logo for Arizona Board of Regents and link to Home Page

MINUTES

 ABOR Officers and link to full listing

 

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
MINUTES OF A MEETING


January 14 and 15, 1997

Table of Contents


CALL TO THE AUDIENCE 

CONSENT AGENDA 

RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY 

REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 

REPORT FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR  

REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL  

PUBLIC AWARENESS COMMITTEE  

PROGRAMS COMMITTEE 

INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS  

ADJOURNMENT 

<<<<<<>>>>>>

MINUTES OF A MEETING

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS

January 14 and 15, 1997

A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held on January 14 and 15, 1997, in the Alumni Lounge of the Memorial Union at Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. President Munger called the meeting to order at 1:45 p.m.

PRESENT: Regent George H. Amos, III
Regent Eddie Basha (Tuesday Only)
Regent Rudy Campbell
Regent Arthur Chapa
Regent Kurt Davis
Regent Judy Gignac
Regent John Munger
Regent Jonathan Schmitt
Regent Don Ulrich

ABSENT: Regent Fife Symington
Regent Lisa Graham Keegan

Also present were: President Lattie Coor, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Mr. Allan Price, Mr. Jennus Burton (Tuesday only), Mr. Paul Ward (Tuesday only), and Dr. Elaine Maimon, Arizona State University; President Manuel Pacheco, Dr. Paul Sypherd, Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Saundra Taylor (Wednesday only), Mrs. Jacqueline Schneider (Wednesday only), and Mr. Greg Fahey, University of Arizona; President Clara Lovett (By telephone Wednesday only), Ms. Lisa Schnebly Heidinger, and Mr. Sam Polito, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director Frank Besnette, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Mary McKeown, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda, and Ms. Norma Salas, Central Office; and Dr. John Schwarz, Chair of Arizona Faculties Council.

All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the January 14 and 15, 1997, Documents File.

Regent Campbell led the Pledge of Allegiance. President Munger acknowledged President Pacheco's recent announcement that he would not seek re-appointment as President beyond the expiration of his current appointment (December 31, 1997). On behalf of the Regents, he expressed sincere appreciation for the outstanding service rendered to the University of Arizona and the university system by President Pacheco. (See Page 25 for remarks by other Regents.) President Munger announced he would be appointing a search committee composed of representatives of various university and community constituencies, as well as Board members, to assist in recruiting, screening, and evaluating candidates. The search committee will be assisted by a search firm.

President Munger announced that President Clara Lovett, Northern Arizona University, was not able to attend this meeting because a snowstorm had closed the roads and made it impossible to travel from Flagstaff.

CALL TO THE AUDIENCE

Gerardo López, an NAU Food and Nutrition Science Program graduate, complained the NAU Food Science Program is not accredited or approved by the Institute of Food Technologists. He believes he should have had that pointed out to him before he entered the program.

Clinton Pattea, President of the Ft. McDowell Tribal Council, presented the 1st disbursement of a $1 Million donation to the state's three universities on behalf of the Council. The total donation will be dispersed this fiscal year and will be divided equally among the three universities. Checks of $100,000 each were presented to President Coor of ASU, President Pacheco of the UofA, and Lisa Schnebly Heidinger, who represented President Lovett of NAU. President Munger thanked the Council for its generosity to the university system.

CONSENT AGENDA

President Munger announced that Items 13 and 14, Sale of Portions of Cowden Estate, had been removed from the Consent Agenda to be discussed under the Resources Committee Agenda. The remaining items on the Consent Agenda, which are marked in these minutes with an *, were considered as consent matters and were adopted unanimously upon motion of Regent Chapa, seconded by Regent Gignac. There was no individual discussion of these items except a comment by Regent Chapa (at the end of the meeting) concerning Item 27, Board Policy 4-302, Non-Resident Tuition Waivers.

*Minutes

The Board approved the November 1, 1996, Executive Session and the December 10, 1996, Regular Meeting minutes.

Resources Committee

*Contract with Motorola, Inc. (UofA)

The Board authorized the University of Arizona to enter into a contract with Motorola, Inc., for the UofA Optical Sciences Center to design, fabricate, and qualify a remote sensing sensor for space flight as part of a Department of Defense Integrated Space Technology Demonstration program. The amount of the contract is $6M and the contract period ending is March 31, 2000.

*Highest and Best Use Analysis of the Campus Agriculture Center (UofA)

The Board received a written summary of a report that evaluated the highest and best use of the University of Arizona Campus Agriculture Center (CAC). The university retained the services of Southwest Appraisal Associates and The Planning Center to assist in preparing the evaluation. The conclusions were: 1) The highest and best use of the CAC property is in its current use as an instructional and research campus for the University of Arizona College of Agriculture. 2) The University of Arizona should proceed to complete the Agriculture Research Complex project. 3) Future development at the CAC should continue to be concentrated in existing building clusters, retaining as much open space as possible, in a manner consistent with site development efficiency provisions provided in the Campus Agriculture Center Master Plan (ABOR adoption - April 1993). 4) The University of Arizona and College of Agriculture may wish to consider key, strategic parcels at the CAC for possible future non-farm development, if this is deemed economically feasible and in the best interest of the University and the State of Arizona.

*Appointment of Directors for the Arizona Research Park Authority (UofA)

The Board appointed, as directors of the Arizona Research Park Authority, Mr. Reg T. Morrison for a term commencing on January 1, 1997, and expiring on July 20, 2002; and Mr. Fred Boice for a term commencing on January 1, 1997, and expiring on July 20, 2000.

*Ratification of Ticket Sales to the ASU Alumni Association and the ASU Foundation (ASU)

The Board ratified Arizona State University's sale of 2,500 Rose Bowl tickets to the ASU Foundation and 2,000 Rose Bowl tickets to the ASU Alumni Association. The timing of the game caused the tickets to be sold prior to this meeting. ASU consulted with Board Counsel prior to selling the tickets. A premium will be retained by the Alumni Association and the Foundation to pay for certain expenses in connection with ASU's participation in the Rose Bowl and to support charitable work on behalf of ASU.

*Amendment to Multiyear Contract for Football Coach (ASU)

The Board authorized Arizona State University to enter into a multiple-year employment contract with Bruce Snyder to extend his contract as ASU Head Football Coach according to the terms and conditions set forth. Those terms include that the contract will be extended to January 6, 2002, and ASU will assume the obligations currently held by the Arizona State University Foundation. Snyder's salary will be $500,000 per year with an increase for the year commencing January 1, 1998, and in each January 1 thereafter in percentage increments depending on achieving certain performance milestones. He may receive supplemental compensation annually for the academic performance of scholarship student athletes with the range in increments of $5,000 from $25,000 for a GPA of 2.7 or a graduation rate of 75% to $5,000 for a GPA of 2.3 or a graduation rate of 55%. He will receive the largest of $25,000 for appearance in one of six major bowl games, $15,000 for any bowl game, or $10,000 for a winning season. He will also receive $10,000 for a National Championship, $10,000 for a Conference Championship, and $10,000 for an undefeated season.

ASU agrees to pay Snyder $25,000 per year to operate a football summer camp with Snyder owning all rights to the camp and being solely responsible for payment of all camp expenses.

He may not accept from any third party anything of economic value in excess of $250 as a gift, gratuity, favor, or entertainment, without the prior approval of the Director of Intercollegiate Athletics.

The Board granted an exception to Board Policy 6-1002(A)(2) to allow the contract to extend for six days longer than five years to cover post-season competition after the 2001 season. The Regents also granted an exception to Board Policy 6-1003(A) to allow the effective date of the contract to be retroactive to January 1, 1997. The Board granted an exception to Board Policy 6-1003(B)(8) which requires a noncompetition clause in the contract.

*Multiyear Contract for Football Coach (NAU)

The Board authorized Northern Arizona University to enter into a multiple-year employment contract with Steve Axman as the university's Head Football Coach for the period February 15, 1997, through February 14, 2000. His salary will be $82,000 per year, subject to the same salary increases as other university employees serving under the Conditions of Service Professionals. In addition to the performance of his team in Division 1-AA football, Coach Axman will be held accountable for student-athletes meeting minimum expectations of academic performance.

*Internal Audit of Plant Fund (NAU)

An internal audit of Northern Arizona University's Plant Fund was conducted for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1996. There were two Findings Reportable to the Board: 1) University assets were donated in a manner inconsistent with the Arizona Constitution. 2) There were questionable custodial control practices over university assets within the departments. The internal recommendation (summarized) presented to the University Administration was to complete a Policy and Procedures Manual for Property Control. The Board accepted the internal audit report as submitted.

*Amendment to Optional Retirement Plan Document and Delegation of Authority to Executive Director for Selection of Investment Options

The Board amended the Optional Retirement Plan (ORP) (Second Amendment and Restatement, effective July 1, 1995) to clarify language in the vesting provisions so as to eliminate differential treatment for persons in similar situations. The Regents also delegated the Board's authority to approve changes in investment options (for the current four ORP carriers) to its Executive Director.

Programs Committee

*Amendment to Board Policy 4-302, Non-Resident Tuition Waivers (Second Reading)

The Board approved the proposed changes to ABOR Policy 4-302, Non-Resident Waivers. All three universities will now apply uniform cumulative GPA standards for the renewal of undergraduate non-resident waivers. Waivers will be granted at the point of first enrollment only and not made available to non-resident students who have already enrolled and attended without the waiver. Renewal of academic merit waivers will require a 3.5 GPA. Special talent waivers will require a 3.0 GPA. International student waivers will require a 3.25 GPA. There will be no impact on existing students who are currently receiving waivers. The number of non-resident student waivers shall be frozen at their current level. Non-resident students receiving waivers shall be required to perform community service. Section D of Policy 4-302 was deleted.

The meeting recessed at 1:00 p.m. and reconvened at 1:06 p.m.

RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Regent Amos chaired this portion of the meeting.

Report from the Committee for External Review of University Capital Assets

Mr. Mark DeMichele, president and chief executive officer of Arizona Public Service Company, joined the meeting for this discussion. Mr. DeMichele, as chairman of the education committee of Greater Phoenix Leadership, was asked by President Munger to assist in conducting an expedited review of the Board's capital development processes. Working with Regent Ulrich, Mr. DeMichele appointed a private sector committee with expertise in project development, construction, finance and budgeting, space utilization and planning. Mr. DeMichele informed the Regents the committee did not have time to address the area of the optimal mix of debt service; but members would be willing to continue to finish this one piece. The committee found the Regents' capital development process to be "fundamentally sound," and offered ways to improve it. Following is a summary of those recommendations.

Building new facilities at Arizona's public universities or remodeling existing buildings should be done according to a system-wide priority list and in concert with the strategic plans of the Board of Regents. Each campus would prioritize its own projects and Regents would then prioritize major projects to be funded in the short term and those to be funded later, depending upon the availability of resources. The Board of Regents and the universities should review the purpose of the five-year summary plans and work with the Governor's Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) to develop mutually useful content and format for individual projects as well as the entire plan. The Universities and the central office should establish a funding overview for the Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) that shows an all-funds sources and uses approach to capital planning.

The Board should appoint a business/university committee to develop a utilization standard for Arizona. Once an Arizona space standard is developed, the Board should adopt the standard and establish it as a goal for the universities to meet with specific periodic benchmarks and timetables for completion. Future classroom space requirements should then be reevaluated in light of the new utilization goals. The universities should centralize classroom scheduling using the latest computer technologies, considering not only scheduling of space, but matching class size with appropriate sized space. The Board should evaluate the use of various incentives, such as pricing, to modify student and faculty behavior for greater utilization of facilities.

The universities should review their library policies and implement a fee for nonstudent use adequate to offset the additional burden placed on their resources. The Board should establish a pilot program that would provide incentives to ranked faculty to spend more time in the classroom in support of the instructional mission of the universities. The Board should annually review the projected enrollment demand figures in comparison with actual enrollment figures with the objectives of updating the model and fine-tuning its ability to forecast demand for Arizona university instruction, and to determine on what campuses and with what instructional delivery systems the new demand should be met over the next three to five years.

The Board should spend more time studying and discussing new construction and major renovation projects prior to granting Project Initiation, the first step in the Regents' approval process of major capital projects. The Board should adopt a policy limiting the amount of funds that can be expended by a university on projects that have received Conceptual Approval, the second step in the capital process. The universities should keep the Regents better informed of a project's evolution. The universities should demonstrate to the Board that any new classroom construction, especially highly-mediated space, will be among the most highly utilized space on campus in its space category, the space will be designed with flexibility so that various users may use it without major renovation, and individual computer stations or computer connectivity will be a major component of the design. The Board should focus more attention on the universities' estimated costs of project development, as well as estimates of the short-term and long-term operating costs associated with new construction and major renovation projects, and the identification of revenue streams to fund these anticipated operating costs.

The universities should demonstrate annually to the Board the collaboration, exploration, and investment in the capital resources necessary to provide distance learning, with this report becoming a component of the CIP. Also, the universities should collaborate on developing a pilot project for Arizona to implement leading edge distance learning to help reduce the need for new facilities and to accommodate future enrollment.

The universities should determine what their "baseline" budget is on each campus for properly maintaining their facilities, including infrastructure. The Board, in collaboration with the OSPB, the JLBC, and possibly with the help of an outside engineering firm, should review the current building renewal formula. The Legislature should fully fund the Board of Regents' building renewal request each year in accordance with the agreed upon formula, and hold the universities accountable for developing life extension plans for the buildings. The Board should consider hiring an outside consulting firm to conduct an in-depth analysis of the universities' building structures and assumptions that are used to estimate the deferred maintenance backlog, and make recommendations for appropriate deferred maintenance budget requests. Standards should be developed that would apply to all three institutions. The universities should annually present to the Board an overview of funding sources and uses for deferred maintenance projects specifically allocated to decrease the backlog of deferred maintenance. The universities, in their annual submission of the CIP's, should begin to include the full Annual Building Inventory report, with a column added for estimated deferred maintenance. The universities should lease temporary classrooms to provide for temporary relocation of classes and to speed up renewal projects.

Representatives from the Board, universities, OSPB, and JLBC should work together over the next 30 days to review the data and information that was generated for this committee and determine what additional data and information is necessary before reintroducing the multiyear bonding plan to the Joint Committee on Capital Review. The Board should thoroughly scrutinize the following three projects as they come forward for Regents approval over the next few months: ASU's Liberal Arts/Mediated Classroom building; NAU's Biology/Biochemistry and Replacement buildings; UofA's Integrated Instructional Facility.

The Board, universities, JLBC and the OSPB should seek revision of A.R.S. §41-2535 to allow the limitation of the simplified construction procurement program to be raised to $500,000 from $100,000 for construction services. The Board, in conjunction with the JLBC and the OSPB should consider seeking a Legislative-appointed committee to study alternative means of procuring design and construction services for all State government, including design-build and cost plus fixed fee with a guaranteed maximum price arrangement. The Board and universities should review Chapters 3 and 7 of Regents policy with the intention of improving the transfer and integration of useful data and information among the Board, universities, JLBC, and the OSPB.

President Munger and the Regents thanked Mr. DeMichele and his committee for all the time and effort they had put into this project. Regent Ulrich thanked Mr. DeMichele and said he believed it was the sense of the Board the committee should be reconvened to finish the studies on the mix of debt and the space utilization model. Mr. DeMichele said the committee would be happy to work on those studies and offered any help the Board might request to implement any of the recommendations.

Regent Gignac moved the Board accept the report and consider the recommendations from the Committee for External Review of Capital Assets, with appropriate input from the Presidents and the Executive Director; and direct the universities to begin working immediately on Recommendation 24 which seeks resolution of the status of the Board's multiyear bonding plan submission to the Joint Committee on Capital Review (JCCR) and the Governor's Office. The motion was seconded by Regent Chapa.

Regent Chapa asked that the needs of non-traditional students be considered when the capital projects are being reviewed. He believed attracting these students would lead to more efficient space utilization in the "off-peak" hours. He also would like the Board to have a discussion about pricing tuition and rewarding faculty for using "off-peak" hours. Regent Amos agreed with the suggestions and said he believed current university customer behavior patterns may be different than the traditional model due to working students. Regent Munger also stated his agreement with this position. Regent Amos asked that studying the needs of non-traditional students be made a clear part of the review of the committee's recommendations. Regent Gignac pointed out the Board has four new campuses, rather than the three mentioned by the committee, and noted the 300 students at the UofA Sierra Vista Campus are all non-traditional students. Regent Chapa urged the presidents, in making their analyses, to draw distinctions between the needs for renovation and construction to meet mission requirements as opposed to meeting student expansion requirements.

Regent Davis asked if the inclusion of the needs of non-traditional students would include the impact of the virtual university and technology and was told yes. Regent Davis asked if the Board would still consider renovations a priority in the bonding plan and said he would have a hard time voting to add more capital space before knowing how all the recommendations will be implemented. Regent Gignac responded she believed some of the recommendations, if accepted by the Regents, would take time to implement; and did not believe it would be necessary to wait that long before going to the JCCR with the bonding plan.  Executive Director Besnette and President Coor agreed some of the recommendations would take a considerable period of time to implement. Regent Ulrich commented he believed the JCCR would ask for additional information before it would approve the bonding plan and that might take care of some of the concerns expressed by Regent Davis.

Regent Schmitt asked, in light of Recommendation 12, to receive information concerning how much money the universities have already spent on these three projects.

The motion made and seconded by Regents Gignac and Chapa, including the comments made above, was passed unanimously.

Final Report from the Study Group on the Tuition Setting Process

Regent Amos presented the recommendations of the Study Group on the Tuition Setting Process. The Group recommended the process be adopted by the Board in sufficient time to guide the Board's decision-making process for FY99:

1. Each fall, in conjunction with the annual state operating budget request process, the university presidents will display for the Board the goals and objectives to be achieved over a specified time period in accordance with the five year strategic plans, along with the amount of funding required to accomplish these priorities. By doing so, the process ties more directly to five year strategic plans and it more clearly identifies funding needed over the time frame of the strategic plan.

2. In determining the state operating budget request to be sent to the Governor and legislature, the Board will consider university goals and objectives, and link the funding amount requested to the achievement of the Board's prioritized goals and objectives for the university system.

3. The Board and universities will formulate, for the public and legislature, the resource requirements necessary to achieve the goals and objectives.

4. After the legislature determines the level of appropriations for the state operating budgets of the Arizona university system, the universities and central office will provide to the Board an explanation of how those resources will be allocated, based on the list of the priorities agreed to in the process of establishing the state operating budget request. Prior to setting tuition, the universities publicly will review with the Board the remaining unfunded priorities in the appropriations request, internal reallocations, and how tuition increases could be used to address these unfunded priorities.

5. The Board will continue to seek opinions relating to the priorities listed by the universities from students, faculty, staff, and the general public in preparation for setting tuition levels.

6. After the Board reviews cost of attendance data, the Board sets tuition based on the amount of funding needed to achieve the specified priorities as articulated by the university presidents. Some priorities in the five year strategic plans will require funding over multiple years; therefore, not all needs will be met in any one year. Each year the Board will review the universities' update plans to determine priority needs for the next fiscal year.

7. At the conclusion of each budget cycle, universities report their progress (through outcome and accountability measures included in the university system report card and other reports) in meeting Board approved goals and objectives, including a report on the specific uses of new resources from appropriations or tuition increases, or from internally reallocated resources. In addition, the Study Group recommended this process be referred to the Process Review Committee so these recommendations can be aligned with other budget processes.

Regent Schmitt asked that the document be amended to reflect that students, faculty, and staff be involved in the development of strategic plans and in setting university priorities. There was no objection from other Regents. He also asked that residence hall rates be set concurrent with tuition, beginning this year; therefore, residence hall rates would be set in April rather than February. This would allow students to comment on residence hall rates at the tuition hearing.

President Pacheco asked for an opportunity for the universities to see how this would affect the timing of offering financial aid packages to students for the fall semester. Regent Davis suggested, if timing is a problem this year, the current rates be frozen for this year and the Regents set rates a year ahead in April. He said he believed the schedule should be changed so residence hall rates are set at the same time tuition is established. Regent Munger agreed.

President Coor also asked the Regents to delay making a decision on this issue until the universities had a chance to examine the issue of timing more thoroughly. Regent Gignac said allowing the students to speak at the tuition hearing about the residence hall rate increases would give her assurance all the residents, not just the residence hall council representatives, have an opportunity to comment on proposed increases.

Regent Schmitt reported the Associated Students of Arizona had met earlier in the day and had reached a consensus they would prefer the residence hall rates be set at the same time as tuition. Dr. James Rund, ASU Associate Dean of Student Affairs, said rates have historically been set in January, or February at the latest, so continuing students can make an informed decision about returning to dorms next year. Also, new students ask for rates as early as possible so they can decide whether to apply for housing on campus or to live off campus. Dr. Besnette suggested students could be notified what the universities will ask for residence hall rates next year--an upper limit--but with the proviso the rate is tentative until approved by the Board.

Upon motion of Regent Schmitt, seconded by Regent Campbell, the Board adopted the recommendations of the Study Group on the Tuition Setting Process. Upon motion of Regent Schmitt, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board added to the report the requirement that students, faculty, and staff be included in the development of strategic plans and university priorities. Upon motion of Regent Schmitt, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board (with Regent Amos voting no) moved the date of setting residence hall rates so that it is concurrent with the setting of tuition. Regent Basha left the meeting prior to the voting.

Discussion of FY98 State Operating Budget Recommendations from the Governor and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee

Dr. McKeown summarized the budget recommendations from the Governor and the staff of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee which had been released earlier in the day. Regent Amos called the Regents' attention to the Governor's recommendation that the entire university budget increase be appropriated to the Board of Regents for allocation to the various campuses to permit the Board to determine what system priorities will be funded. The universities would be held accountable for making progress toward the Board's goals and objectives.

Regent Gignac asked if the increased funding, passed through the Board to the universities as the Board deems appropriate, would then increase each university's continuing base budget for the next year in the amount of the funding it received. Dr. Besnette said he did not believe that issue had yet been examined. Regent Davis said he believed it would be part of the continuing base as the addition of the Regents allocating the money is a new step, but he did not think the entire process is supposed to change.

Report on University Administrative and Support Cost Indicators

The Board received a report on administrative and support cost comparisons between the Arizona universities and peer institutions. Regent Amos asked for an explanation of why the report indicates ASU's expenditure for institutional support per head-count student is less than peer averages, but the institutional support expenditures make up a bigger share of total expenditures at ASU than peer averages. Mr. Doug Vinzant, ASU Director of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, said it would be necessary to examine what was included in the institutional support category by peer institutions. It was assumed NAU would have the same response as to why its percentage is also greater than its peers. Mr. John Wilson, UofA Director of Decision and Planning Support, agreed with Mr. Vinzant, but added the UofA also differs because it has both a college of medicine and a college of agriculture on the same campus. It also has an
extraordinarily high rate of external funding. Regent Amos suggested future reports show a commonality with peers. Regent Campbell said he would like to continue to see the report so the Regents could watch for trends. Regent Amos suggested the report remain as it is, with the universities trying to refine the categories in relation to their peers.

Approval of Planning and Budgeting Calendar

Regent Ulrich asked if the proposed calendar was in sync with the state budget calendar and was told it was. Regent Schmitt asked when the university priorities, strategic plans, etc. were developed. President Coor said it was a continuous process. Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Campbell, the Board approved the 1997-98 planning and budgeting calendar as proposed, with the notation it is tentative, pending the recommendations of the Board's Process Review Committee.

Request for Sale of Portions of Cowden Estate to Chamberlain Development Corporation and Rousseau Limited Liability Company

Regent Amos asked if the contract contained a "hold harmless clause" for environmental damage that might be done by a future owner. Dr. McKeown answered the property is being sold "as is" and a baseline environmental study has been completed so any future damage assessments would take into account the results of that study. Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Schmitt, the Board approved the sales to Chamberlain Development and Rousseau Limited Liability Company, subject to Regent Amos's review of the environmental clause. The Board also authorized the execution of all legal documents by the Board's President, Secretary, or Executive Director, subject to review of all documents by Board Counsel.

Chamberlain Development will purchase a 10 acre parcel in the southeast corner of the Cowden Tract for a purchase price of $41,382/acre, "as is," and unimproved. Buyer will receive a credit of $.20-$.25/square foot to offset the cost of the city imposed water assessment and necessary roadway and utility improvements. Seller will convey to Buyer a road for access to the property which will remain a private drive and Seller will retain an access easement in order to benefit the remaining property. The Seller is responsible for any commission. The net proceeds of the sale will be approximately $304,900 - $326,700 less closing costs and commission. The Board will receive 38.5% of this amount, approximately $108,582 - $116,346 with the proceeds distributed to ASU (39%), UofA (35%), and NAU (26%). The value of this property is not as high as several other portions of the Cowden Tract because of its location at the back of the property, rather than on 99th Avenue.

Rousseau Limited Liability Company will purchase a 14.7 acre parcel in the southeast corner of the Cowden Tract for $36,155/acre, "as is," and unimproved. Buyer will receive a credit of $.08/sq. ft. to offset the costs of the city imposed water assessment. This purchase will include the portion of Harrison Street that runs adjacent to the property line, with permission from the City of Tolleson. The Seller is responsible for any commission. The net proceeds of the sale will be approximately $480,249 less closing costs and commission. The Board will receive 38.5% of this amount, approximately $178,272, which will be distributed to ASU (39%), UofA (35%), and NAU (26%). The value of this property is not as high as several other portions of the Cowden Tract because of its inclusion in a flood plain and its location.

Revisions to Terms and Conditions of Sale of Portion of Cowden Estate to Southwest Mack Corporation

Regent Amos did not participate in the discussion or voting on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. President Munger chaired this item. Upon motion of Regent Campbell, seconded by Regent Chapa, the Board authorized the revised terms and conditions for the sale of Parcels C and D to Southwest Mack Corporation. The Board also authorized the execution of all legal documents by the Board's President, Secretary, or Executive Director, subject to review of all documents by Board Counsel.

The Cowden Owners are netting slightly less dollars in the closing of Parcel C; however, given the increase in the water assessment, along with an additional increase to Mack for off site improvements, the actual gross price for the property has increased. Additionally, if Mack does not close Parcel D, the $43,037 non-refundable deposit reverts to the Cowden Owners which in turn increases the price per square foot of Parcel C by $.065/sq. ft. If Mack does proceed with the purchase of Parcel D, the minimum floor price will be $.065 higher than under the prior proposed transaction.

Renovation of Grady Gammage Auditorium Orchestra Shell: Conceptual Approval and Project Approval (ASU)

Mr. Jennus Burton and Mr. Allan Price joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Amos asked if the appropriate groups, such as architects, engineering firms, etc. had signed off on the project and was told they had. He also asked if the concerned community groups were satisfied with the proposed renovation. Mr. Price said the renovation was suggested by Taliesin West, the group of architects that work most closely with Frank Lloyd Wright designed buildings. Grady Gammage, Jr., the music faculty (including those in organ) and the State Historic Preservation Office have agreed to the proposed addition, and the proposal will go before the University Design Review Board.

Regent Amos asked how long it would take to recover the costs of this renovation and was told it would depend on the final project cost and the split of the money between revenue sources. Although it is too early in the project to know precisely, the assumption is in the range of three to five years. Regent Amos asked why it was necessary to waive Board policy requirements for this project and was told the original estimates were under the $1M. It became apparent in December the project would be more complicated than expected; the cost made it necessary to submit the project through the Board's capital review process; but the July 1, 1997, deadline still remains.

Upon motion of Regent Campbell, seconded by Regent Ulrich, the Board granted Conceptual and Project Approvals to Arizona State University and authorized the university to begin construction for the addition and improvements necessary for the moving of the orchestra shell and associated renovation at Grady Gammage Memorial Auditorium for the total project cost of $1.5M. The Board also agreed to waive Board policy to allow ASU to use a design-build process or to waive the bidding requirements and move directly to hire consultants and a contractor, perhaps with a guaranteed maximum price.

REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY

President Coor welcomed the Board to the university.

REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

President Pacheco reported the Steward Observatory Mirror Laboratory has begun preparing to cast the largest ever single-piece mirror. This is the first of the 8.4 meter mirrors intended for the Large Binocular Telescope on Mount Graham. Dr. Pacheco also reported that a proposal to establish an Institute for International Affairs would probably come to the Board next month. The new venture will be located in a building financed by external funds and will provide a home for numerous existing units. The Institute will stimulate the entire spectrum of international activities.

REPORT FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Executive Director Besnette called the Board's attention to his written report on College Goal Sunday. This is a new annual, statewide program designed to provide free information and assistance to Arizona students applying for college financial aid.

REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL

Dr. John Schwarz, Chairman of the Arizona Faculties Council, told the Board the approval tomorrow of the Post Tenure Review policy would mark several important milestones. It is probably the most advanced of its kind in the nation. It represents an enormous amount of dialogue between the Regents and the faculties, among the faculty, and between the faculties and administrations across the campuses. It shows how it is possible to deal with an issue that is both deeply divisive and complicated in a manner that is highly successful. He believes this process provides a model that can teach how to resolve other difficult issues. He thanked the Regents on behalf of the Arizona Faculties Council for working collaboratively with the faculty and for all the time they invested in this issue.

Several Regents thanked Dr. Schwarz for the time and energy he and the Faculties Council members expended on this issue. President Munger thanked President Coor for his hospitality and the opportunity to celebrate ASU's achievements in many areas.

The meeting recessed at 4:45 p.m. and reconvened at 8:37 a.m. on Wednesday, January 15, 1997, in the Alumni Lounge. President Lovett joined the meeting by telephone as the accumulated snow still prevented her from leaving Flagstaff. President Munger congratulated Dr. Martha Gilliland on her appointment as Provost at Tulane University.

PUBLIC AWARENESS COMMITTEE

Regent Davis chaired this portion of the meeting.

Comments from Senator Carol Springer on Legislative Proposal Regarding Joint Management of Academic Programming by Yavapai Community College/NAU Partnership

Senator Carol Springer joined the meeting to present her legislative proposal to offer upper-division courses and baccalaureate degree programs at Yavapai Community College in partnership with Northern Arizona University. The bill would remove from state statute language which prohibits community colleges from offering academic programs "beyond two years after the twelfth grade;" direct Yavapai to offer upper-division courses; provide directly to Yavapai Community College a state general fund appropriation of $940,000 in FY 98 for those programs; and authorize Yavapai to reimburse NAU for upper division courses taught at Yavapai by NAU faculty members. The program would be managed by the presidents of NAU and Yavapai Community College. Accountability would be demonstrated to legislative leadership and the governor's office through an annual report issued by NAU and the governing board of Yavapai Community College. This bill would also allow credit for competency based learning.

Senator Springer said she would be flexible on the issue of the management of the program if the Board of Regents and the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges believe they should be involved in the oversight of the program.

Regent Schmitt expressed concern about creating a new level of colleges within the state when the NAU Yuma model, or the 2+2 program, has been so successful for members of the Yuma and Prescott communities. He asked if Dr. Jim Carruthers, former president of Arizona Western College who now represents Yuma in the House of Representatives, had been consulted during the drafting of this legislation, given his depth of knowledge about the current system. Senator Springer said this program is different from the Yuma model, and she had not spoken to Dr. Carruthers. She answered Regent Schmitt's further questions by saying the degree would come from NAU, not Yavapai College, and Yavapai would not need to seek its own accreditation to offer four year courses.

Regent Gignac expressed her appreciation for Senator Springer's interest in making higher education available throughout the state, but asked why the bill would allow all community colleges to to to go beyond their traditional role. Senator Springer says she does not view this as a competition with the universities; but this legislation will open that door. Regent Gignac said she is not concerned about competition, but is more concerned this bill would move toward the concept of establishing state colleges in Arizona at a time many states are finding it necessary to close down state colleges.

Regent Gignac also stated her concern with the criticism the Regents have received in the past about duplication among the universities as this bill would seem to duplicate programs and waste resources. Senator Springer said she did not see this happening because Arizona is a fast-growing state and will have an increasing student population to serve. She does not see this developing into a state college system and believes it will only succeed if there is a demand for the product. Regent Gignac answered the Board of Regents and the Community College Board have been working diligently to plan for enrollment growth and in expanding access for rural areas; but have only been able to do so as the appropriations have become available. She suggested Senator Springer's support of those efforts would be a better use of limited financial resources than expenditures for new program entities.

Regent Campbell asked if it would not be expected that every community college in the state would now ask for direct appropriations for programs on their campuses. Senator Springer answered this line item is located within Yavapai's budget since this is the physical location of the program; but it is based on what NAU believes will be the cost; and NAU will bill Yavapai College directly for reimbursement for its services. She agreed anyone could ask for anything.

Regent Ulrich asked for a definition of the differences between the NAU Yuma program and the proposed Yavapai program. Senator Springer said this bill, by taking off the community college limitation of two years, opens the door for more expansion. Regent Ulrich said he was not aware of any problems with expansion in the Yuma program; and he saw no reason why it could not be expanded in its present form which does not require legislation, any more than the NAU Yavapai program requires legislation. Regent Ulrich expressed indignation at the effect he believes this bill will have on the higher education system in Arizona and on Arizona taxpayers. He said he does not understand why the state should scrap models that have become prototypes for the nation to try something that has been tried before and failed. He said he would do everything he could to oppose this bill.

President Coor said Senator Springer's goals could be accomplished without changing the very clear respective responsibilities of the community colleges and the universities. Changing those raises a series of questions about the current partnerships between the universities and the community colleges, such as the arrangement whereby ASU West carries the baccalaureate responsibilities and the community colleges carry their responsibilities. He believes the goals sought by Senator Springer, NAU, and Yavapai Community College can be accomplished more objectively without altering that partnership. He would like the issue of extending community college teaching beyond two years to be carefully examined.

President Pacheco commended Senator Springer for her objective of trying to offer more access to Arizona citizens. He agreed with President Coor that everything she hopes to accomplish can be done under current legislative authority. Arizona's strong point has always been its limited number of universities and colleges and its strong community college system. He would not like to see it develop problems like those in Florida and Texas.

President Lovett said the educational objective set by herself and the President of Yavapai Community College does go beyond what is being done through other partnerships. Many of the goals could be accomplished, though, without the necessity for legislative change.

Regent Davis asked how competency based examinations would function as part of this legislation. Senator Springer said this would give the universities and the community colleges an opportunity to work out a system where competencies would be evaluated. She believes today's students should get credit for their life experiences.

Regent Schmitt wondered if the fiscal impact of expanding community colleges versus putting resources into virtual learning had been considered. Senator Springer said she believes providing more of the university programs in a local community college setting will save the students and the taxpayers money as there will be no need to build more buildings on either the community college campuses or the university campuses. Regent Schmitt asked if any study had been done to show this would save money over the current system of the 2+2 model since the legislation would open up the possibility of another layer of administration to add to taxpayer costs. Senator Springer said the presidents would be able to manage the programs. Regent Schmitt asked her to talk with Representative Carruthers as he would have insight on this type of program.

Regent Gignac asked if the appropriation would be renewed every year or if it would become part of the continuing appropriations. Senator Springer said this would be a one-time expenditure as there is a current need to address some technology issues and the payment of an NAU staff member on site. Regent Gignac asked if there was an implicit funding formula. Senator Springer said another feature of the bill would be a year around budgeting process.

Regent Chapa asked President Lovett if she supported the overall philosophy of this bill or the bill as written. Dr. Lovett answered the partnership can be accomplished without this bill. She shares the concerns Regents have expressed. Numerous legislators have mentioned converting two year colleges into four year colleges. Current delivery systems are not quite meeting current needs. As successful as NAU Yuma has been, it is not meeting all of the community needs. More needs to be done and the same is certainly true at Yavapai.

Regent Gignac said she believed the application of the right resources in the right area will solve the problem without new legislation. Regent Ulrich expressed concern about the new entity reporting to the President of the Senate and the Governor's office, therefore creating need for more staff and making higher education more political. Also, creating 25 or 30 new institutions will be redundant and cost taxpayers money. Senator Springer agreed there could be some more work on the oversight section of the bill.

Regent Ulrich restated his belief this bill was not well conceived as decision makers in existing agencies and institutions were not consulted when the bill was drafted. He asked that the bill be withdrawn and the appropriate Boards be asked to join the table to talk it over before something rash is done.

Regent Munger thanked Senator Springer for taking the time to engage in a dialogue with the Regents over this legislation. Regent Davis explained the process the Board uses in regard to educational legislative issues. Once the legislation has been reviewed and the Board takes a position, she will be contacted.

Regent Munger spoke about the Board's enrollment growth study, which had included legislators and other constituencies, and the plan that was developed to deal with the anticipated growth. Senator Springer said her legislation is an alternative and believes this should be seen as a common recognition of enrollment growth. She thanked the Board for allowing her to come and asked Regents to keep an open mind on her legislation. Senator Springer left the meeting.

Regent Munger asked President Lovett about her comment concerning NAU Yuma as he was not aware the program was not serving the needs of the community. President Lovett answered it is a resource-based problem, not a planning problem, as funding has limited the number of degree programs that can be offered. However, she believes the NAU Net will help. Regent Munger asked if all Senator Springer's concerns could be met with current plans if funding was available, and President Lovett answered yes.

Status Report on ASU Discussions with Legislature Regarding Supplemental Appropriation to Fund Building Renovation at ASU East

President Coor explained why ASU decided to participate in discussions with legislators regarding a supplemental appropriation to renovate the former Commissary Building on the Williams Campus into a modern, state-of-the art laboratory, classroom, and office complex that will house the School of Technology. Regent Davis said he was not questioning the importance of the project; however, asking for a supplemental appropriation was a fundamental diversion from the Board's prior agreement. All the universities have priorities and the Board should be involved in deciding if supplemental funding should be requested as this could impact the agreement with the Governor concerning the budget request. Regent Gignac agreed with Regent Davis.

President Coor said the need for the laboratory was already established by the Board in its Capital Plan. If there are capital requests from the other universities, he would welcome a process to see if all three can make a request. Regent Campbell reminded the Board of the circumstances under which the Williams Campus was acquired and the chance to receive help from the private sector on this project.

Regent Amos concurred that it is an important project; however, he did not like the manner in which it was handled because the other universities also have important projects. The universities should work within the framework established by the Board. Regent Gignac suggested, since time is critical, the members of the Council of Presidents be asked to consider this issue to see if the other universities have projects to add to a supplemental request. Regent Amos agreed with this approach and suggested the issue then be returned to the Board for a decision.

Regent Ulrich moved to send this issue to the Council of Presidents for discussion and asked Dr. Besnette to report back to the Regents on the discussion. Regent Gignac seconded the motion and said anything in the supplemental request should already have received Conceptual Approval from the Board. Regent Davis said he thought asking for a supplemental appropriation would be a mistake, looking at the entire budget process. Assuming that other Regents might disagree with him and ask the presidents to meet and move forward with the issue, he would like the projects that are submitted to be the priority projects from the approved list that were not previously funded. Regent Gignac reminded him these are projects requiring general funds, not bonding funds, so this will affect the priority list.

Executive Director Besnette said the ASU project may be the only project that meets those requirements. He asked if other priority projects that are not capital projects would be eligible for consideration from the other universities and was told only capital projects should be considered.

Regents Davis and Amos stated their concern with adding this issue to the general budget discussions this legislative session. Dr. Besnette recommended either the President of the Board appoint a subcommittee or a special telephone Board meeting be convened to consider a supplemental request if the presidents decide to pursue the issue. President Munger agreed with the recommendation as he believed this fits with the Governor's approach of having the Regents control the university budgets.

Regent Gignac restated the motion: this issue is to be sent back to the Council of Presidents to determine the extent of the supplemental request. The boundaries of the supplemental request will be constrained by what has been approved by the Board up through Conceptual Approval and the President of the Board, in consultation with the Executive Director, will determine if a subcommittee of the Board or a special meeting by telephone is necessary to approve the request before it goes to the legislature. It was seconded by Regent Ulrich. The motion passed with Regents Campbell, Schmitt, Ulrich, Chapa, and Gignac voting yes and Regents Davis and Amos voting no.

Regent Ulrich stated he understood the reluctance of Regent Davis to add anything to the budget request because of the agreement with the Governor; however, he believes there are exceptions the Board should consider when dealing with major capital expenditures, especially when the private sector offers money the taxpayers would otherwise have to pay. He suggested it would be a good idea to sit down with the appropriate people, explain the reason for the supplemental, and see whether they believe it is a good idea to proceed.

Status Report on the Arizona University System Annual Report Card

Regent Davis called the Regents' attention to the indicators listed in the Board book and told them the universities are compiling the data to explain the indicators. The Report Card is to be included with the February Board meeting materials so the Board can discuss it and approve it at the meeting. There will be a discussion with the presidents to establish Board agreement on the recommendations of the universities regarding the grades or ratings. The Board adopted-ratings will be integrated into the Report Card. It is hoped the Report Card can be released to the legislature and the public on February 14. It is anticipated this Report Card will be a prototype that will be improved upon in future editions. The final report will also include a page for each university to talk about some of its key successes.

Regent Ulrich commended Regent Davis for his work on this document and said it will be a good indicator of where more work is needed. President Munger and Regent Gignac agreed. Regent Davis said there may be different indicators next year as one of this year's selection criteria was there must be data available. This is not expected to be a Straight A Report Card. It needs to be credible.

The Board recessed at 10:35 a.m. and reconvened at 10:47 a.m.

PROGRAMS COMMITTEE

This portion of the meeting was chaired by Regent Gignac.

Amendment to Board Policy 6-201, Conditions of Faculty Service Post-Tenure Review (First Reading)

Regent Gignac stated the intent of the proposed revisions to Board Policy 6-201, Conditions of Faculty Service Post-Tenure Review, is to mandate a post-tenure review process that is consistent with a Board approved common elements document. The policy outlines the essential features of the process and incorporates the common elements by reference. This will give the Board some flexibility in future years if the policy should need some fine tuning.

Regent Ulrich congratulated the faculty and Dr. Schwarz for the work they did on this policy as he believes it has turned out to be a landmark document. He asked if Regents were now satisfied with the timeline. Regents Munger and Amos said their concerns about the timeline have been addressed in this document. Regent Amos questioned the phrase "shall be evaluated in light of" in Section H. 1. b. Regent Gignac suggested the phrase "based upon" be substituted for the words "in light of" and Regent Amos agreed.

Regent Campbell asked that this policy be instituted in a streamlined manner to keep it from becoming a burden. Regents Amos, Munger, Chapa, and Schmitt expressed their appreciation to Dr. Schwarz and the other faculty leaders for their help on this issue.

Proposed Modification to Board Policy Re: Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure

Dr. Dan Landers, ASU Arizona Faculties Council representative, joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Gignac reminded the Board the agenda materials included the current policy with the Arizona Faculty Council's recommended changes; but the proposed changes were being presented for discussion purposes only, not for first reading. Regent Gignac pointed out this modification eliminates the appeal to the Board, contained in current policy, that occurs after the recommendation by CAFT and the decision to dismiss by the president.

Regent Schmitt suggested moving the timeline in Section K.4a back to 45 days to match Section L1c, rather than moving the timeline in L1c up to 60 days. Dr. Schwarz said 45 days would be sufficient time in most cases; there are exceptions when someone needs to come from out of town. Regent Gignac said there would be an opportunity to arrange for exceptions because of the language allowing a time change if both parties agree.

Regent Chapa asked who picks the panel members and was told it was a committee elected by the Academic Senate at Arizona State University. At the UofA, the panel is elected by the faculty from a list of candidates that have been mutually agreed upon by the chair of the faculty and the president of the university. Regent Chapa said he believed there would be an advantage to having students on the panel as they are the consumers. Regent Amos said he is in favor of having students and/or community representatives on the panel.

Regent Amos asked why there was no timeline for the mediation. Regent Gignac asked that K.3.b. be modified to add a timeline for conciliation/mediation. She also asked for language to be added to K.4.a to make it clear the faculty member has a choice as to whether to appeal the conciliation decision. She asked for clarification in the statement in K.4.a. that says, "The Chair may shorten or extend these time periods . . ." to say whether the time may extend beyond the 60 days. She suggested the central office staff and faculty representatives discuss how to add someone other than faculty to K.4.b.(2) in response to suggestions by Regents Chapa and Amos.

Regent Chapa and Regent Gignac asked for K.4.e. to be rewritten to make it clear that failure to appear on the part of both parties affects the process. Regent Chapa questioned the use of the word "may" in 4.h.3 as he believed the hearings should always be conducted in an informal manner. He asked the wording, "may sit in attendance at the hearing and may be asked to comment. . .," in K.4.h.(9) be changed to, "shall sit in attendance. . .," as this will improve the chances the decision made by the CAFT will be upheld by a court if appealed. However, there is no desire to have the attorneys drive the process; they would be there as advisers. There has been a suggestion there will be a list of attorneys agreed upon by both CAFT and the university administration.

Regent Gignac noted the hearings are no longer being recorded, so the last sentence in K.4.i. should have "or recording" removed. She suggested K.4.j. be amended to match the time frame in K.4.i.

Regent Gignac asked the Regents if they would like to be removed from the appeals process. If so, K.4.k. and K.4.l. would be removed from the current policy. Regent Schmitt and President Munger said they believed the Board should be removed from this process as it is a personnel matter that should be left to the university presidents. Dr. Landers said the faculty did not take a position on this issue. Regent Munger suggested, at some future date, there might be consideration given to adding a petition process to the policy wherein the faculty could petition for review and the Board could decide whether or not to accept the petition. Regent Chapa agreed with removing the Board from this process.

Regent Gignac, following the suggestion of Regent Schmitt, noted L.l.c. would remain 45 days instead of changing to 60. She would like to see language in Sections L.l.c. and d. that spells out the time frame concerning the alternative resolution procedures to make sure there is no delaying action. There was a discussion of L.2.d. concerning whether legal representation should be required for both parties and whether the attorneys should be allowed to participate in the proceedings. The faculty asked that the current wording be left in the policy.

Regent Gignac asked Board Counsel Sideman to work with the faculty leaders to make the suggested changes to the policy. If there is not time to have the new language ready for the February meeting, it should be brought to the March meeting.

Establishment of Rombach Institute on Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections (UofA)

Upon motion of Regent Schmitt, seconded by Regent Davis, the Board authorized the establishment of the Rombach Institute on Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections within the School of PublicAdministration and Policy of the College of Business and Public Administration at the University of Arizona, with a sunset review date of 2002-03, effective immediately.

Request for Waiver of ABOR Policy 5-209 (D) (5) Regarding Academic Eligibility of Student Athletes (UofA)

Mrs. Jacqueline Schneider, UofA Special Counsel to the President, and Mr. Michael Proctor, UofA Attorney, explained the need for this waiver. Board policy requires students, to be eligible to participate in athletics, to have a 1.8 grade point average (GPA) when they enter their 3rd year or a 2.0 GPA when they enter their 4th year; and those standards have to be computed semester by semester. This rule also applies to transfer students the first semester after they enter the Arizona system. In this case, the university applied all the standards required by the NCAA, but did not calculate mid-semester GPA's for 3rd year, or transfer students, who had less than 72 hours. The students affected by this policy were incorrectly told they would not get a mid-semester evaluation until they accumulated 72 hours.

Regent Amos said the university's failure to enforce the policy was inexcusable, but he did not believe the students should be punished for something that was not their fault. In addition, he would like to see the entire athletic issue discussed in the future, including athletic contracts and athletic goals for the universities. In terms of who should be punished, Regent Ulrich said he did not believe the university sports programs should be damaged because some person at the university made a mistake. Regent Campbell agreed.

Regent Schmitt said he agreed the students should not be punished for a rule they did not know existed; however, he believed the Board should receive a report on who is responsible and what disciplinary measures the university has taken. Regent Gignac expressed her displeasure at what happened at the University of Arizona, but stated she was even more upset that the three university athletic representatives made a decision, without asking or even informing the Board, to delay implementation of a Board policy for one year.

The Board asked Executive Director Besnette to schedule a discussion on athletics that would include the three athletic directors educating the Board about athletics today. Regent Davis asked the discussion to include a policy discussion of what the Board envisions as the scope of athletics in the universities. Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent Ulrich, the Board granted the University of Arizona a waiver of Board Policy 5-209(D)(5)(c) and (d) through the Spring semester of 1997.

INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS

Regent Chapa announced that he was not in favor of the Amendment to Board Policy 4-302, Non-Resident Tuition Waivers, that passed on the Consent Agenda. Had this item not been on Consent, he would have voted against it.

Regent Schmitt, on behalf of the students from the University of Arizona, expressed appreciation to President Pacheco for his leadership in both research and undergraduate education during his presidency. Dr. Schwarz said he believed the University of Arizona is deeply in President Pacheco's debt. Regent Amos thanked President Pacheco for his service as president and wished him the best in his future endeavors. He also thanked President Coor for his hospitality.

President Munger also thanked President Coor for his hospitality and the resolution of the Gammage renovation problem. He again thanked President Pacheco for his service. Regent Ulrich thanked Dr. Besnette and the central office staff for their work. President Munger said he believed all Board members echo those sentiments.

Regent Chapa thanked President Pacheco for his service and for giving the Board some lead time to find a president to replace him. Regent Amos expressed his appreciation for the Regents who worked with the Governor on the university budgets. Regent Campbell complimented President Pacheco for his good work as President of the University of Arizona.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

SUBMITTED BY:

__________________________________
Judy E. Garza, Secretary to the Board

APPROVED BY:

ATTEST:

___________________________________
John F. Munger, President

____________________________
George H. Amos, III, Secretary