith provided a broad overview of the capital items requested by the University of Arizona. Mr. Valdez said the Board was being asked to approve projects totaling $103M, but only two of the projects, the Highland Commons and the Gittings Expansion, require the use of tuition to retire debt. Based on the interest rates at the time the documents were prepared, the university estimates approximately $1.3M in tuition collections will be used to pay debt service.
The auxiliary projects, such as the Highland Commons, the Sixth Street Parking, University District Housing, and the Park Student Union Expansion are all paid for by user fees. Indirect costs would be used to pay for Finish Shell Space Phase II. The KUAT project will be paid for by gifts and $2.5M in the general fund budget request. Funds raised by investments and the administrative service charge will fund the Learning Services Building. Energy savings will be used to retire the Certificates Of Participation (COPs) used to acquire the Tucson Electric Power Company property.
President Ulrich said he believed it was helpful for the Regents to look at the requests in totality and how they are being funded. Mr. Valdez distributed a chart comparing Certificates of Participation vs. System Revenue Bonds. Regent Gignac said she believed the gross construction cost per square foot was getting high. Mr. Valdez said the universities were meeting with Mr. David Harris from the Central Office to review the Cost Control Guidelines. Mr. Valdez said labor costs in Tucson have been high, but they seem to be leveling.
Regent Ulrich asked if the Sixth Street Parking structure would be large enough to accommodate the number of offices needed and gave Mr. Valdez the option to return to the Board to request a larger structure if needed.
Mr. Valdez and Mr. Smith were present for the discussion of the next eight items.
Regent Jewett explained this was a request by the University of Arizona for Conceptual Approval for the 83,800 sq. ft. Highland Commons project for use by Campus Health Services and the Disability Resource Center, at an estimated project cost of $19.1M. The gross building area for the facility has increased by 8,800 sq. ft. and the budget has increased by $4.8M since the Board granted Project Initiation in May 1998. This increase in space will better accommodate the two programs within one facility. It is proposed to finance the facility primarily through the sale of COPs, plus $1.5M in cash, with debt service being provided from $4M in Auxiliary funds and $13.6M in Tuition Retained Fees.
Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board granted Conceptual Approval to the University of Arizona for the Highland Commons project.
Regent Jewett explained the University of Arizona was requesting Conceptual approval for the Finish Shell Space Phase II project. The project involved the renovation of an existing facility and did not require Project Initiation Approval by the Board. The project will infill and reconfigure previously constructed space for the College of Animal Science. It also replaces 31,000 sq. ft. of exterior/concrete plaza deck over the first floor of the AHSC Animal Facility and the College of Pharmacy.
The projected budget is estimated to be $13.1M which is proposed to be financed with $1.9M in Building Renewal funds, $2.6M in Federal grants, and $8.6M in COPs. Debt service for the COPs will be provided through Indirect Cost Recovery. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board granted Conceptual Approval to the University of Arizona for Finish Shell Space Phase II.
Regent Jewett explained the University of Arizona was requesting Board approval to enter into a Lease Purchase agreement with G.E. Capital for equipment required by station KUAT to broadcast and produce digital TV programs. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 mandates all public TV stations broadcast on Digital TV channels by 2003. This $6M lease purchase is proposed to be financed with gifts and state appropriations. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board granted authorization to the University of Arizona for a lease purchase agreement for the KUAT Digital TV Conversion Project.
Regent Jewett explained the University of Arizona was requesting Conceptual Approval for the Sixth Street Parking and Office Building. The facility will include 1,700 parking spaces and 16,700 sq. ft. of office space for parking staff. When this project received Project Initiation Approval from the Board at the June 2000 meeting, the staff from the University of Arizona was directed to provide a detailed explanation of the office space elements of this project when it came back for Conceptual Approval, which it has done. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board granted Conceptual Approval to the University of Arizona for the Sixth Street Parking and Office Building.
Regent Jewett explained the University of Arizona was requesting Conceptual Approval for the 700 bed University District Housing project. The project, which received Project Initiation approval in June 1998, has an estimated construction cost of $33.7M and is proposed to be financed with COPs, with debt service being provided from Residence Life revenues. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board granted Conceptual Approval to the University of Arizona for the University District Housing project.
Regent Jewett explained the University of Arizona was requesting Conceptual Approval for the 22,000 sq. ft. Learning Services Building that will house faculty and support staff. The project, which received Project Initiation approval in January 2000, has an estimated cost of $5M, and is proposed to be funded with COPs, with debt service being provided from Local Funds. The university will use the newly approved Construction Manager at Risk construction process for this project.
Mr. Smith said this process allows the university to bring the contractor who will build the facility on board earlier in the process through a qualification-based selection process, rather than depending on the low bid alone to select the contractor. This contractor will then bid out each of the subtrades to subcontractors who are also prequalified. This allows the contractor to work cooperatively with the architects and engineers during the design portion to be familiar with the project once it starts. This also allows fast-track construction because sequential bidding allows some of the site and foundation work to be started before all the details are worked out. President Ulrich asked if there was an estimate of the money saved and was told there was a greater time savings than money savings--a project of this size might save three or four months by using this process.
Regent Gignac asked how many faculty offices this building will have and was told approximately 55 new office spaces plus several relatively small conference-seminar rooms. The space released will also be redesigned for faculty offices. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board granted Conceptual Approval to the University of Arizona for the Learning Services Building project.
Regent Jewett explained the University of Arizona was requesting Conceptual Approval for the 25,600 sq. ft. expansion of the Ida E. Gittings facility for use by the School of Music and Dance. The project, which received Project Initiation approval in November 1999, has an estimated construction cost of $9M and is proposed to be funded by a combination of $6M in gifts and $3M in COPs, with debt service being provided from future gifts and Retained Fees. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board granted Conceptual Approval to the University of Arizona for the Gittings Expansion.
Regent Jewett explained the University of Arizona was requesting board authorization to sell $15.2M in Certificates of Participation in order to finance $3.3M for the Park Student Union expansion, $6.9M for the Tucson Electric Power Company property acquisition, and $5M for the Learning Services Building. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to sell one or more series of Certificates of Participation in amounts to produce sufficient proceeds to finance the acquisition, construction, and improvement budgets for the Park Student Union Renovation and Expansion Project, the Tucson Electric Power Company Property Acquisition Project, and the Learning Services Building Construction Project (currently $15.2M), and to pay costs of issuance of the COPs, to take related actions and to enter into all necessary agreements, as provided in a resolution reviewed by Board Counsel and staff.
Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board authorized Arizona Sate University to enter into a multiple-year employment contract with Dirk Koetter as the Head Football Coach according to the terms and conditions summarized below.
The period of the contract will be from the date of execution through January 6, 2006. Coach Koetter will receive a Base Salary of $250,000 for basic duties relating specifically to coaching football. He will receive an Additional Salary of $500,000 for additional duties consisting of participation in media programs, development activities, public relations activities, and endorsement and other promotional activities. The Base Salary will be increased for the year commencing January 1, 2002, and on each January 1 thereafter, by a percentage equal to the sum of the percentages for the Professional Service Employee Percentage Increase and a merit increase percentage based upon the win-loss record of the university football team during the regular season of the preceding calendar year if the team wins at least seven regular season games.
Coach Koetter may receive Supplemental Compensation annually consisting of one-time payments for Academic Performance of Scholarship Student Athletes and Football Team Performance. He will receive additional benefits consisting of tickets to ASU sporting events, use of two automobiles, golf privileges at the ASU Karsten Golf Course and a country club membership. He may use ASU facilities to conduct a football summer camp. Other contract provisions concern personal service agreements, annual reporting of all outside sources of athletically related income and benefits, and termination.
President Ulrich asked for staff to consider changing the policy regarding academic eligibility so it would not unfairly impact sports at the Arizona universities in comparison to other universities.
Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to enter into a multiple-year employment contract for John Mackovic as the Head Football Coach according to the terms and conditions summarized below.
The period of the contract will be January 6, 2001, through January 5, 2006. Coach Mackovic's salary for duties related specifically to coaching football will be $200,000 per year. This salary will be increased in each subsequent year by an amount not to exceed the percentage increase available annually for other administrative employees of the university. For duties not specifically involving coaching football, including television programs, advertising, public relations, fundraising, and other activities benefitting the university, his salary will be $600,000 per year. Payment of this amount will be contingent on the availability of funds derived from radio and television revenue, advertising revenue generated by Mackovic, non-scholarship contributions to the Athletic Department or other revenues derived from or related to the coach's activities.
Coach Mackovic will be entitled to additional compensation related to athletic performance and academic performance. He will be granted an exclusive license to operate a summer football camp using university facilities. He may enter agreements with other parties to provide services not included within this contract, provided such services can be performed within NCAA and ABOR limits, and only upon obtaining prior approval of the university president. Other contract provisions concern outside sources of athletics-related income and termination.
Regent McKay chaired this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Bruce Wright joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay explained the Board was being asked to consider for first reading proposed revisions to the University of Arizona Science and Technology Park Master Plan. The proposal involves revisions to the current land-use plan, increasing the land area that has the "research park" designation, and other changes.
Mr. Wright said the university has been involved in the development of the Science and Technology Park for the last six years. The Park is a 1345 acre site with 345 acres developed and contains 12 buildings and 2 million sq. ft. of developed space. The park has grown rapidly; it is fully leased. The Board approved the Park Master Plan in 1997.
Mr. Wright said the proposed revision to the land use plan called for additional research and development space to allow for multi-tenant buildings for small, medium, and start-up companies as well as expansion for existing tenants. The area to the south would allow for high technology office space for companies that were technology based but did not meet the qualifications to be inside the research park designated area. To the north, the area would allow for assembly manufacturing and would allow the companies to move from the R and D process and start the process of developing their products. The southeastern corner would be for a hospitality hotel and commercial activities to service the growing on-site population. President Ulrich asked why bring the request to expand now and was told the Park is out of space and they have turned away companies. Also, high tech companies grow very rapidly and there should be an inventory of space to meet that need.
President Ulrich asked if the Board of Regents owned the entire 1345 acres and was told yes. He asked why there was a request to add 1100 acres if only 345 acres were in use now and was told the next item was a request to engage in negotiations with the State Land Department to add another 1100 acres to the Park. Mr. Wright said the revision to the Master Plan was to allow the expansion of more of the current acreage as research and development space. They are also trying to look into the future to reserve land for use in 15 or 20 years. The City, County, and State Land Department are now in the process of developing a plan for the expansion of the community into this area and there is a desire to keep the Park from becoming land locked. There might be a chance to do a land exchange to obtain the land.
Regent Gignac asked how the Park intended to develop the land and was told the area inside the Loop Road was marketed and leased by a non-profit corporation called the Campus Research Corporation (CRC). It is contemplated CRC would market and lease space within that area. Outside of the Research Park area, it is contemplated the areas for hospitality and general office development would be ground leases and be developed by others to Research Park standards.
Regent Gignac asked what role the Park anticipated playing in developing incubator space for small companies where start-up costs are minimal and was told it is already being done. President Ulrich asked if there were future plans to move any university programs to the Research Park and was told there are some faculty labs there now, but the distance does not lend itself to student based activities.
Mr. Wright joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Gignac asked if a land exchange with the State Land Department was legal and was told the University of Arizona was not certain, but wanted the chance to sit down with the State Land Department and explore creative opportunities. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board authorized discussion and/or negotiations between the University of Arizona and the State Land Department regarding the potential acquisition of 1,100 acres of state land for incorporation into the University of Arizona Science and Technology Park.
Provost Glick, Dr. Doug Johnson, Provost Haeger, Dr. Hardy-Short, Provost Davis, Dr. Hogle, and Dr. Wickenden joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam explained the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) had developed a set of Frequently Asked Questions and responses regarding Learner-Centered Education (LCE) for the Board to review, discuss and modify, or accept. Dr. Sellers said this was an opportunity to achieve a mutual understanding of LCE and decide where to go from here. Dr. Hogle agreed with Dr. Sellers that many different people have come into the LCE discussion at different times and the AFC wanted to make sure everyone is together before the agendas are moved forward on the campuses.
Regent Echeverria suggested there be more exploration of the concept of not tying grades to time in the classroom. She asked if LCE would define what learning should be or will there be an expansion of the definition of education so different styles of learning are allowed and different types of classes are offered. Dr. Hogle said the AFC believes the definition should be extensive enough to include all possibilities. He said there were state requirements for grading; so there is currently little room to change the grading process. Regent Palacios cautioned trying to include too many things, such as those under Number 9, until everyone understands the topic more fully. Regent Gignac agreed. She suggested there should be an awareness that in order to offer this kind of access, obstacles to the students should be taken into consideration. It is more a matter of flexibility than of supplying the services. President Ulrich said staying consistent with the outcomes included in Number 3 would keep everyone on the same page. He said he would also like to relate the concept of freshmen portfolios and what is being accomplished by each course in the curriculum to learner-centered education.
Provost Davis said the provosts are almost ready to send to President Ulrich a paper describing the status of the evaluation of learning outcomes at each of the three universities in general education, accompanied by a preface statement describing what the provosts would like to accomplish. President Ulrich said the most important part of LCE for him were outcomes and ways to accurately measure those outcomes. Dr. Davis said the charge to the provosts had also included the relationship between learner-centered outcomes assessment and the tendency for life-long learning of graduates. President Ulrich said he believed LCE will be a differentiater for our universities as they compare with their peers.
Regent Echeverria said she was surprised funding needs were not mentioned in Number 13, resources available to support LCE. She asked how faculty members would be assessed under LCE. Dr. Hogle said faculty were also asking that question and it was under discussion. Actually, the universities do some things now that fund the development of LCE; the question will always be how much more can be done, given the competition for resources. Dr. Sellers said the development of this document demonstrated this is an evolutionary process; so many of the outcome measures will be an ongoing development.
Provost Glick said he believes LCE is knowing the outcomes and what is expected from the students. It is realizing students learn in different ways and focusing on that difference. By nature, different subjects fit LCE better than others. He believes focusing on processes moves the process backwards. Provost Haeger said all three universities are also focusing on advising systems to help students move through the process.
Regent Gignac said the question is now being asked how LCE can be institutionalized. There are in place some processes such as program approvals and program reviews. With some changes, expansion, or guidelines, these can lend themselves to the institutionalization of LCE. The learning assessments and the assessment of the objectives may require some outside reviewers. It will take ongoing campus dialogue with a core group of people to advance LCE in each institution. The next review of the UCAR should be done with LCE in mind. She said the Innovation Fund might provide some LCE money.
President Ulrich said Regent Palacios' comment should be kept in mind as LCE goes forward. He would like a description of what steps are necessary to institutionalize LCE to come forward as the next step. Regent Gignac suggested there be a consideration of other stakeholders who might be a part of LCE.
Provosts Glick, Haeger, Davis, Maimon, and Backus joined the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Glick said ASU Main was bringing three planning requests, a PH.D. in Religious Studies, a Master of Science in Computational BioSciences, and a Master of Science in Manufacturing Engineering Management (a one-year planning extension). He emphasized most of the programs would be small and they might require a discussion as they probably won't meet the retention guidelines. ASU Main brought requests for Academic Program Implementation for a Master of Arts in Asian Languages and Civilization/Chinese, a Master of Arts in Asian Languages and Civilizations/Japanese, and a Bachelor of Science in American Indian Studies. Dr. Glick said the cost of adding the Asian Languages program was $50,000, not the amount reported in the Executive Summary.
Dr. Maimon said ASU West is bringing an Academic Program Planning request for a Bachelor of Science in Applied Computing. Dr. Backus said ASU East is bringing an Academic Program Implementation request for a Bachelor of Science in Exercise and Wellness and a Master of Science in Exercise and Wellness. They are also bringing a request to establish a Department of Exercise Science and Wellness at ASU East.
Dr. Haeger said NAU is bringing an Academic Program Planning request for a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science in Women's Studies and an extended Bachelor of Arts in Women's Studies (Honors). They are also bringing an Academic Program Implementation request for a Master of Science in Statistics. NAU is requesting two new departments: Exercise Science and Health Promotion.
Regent Gignac asked if the Board would find learning outcomes for the programs implemented even though they don't fall under the new requirements and was told yes. President Ulrich asked that all degree program or new curriculum requests include the expected learning outcomes and proof that it is thematic.
Dr. Davis said UA is requesting Academic Program Implementation for a Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Economics and Management and a Bachelor of Science in Environmental and Water Resource Economics. UA also requested an Academic Program Planning and Implementation for a Master of Laws in International Indigenous People's Law and Policy. UA is requesting the following organizational changes: Arizona Center for Integrative Modeling and Simulation; Department of Emergency Medicine; Reorganization of Department of Theatre Arts and School of Theatre Arts into three internal divisions; Center for Sustainability of Semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Areas; and Native Nations Institute for Leadership, Management and Policy.
President Ulrich asked if the requested Masters of Law would be redundant with anything currently being taught and was told there is no other Masters like this in the world. Upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board authorized the requests made by the universities for academic program planning and implementation, together with the additional organizational changes that establish new departments for ASU East, NAU, and UA, reorganize a department at UA, and establish three new Centers and Institutes at UA.
Provosts Glick, Haeger, Maimon, Backus, and Davis and Dr. Wickenden joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam said this is the third report the Board has received on the implementation of the post-tenure review process. This year the Board requested the report include separate data on female and male faculty and on minority and non-minority faculty.
Dr. Davis presented a brief overview of the report and the critical processes involved in evaluating faculty at the universities. President Ulrich asked if there were still people leaving because they knew they would not receive tenure and was told yes. President Ulrich left the meeting during this discussion at 3:20 p.m.
Regent Gignac said she was concerned not only about the fact women and minorities are not getting tenure to the same degree as men; she is also concerned about part-time faculty. She had read an article about part-time faculty tenure which she thought was an interesting concept and suggested this be reviewed and explored. Dr. Davis said the increase in part-time faculty is affected by the problem in retaining faculty. Dr. Glick said ASU has been moving toward full-time non-tenure track instructors and lecturers as they receive benefits and somewhat more security and ASU receives better teachers. They have a task force investigating this issue. Regent Gignac asked if the ratings on Page 10 translated into compensation and was told yes.
Regent McKay reviewed the guidelines for the conduct of the Northern Arizona University presidential search. They were reviewed by the search committee at its January meeting and sent forward for Board approval. Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board approved the guidelines for the conduct of the Northern Arizona University presidential search as submitted.
Dr. Sellers reported the AFC wants to emphasize they believe there should be a strong faculty role in the development of ARU. They would like to take the lead in developing the advisory committee and are concerned about articulation. The AFC believes there should be articulation among the universities. The AFC is also concerned about intellectual property.
Dr. Sellers said the AFC has been involved in the RFP for health insurance and is concerned because it looks like the cost of health insurance will increase a substantial amount. AFC is also supportive of the student initiative for AFAT.
Regent Gignac reported the SBDCC approved the new rule on dual enrollment. There is a working document on major strategic directions of the Board which is to formulate and implement a statewide policy initiative resulting in the increased effectiveness of SBDCC coordination of community colleges on behalf of Arizona. She encouraged Regents to attend the All Arizona Academic Team Luncheon on February 15 at Mesa Community College.
Regent Echeverria thanked everyone for the work involved in putting on this meeting. Regent Jewett thanked President Coor for hosting the meeting and said he believed everyone could feel good about the legislative meeting and the Board meeting. Regent Gignac asked staff to begin to address the issues raised by the graduate students. Executive Director Blessing said the Central Office staff held a reception last week to thank the university and community college people who worked on the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education. Regent McKay thanked President Coor and his staff for hosting the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 3:37 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
_______________________________
Judy E. Garza
Secretary to the Board
APPROVED BY:
________________________________
Donald J. Ulrich, Jr.
President
ATTEST:
____________________________
Chris Herstam
Secretary