 |
MINUTES |
 |
|
MINUTES |
|
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
MINUTES OF A MEETING
January 8 and 9, 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT FROM THE HOST PRESIDENT (NAU)
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, REPORTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
<<<<<>>>>>
MINUTES OF A MEETING
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
January 8 and 9, 1998
A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held on January 8 and 9, 1998, in the Academic Complex, Room 282, NAU Yuma, Yuma, Arizona. President Campbell called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. on Thursday, January 8.
PRESENT: Regent George H. Amos, III
Regent Rudy Campbell
Regent Arthur Chapa
Regent Kurt Davis
Regent Judy Gignac
Regent Lisa Graham Keegan
Regent John Munger
Regent John Platt
Regent Donald Ulrich
ABSENT: Regent Eddie Basha
Regent Jane Dee Hull
Also present were: President Clara Lovett, Dr. Charles
Connell, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Dr. Norman Hintz, Ms. Anne Barton, and
Mr. Sam Polito, Northern Arizona University; President Lattie Coor
(Thursday only), Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Elaine Maimon, Dr. Charles Bantz,
Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, and Mr. Allan Price, Arizona
State University; President Peter Likins, Mr. Mike Proctor, Mr. Joel
Valdez, Dr. Michael Gottfredson, Dr. Randy Groth, and Mr. Greg Fahey,
University of Arizona; Executive Director Frank Besnette, Board Counsel Joel
Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Mary McKeown-Moak, Dr.
Thomas Wickenden, Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda, and Ms. Norma Salas, Central
Office; and Dr. Larry Gould, 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 8 and 9, 1998,
Documents File.
President Campbell led the Pledge of Allegiance. He welcomed the new Regent
Designees, Chris Herstam and Jack Jewett, and T. O. Beach, Vice Chair of the
State Board of Directors of Community Colleges.
CALL TO THE AUDIENCE
Jan Regnier, State Director of the North Central Association, presented
memos from himself and Ken Gose, Executive Director for the North Central
Association Commission on Schools, addressing the proposed admissions policy for
students attending non-accredited schools. The memos urged the Board to maintain
a high level of performance indicators for all students in its admission policy.
Jaime Molera, representative of the Governor's office, explained the
criteria the Governor used to select the new Regents. On behalf of the Governor,
he thanked the Regents and the presidents for their input during the selection
process and expressed the Governor's belief the two new Regents would be a
valuable addition to the Board.
REPORT FROM THE HOST PRESIDENT
(NAU)
President Lovett welcomed everyone to NAU Yuma. She reminded the Board the
partnership between Arizona Western College (AWC) and Northern Arizona
University is ten years old. Dr. Lovett told the Board AWC and NAU Yuma
have entered into a consortium with Yuma School District 1 and Yuma Union High
School No. 70 to combine and share programs, resources, services, and personnel.
Dr. Nick Lund, Executive Director of NAU Yuma, introduced Dr. Don Schoening,
President of Arizona Western College, and Mr. Tom Dyson, Director of the Yuma
Educational Consortium. The Regents were given an overview of the Consortium.
One program example is the transpor-tation center. Located on the NAU Yuma
campus, the fiscal agent for the center is the elementary district. The
elementary district and the high school district primarily buy the buses; but
they are all managed out of the one center, providing cost savings by
centralizing the maintenance and training functions. NAU Yuma and AWC students
are transported to campus when the K-12 buses are making return trips that would
normally be empty. The students pay a semester fee for the service, and this
allows many students who would normally not have access to the campus to attend
school. A data warehouse is also being established that will keep student
records from K through college.
Other entities participate in the Consortium on a limited basis such as the
Crane School District's inclusion in the health benefits package. Curricular
flow from elementary school through the university level is now being
considered, even though this is a bigger challenge than the infrastructure
sharing.
Regent Ulrich asked if vocational training was included in the Consortium and
was told the Consortium is currently working with the city to establish fire and
public safety classes. Hopefully they will be able to expand on the vocational
training in the future.
CONSENT AGENDA
The 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 Platt. There was no individual discussion of
these items. Regent Gignac announced she was not voting or commenting on Item 8,
University Medical Center Corporation (UMCC) Bylaws and Board Member
Reappointments as she is the Board's representative to the UMCC Board. Regent
Amos asked that the contract for Item 13, Sale of Portion of Cowden Estate to
Elm Packaging, have the same language as previous contracts covering
environmental issues.
*Minutes
The Board approved the October 30 and 31, 1997, Executive Session Minutes.
Resources Committee Consent
*University Medical Center Corporation (UMCC) Bylaw Amendments and Board
Members Reappointments
The Board approved the amended UMCC Bylaws as listed, and directed these
amendments be reflected in the amended and restated Bylaws of University Medical
center Corporation (UMCC). The amended Bylaws clarify the definition of various
categories of Board members and establish terms of office for Ex Officio
Directors, Medical Staff Representative and other Directors. Criteria for Board
membership per Nominating Committee recommendation and statutory restrictions on
Board composition appear in Section 7. There is a new Section 9 allowing for
Directors Emeritus and a formalization of the designation of the CEO as the
President of UMCC as well. The amendments contains quorum provisions for
committees and change the decision rule from a majority of all Directors to a
majority of Directors present and voting, provided a quorum is present.
The Board reappointed and approved new terms for the following:
1998 Frank E. Curley, William P. Reilly, Jr., Roberto C. Ruiz, Ben F. Williams,
Jr.
1999 Laura T. Almquist, Jack M. Gumbin, Donald N. Soldwedel, James M. Woolfenden, M.D. (2/1/99) (medical staff)
2000 Esther N. Capin, N. Phillp Strause, III, M.D., Douglas J. Wall
2001 Katie N. Dusenberry, Judy Gignac, Jamie Matanovich,
Ph.D.
*Multiple-year Employment Contract for Head Men's Basketball Coach (NAU)
The Board authorized Northern Arizona University to enter into a multiple year
employment contract with Ben Howland, as proposed, for the period January 1,
1998, through June 30, 2000.
The major provisions of the contract are: Coach Howland's salary will be $67,109
per year, subject to the same salary increases as other university employees. In
addition to the performance of his team in NCAA Division I basketball, he will
be held accountable for student-athletes meeting minimum expectations of
academic performance. He shall receive additional compensation in an amount of
1/12 of his annual base salary if 7/8 or more of the basketball student-athletes
on the fall squad list meet satisfactory progress for both fall and spring
academic semesters of each academic year. He also shall receive compensation in
an amount of 1/12 of his annual base salary if the NAU Men's Basketball team
participates in the NCAA Division I playoffs.
NAU grants Coach Howland an exclusive license to operate a men's basketball camp
using university facilities subject to the terms of a Licensing Agreement. He
may enter into agreements with other persons or entities to provide services not
included within this contract for compensation as long as such services can be
performed within the limits permitted by the conference, NCAA, and state and
federal law; except he may not enter into agreements with the NAU Foundation or
Skyjacks Booster organization; and he may not receive compensation from third
parties for advertising, sponsorship, media, speaking, appearance, or
fund-raising services unless such compensation is expressly allowed by the terms
of this contract.
*Northern Arizona University Special Class Fees: Central Office Internal
Audit Report
The Board accepted a written report on an internal audit of Northern Arizona
University Special Class Fees. There were two findings reportable to the Board:
1) Personal Services were defined inappropriately as Special Class Fee expenses.
(The college has since reevaluated its special class fee policy and no longer
uses special class fees for the purpose of paying student wages.) 2) Approval
was not received from the Arizona Board of Regents for Special Class Fees of $50
or more. (The University believed special class fees assessed prior to the 1989
inception of the ABOR policy requiring approval of fees of $50 or more were
grand fathered. It will now request approval of the 29 special class fees from
the Arizona Board of Regents.)
*Sale of Portion of Cowden Estate to Elm Packaging, L.P.
The Board approved the sale of approximately 14.8 acres of the former Cowden
Estate Property located in Tolleson, Arizona, to Elm Packaging L.P., at a
purchase price of approximately
$48,787/acre, for construction of a manufacturing facility
that will produce food packaging containers and approved the execution of all
legal documents by the Board's President, Secretary, or Executive Director,
subject to review of all documents by Board Counsel. Buyer will be responsible
for a one-time water assessment fee of approximately $3500/acre to the City of
Tolleson. Buyer will receive a credit of $473,092 to offset the cost of
construction of off-site improvements which will be deposited into a
construction account and will not be released to Buyer until Buyer has certified
to Seller the off-site improvements have been completed. The Seller is
responsible for the commission of approximately $36,126.77.
The net proceeds of the sale will be approximately $213,000, of which $63,000
will be used to reimburse Continental Pet Technologies, Inc., for off-site
improvements for which they fronted funds at the time they purchased their
property. The remaining $150,000 will be held for future expenses regarding
water and sewer line extensions.
PUBLIC AWARENESS COMMITTEE
Regent Ulrich chaired the Public Awareness portion of the meeting.
Second Edition of Arizona University Report Card
Regent Lisa Graham Keegan joined the meeting. Regent Ulrich called the Board's
attention to the expansion of the grading scale to include four grades and the
addition of a Board accomplishment section.
Regent Davis commented the grade for the category "Rates at which students
stay in school and graduate" is too low. He believes it is unfair to the
universities from the perspective of the liberal entrance requirements. In
relation to "Satisfaction of students with academic advising," he
believes the grade is too low as this comes down to individual initiative to
take advantage of services provided. President Coor said he shared this general
observation, but he believes the universities should still strive for quality.
Regent Munger said he did not see the justification for downgrading the grade
for advising from last year as the numbers have remained stable. President Coor
said the universities had promised improvement and the grade was established
because they were not able to bring a collective improvement. Regent Munger said
he understood, but he believed there would be a problem in the grading system if
grades were lowered for remaining stable.
Regent Platt said he was happy to see the grade as presented for academic
advising as he gets enough comments from students to believe it does need
improvement. He believes the universities are moving in the right direction, but
it is still unsatisfactory at this point. Concerning rates students stay in
school, he asked if it would be helpful on ratings of this type to have an
aggregated, systemwide goal number. Concerning Seniors graduating without excess
hours, he wondered if it was time to begin thinking about lowering the numbers
to 155 or 150 since a 98% compliance rate has been reached. President Coor said
there were goals for many of the Report Card items; the goals are part of the
Hurwitz Measures. Regent Ulrich said he did not believe aggregate goals would be
meaningful.
Regent Keegan said she knows the universities accept a broader band of students,
but she believes the quality should still be as high as possible. She said she
believed the grade for "Satisfaction of students with academic
advising" should be based on improvement, not just on student satisfaction.
Regent Davis asked why the grade substantially moved for "Access to regular
faculty by undergraduate students" when the number did not substantially
move. Mr. Seese-Bieda answered this indicator partially reflects the most recent
data for the Hurwitz measure of this issue. Because each university's method for
measuring improvements vary slightly, it is hard to establish a system total.
However, each university reported some improvement for this measure. Regent
Davis said he believes people will ask what this is measured against and the
definition of regular faculty. Regent Amos said he believed this measure should
be consistent with other discussions of this issue. Including lecturers and
senior lecturers raises the number. It should just contain tenure and tenure
track faculty. He also expressed a problem with raising the rating to a
Satisfactory (+).
Regent Platt said he did not believe anyone would want all
undergraduates to go on to graduate school, so he would like to see an
appropriate goal established. Regent Gignac agreed the satisfactory (+) on
access to regular faculty was too big a jump. She compared the rating to the one
for "Participation of faculty in instructional activities." She also
agreed the definitions should be discussed so everyone understood what was being
measured.
President Coor said regular faculty who are not tenured or tenure track are full
time faculty at the university and are as central to the goals of the university
as any faculty member. They are not part time or adjunct faculty.
Regent Keegan said she believed the percentage of graduates going on to graduate
school is an interesting statistic, but she does not see how an optimum number
could be established. Perhaps this measure does not belong in the report. She
said she believed satisfactory (+) was too high for "Access to regular
faculty." Regent Gignac said she had believed the "Access to regular
faculty" came from the Hurwitz Measures and referred to ranked faculty.
This measure shows student access to full-time faculty. However, to show an
increase in ranked faculty accessibility to students would be another issue.
Dr. Glick, Dr. Connell, and Dr. Gottfredson joined the discussion at this point.
Regent Chapa asked how the salaries compared among full-time faculty, ranked
faculty, and adjunct faculty. Dr. Glick said ASU has been raising the
salaries of adjunct faculty over the past few years from a minimum rate of $500
per credit hour and has almost reached its goal of doubling the rate. NAU has
not accomplished this because of budgetary constraints, not because the raises
are not necessary; but their floor is higher than $500. President Likins said
there was a great variety of adjunct faculty. Some people are earning a good
living professionally, such as architects, and teach one course at the
university as a volunteer. Regent Chapa said he believed the salaries of the
regular faculty should continue to increase as the universities rely heavily on
this group. Regent Campbell said the numbers of students having access to ranked
faculty has grown tremendously over the past few years, so he could support the
Satisfactory (+).
Regent Keegan asked if any study had been done to see if students were more
successful when taught by ranked faculty, regular faculty, or adjunct faculty.
Dr. Glick said no, but surveys of students show they do not differentiate
between ranked faculty and regular faculty. However, students show a big
difference between faculty members' teaching ability, and it does not relate to
classification. ASU works to improve this ability in all categories of teachers.
Regent Keegan said perhaps the Regents had been working toward the wrong goal.
Several Regents said there should be an in-depth review of definitions of
teaching categories, how they are perceived by students, and their success in
teaching. Regent Gignac suggested the annual review of the Hurwitz Measures
might be a good place to accomplish this.
Regent Platt suggested the Top Arizona high school scholars attending Arizona
universities should be emphasized. The universities are doing well in this area
and the percentage numbers don't emphasize that enough. There was a consensus of
the Regents to take the (+) off the rating for "Access to regular faculty
by undergraduate students."
Regent Davis said he thought the rating for Use of new technology to deliver
instruction should be Needs Improvement rather than Satisfactory as the numbers
were stagnant. Regent Munger commented the rating had gone down for Satisfaction
of students with academic advising where the number was stagnant. He was
concerned about lowering the ratings where the numbers had remained the same,
but thought the ratings should be consistent. Regent Ulrich said he believed the
rating was lowered for the Satisfaction of students because Regents believed the
number had been too high to begin with.
There was a discussion of the rating for "Progress toward implementing
on-line academic programs." It was suggested the word collaborative be
inserted in the bold type so it is obvious there is a difference between that
category and the one before. Regent Davis said he viewed the two categories as
being connected. For many reasons, such as finances, resources, etc., he
believes the universities are not moving quickly enough to begin to deliver
programs using technology. He believes there should be a specific emphasis in
the next year on accomplishing those goals.
Regent Keegan asked if there was data on how many students want to take courses
using technology and do not have access. Dr. Glick said a marketing survey of
students in the rural area was done as part of the Higher Education Study
Committee, and it was found the students favored traditional education over
technological education. However, it was also found they were unfamiliar with
the technological options. He believes this is a transition period for
technology.
Regent Platt said he believes the "New patents and licenses" should
have a rating of unsatisfactory as the universities are not receiving enough
revenue from intellectual property, or patents. He does believe the number of
patents is not as important as how much the university is investing in patents
and the return it is receiving on its investments. He suggested the Board have
an in-depth review of this subject and consideration be given to having law
students work on these issues.. Regent Ulrich suggested this might be a good
subject for the privatization committee.
Regent Gignac agreed a discussion might be helpful. She reminded the Board the
UofA and ASU technology people were in the process of meeting with industries in
the area to revise the current Board technology transfer policy. She also
expressed reservations about using law students as this is a very specialized
field. The universities have had to hire outside counsel or a specialist to deal
with these issues. Regent Amos suggested this be removed from the Report Card.
President Coor agreed it is hard to make a performance judgement based on
numbers of patents, but encouraged the Board to leave the category in the report
as stated. Regent Keegan said she would be more comfortable with a Needs
Improvement for this item as she believes this is an area where the universities
could generate dollars. Regent Davis said he would be uncomfortable changing the
ranking since this is how this issue was ranked last year and it would be
changing the ratings after the universities have followed what they believed
were the rules.
Regent Platt suggested the chart, Figure 3.1, be removed from the Report Card
and the improvements be noted in the comments section. Executive Director
Besnette suggested the category remain without a grade, with a footnote saying
the Board has elected not to grade this category at this time and plans to
conduct a more thorough review in the coming months. There was a consensus of
the Board to try this approach.
Regent Amos asked to move the rating for
"Privatization of university functions" from Satisfactory to Needs
Improvement (+). He also suggested a Satisfactory (-) for "Participation of
faculty in instructional activities" since there has been a slight
decrease. Regent Gignac said the decrease was so small it could be attributed to
many factors and she favored leaving it alone. Regent Ulrich asked the Board for
direction and there was a consensus the rating should be lowered.
Upon motion of Regent Ulrich, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board approved the
Report Card as modified.
The Board recessed at 3:00 p.m. and reconvened at 3:25 p.m.
Status of Higher Education Study Committee
Regent Ulrich noted Regent Gignac, Executive Director Besnette, Provost Glick,
Vice President Gottfredson, and Vice Provost Groenhout are the university
representatives to the Higher Education Study Committee. Dr. Glick and Dr.
Gottfredson joined the meeting for this discussion. Executive Director Besnette
summarized the Committee meeting held the day before where the university
representatives presented a response to the proposed legislation entitled
"Expanded Access Statewide to Education," or EASE. EASE contains a
process for determining who will offer baccalaureate programs and a new board to
make the final decision in this process.
The response indicated legislation and a new board is not needed as there are
already several entities including members from both the Board of Regents and
the Community College Board that could investigate the issue. The 2 + 2 programs
and the new Bachelor of Applied Science Degrees can be models for new programs
to aid accessibility in the rural areas.
Dr. Besnette reported the Community College Presidents' Council was a strong
voice at the meeting. They supported the legislative creation of a new entity to
ensure new planning and coordination. The university representatives emphasized
the position of the Board of Regents and the university presidents that the
Board of Regents must retain authority to plan and implement baccalaureate
degree programs. The Transfer Articulation Task Force was offered as the
mechanism to identify the magnitude of need for new programs.
Dr. Glick and Dr. Gottfredson offered additional comments and concerns about the
Committee meeting. Regent Munger said he remained opposed to EASE as this is
more an attempt to increase the prestige of local institutions than it is to
benefit students and taxpayers. Regent Davis said he believes EASE will start on
a limited basis, but will grow through the years until there is a two-tier
system that will compete for a finite amount of public dollars. He would like to
send a clear signal to the Governor and the legislature the Regents believe this
is a bad idea.
Mr. T. O. Beach wanted the Regents to know the Community College Board has not
reached a consensus to support EASE. He agreed another Board is not needed and
said he would not like to see a division between the universities and the
community colleges when they are currently cooperating so well. Regent Gignac
said she believes there are existing policies that will accomplish everything
proposed in EASE and the Regents should continued to work with the State Board
for Community Colleges. Rudy Campbell said he believes the ability already
exists to offer education to all the qualified students in the state, many in
off-campus locations.
Regent Munger agreed collaboration between the Regents and the Community College
Board should continue. Regent Keegan said she believes there should be
competition for public dollars as this increases the efficiency of institutions.
She does not believe in establishing a two-tiered system just to have one; but
if a program is established because it is not available somewhere else, she
believes that is positive. Regent Davis said he believed in competition between
the public and private institutions, but not growing competition for public
dollars for the same programs.
Regent Amos says he does not want a two-tiered system. He believes the private
sector will step into any area where the market says there is a need if the
universities don't fill that need. He believes the private sector has already
influenced the universities. Regent Ulrich said he believes this program will
increase costs, diminish quality, destroy a system that is doing well, and
expand the bureaucracy. He believes the Board should send this message to
Senator Springer.
Regent Chapa asked the record to show he did not participate in the discussion
of this item as he provides government affairs representation to Pima Community
College.
Dr. Besnette asked if it was the Board's intention the presidents should sit
down with people from the community college sector and make a sincere effort to
find a workable arrangement. Presi-dent Coor said there are mechanisms in place
to allow the universities and community colleges to respond to any legitimate
request for access to a public baccalaureate degree. Regent Ulrich said he
believes this is a resource issue, not a structural issue. President Lovett said
the resource issue is very serious. The level of funding determines how much
each of the universities is able to do with 2 + 2 programs.
There was considerable discussion on an appropriate motion to correctly convey
the Board's strong opposition to legislation establishing a structural change in
the educational system in Arizona and to educate people on the significance of
this issue while encouraging the Board's wish for the universities to continue
their collaboration with community colleges to develop programs to respond to
legitimate unmet needs.
Regents Ulrich, Munger, and Amos stated their concern the Board had waited until
too late last year to make its position clear and only a veto by the Governor
had stopped the legislation. They also believed education of the public and
other interested parties is very important on this issue. Regents Gignac and
Amos commented on the need for continued collaboration with the community
colleges and Regent Munger agreed.
Regent Davis stated his fear the people proposing the legislation do not
understand the far-reaching public policy issues that will result from the
proposed changes and he wanted to make sure Senator Springer and the Governor
understood the level of change this will cause. Regent Keegan stated the
perception now is this is a turf battle between the community colleges and the
universities. Regent Munger said that means people really need to be educated on
the significance of the issue.
Upon motion of Regent Ulrich, seconded by Regent Munger, the Board voted to
educate members of the public, the legislature, and the private sector regarding
the Board's perspective on the optimal delivery of baccalaureate education
throughout Arizona; to oppose any proposed legislation that would require a
restructuring of the public higher education system in this state; and to direct
the universities to continue their collaborative effort with the community
colleges to strengthen our system of transfer articulation and statewide
delivery of programs. Regent Chapa did not discuss or vote on the motion. Regent
Keegan voted no.
Response to the Progress Report on the New Model and Support Services for
Transfer Students in Arizona
Regent Ulrich called the Board's attention to the letter written to Dr. Donald
Puyear and Dr. Frank Besnette by Richard Stavneak, Director of the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC). The letter reported the JLBC gave a
favorable review of the transfer articulation progress report at its meeting on
December 18. The JLBC recommended the parties continue their collaborative
efforts, including setting reasonable definitive time lines for fully
implementing "seamless" transfer articulation, and report
semi-annually to the JLBC on their success and progress toward achieving this
ultimate goal.
The JLBC also recommended the universities and community colleges seek consensus
to ensure common degrees have common lower-division course requirements and
elective options. This consensus should assure Arizona students who complete one
of the three designated Associate degree tracts from an Arizona community
college they may transfer to any of the three public universities without loss
of credit, and all credits shall apply toward their specific articulated degree
program.
Preview of Prospective Legislation Affecting Higher Education-1998 Session
Regent Ulrich called the Board's attention to the written material concerning
legislation that may be introduced during the 1998 session of the Arizona
Legislature with the potential to impact public higher education. Dr. Besnette
asked the Regents to contact any of the Government Affairs people if they have
any questions or comments on the material presented.
RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Regent Davis chaired the Resources Committee portion of the meeting.
Recommendations Regarding Recruitment and Retention of Academically
Meritorious Resident Students
The recommendations by the three presidents for structuring merit aid programs,
maximum awards to Arizona students in the top 10% of their high school class,
and future plans for setting and achieving goals for merit aid programs was
presented.
President Lovett said a list of comparable categories of students, not identical
but comparable, could be developed among the three universities. The presidents
agreed on a maximum monetary value of awards given to students in the top 10% of
their graduating class, $2,500 per student.
Exceptions to this ceiling would only be made for National Merit Scholars and
Flinn finalists. ASU and UofA would allow $4,500 for those students and NAU
would allow $4,300. The presidents will continue to look at the question of how
much recruitment of meritorious Arizona resident students is to the advantage of
the system and what point brings diminishing returns.
President Likins said the University of Arizona uses an academic index, a
weighted combination of rank in class, grade point average (GPA), SAT scores,
and exercise of advanced placement courses, instead of relying exclusively on
rank in class. This means the students who receive offers from the UofA may be
slightly different than those who receive offers from the other two
universities.
Regent Gignac suggested community college students be included at some level in
future plans. Regent Amos asked if there is a limit on how many students receive
this money and if it was equal among the universities. President Likins said the
offer is limited to the top 10% and it should be the same from all three
institutions; the marketplace will determine where the student will go. The
competition will be based on location, programs, and perception of quality.
President Lovett said the amount of resources available to each university
determines how many students you can recruit.
Regent Platt said he was still concerned with the question of how much money the
universities should retain from tuition. President Coor said the total budgeted
amount is a mixture of funds, not just retained tuition funds. He asked the
funds not be restricted to percentage of numbers of students, but allow the
institutions to decide how much of its funds it wants to use for this issue. It
will vary from year to year depending on other funds available. Raising more
private money for this use will lower the amount needed from retained tuition.
Regent Platt said the Arizona Students Association was happy with the proposed
cap on the amount of the total award. However, there needs to be some discussion
on how those levels were attained. Regent Davis said he believed this should be
discussed every year in terms of whether the goal is being achieved and whether
the market is demanding more or less. This discussion will take place as part of
the budget process.
President Likins said there is now a request the universities set a goal as to
the percentage of Arizona's top high school students who are retained by the
universities, so this will provide the Board with a means of monitoring this
issue. Regent Munger said his concerns were satisfied by the universities
reaching an arrangement that meets their needs and the Regents seeing an
increase in the number of meritorious Arizona students being retained.
Regent Platt asked if the issue of reciprocity had been resolved. President
Lovett said NAU and ASU were already doing this and the UofA is working on the
issue. President Likins said the UofA would still allow the scholarship if it
had offered a scholarship to a student, the student chose to go elsewhere, and
then transferred back. Dr. Gottfredson said this could cause any of the
institutions to bump up against their waiver limit. Regent Platt asked the
universities to continue in this direction and report back to the Board if
problems arose. He did not believe this would involve many students.
Regent Gignac said some of the qualifying students chose to go to a community
college immediately out of high school. Once they finish community college, she
would like to see the universities examine the issue of continuing the offer.
President Likins said the offer might be different as it would now also consider
the students work in the community college. Regent Gignac said she understood
their high level of academic performance would have to carry over to their
community college work.
Regent Davis moved the Board accept the general agreement presented, with the
additional agreement the presidents will address Regent Platt's concerns about
transferability of awards and will continue to work on the community college
issue and bring it back to the Board. He said he was still concerned about the
financial issue and hoped the Board would allow NAU to adjust its budget request
to allow $1.2M instead of $600,000 to be set aside for this program as this
would put NAU in a 1 to 2 relation to the other two universities. The Board
would be giving NAU permission to pursue this issue with general fund dollars.
It will be President Lovett's decision what budget request she will move into
the general fund to allow this amount to be retained. It may be too late in the
budget process to be successful with this request, but he would like the Board
to give NAU the ability to pursue the issue. Regent Munger seconded the motion,
including Regent Davis's request concerning NAU.
President Likins asked for clarification as he had addressed continuity of the
Scholarship Award and this motion called for transferability of the award.
Regent Platt agreed with the concept of continuity of the award. The motion
passed by voice vote. Dr. Besnette asked for clarification to make certain the
motion included the future plans contained in the material presented and was
told it did.
Teaching Incentive Program: Allocation Report
Dr. Joseph Walka, along with Dr. Gottfredson, Dr. Glick, and Dr. Connell joined
the meeting for this discussion. Regent Amos said he believed this report shows
the universities need to continue trying to improve the teaching workload.
Regent Campbell asked who the Teaching Incentive
Program (TIP) eligible non-qualifying faculty were. He was
told they are the faculty who did not teach six or more hours of regularly
scheduled classes in the fall of 1997; however, they are full-time faculty who
may have had other responsibilities. There was a discussion of ways TIP could be
improved if the legislature should choose to enact a similar bill next year.
Dr. Besnette said Representative Burns is establishing a study group, including
faculty leaders and provosts, so there will be a chance to try to correct the
deficiencies. Dr. Gould said the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) is opposed to
the continuation of TIP as it has been done in the past because this takes away
the Board's authority to govern the universities. The AFC is also opposed to any
system where the allocation is made under one set of rules and the distribution
is made under another.
Review of University and Central Office FY99 Compensation Plans
Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Ulrich, the Board approved the
FY99 compensation plans for the distribution of Classification Maintenance
Review (CMR) funds, as presented. The plans recommend those classifications
furthest from the market and those that have demonstrated difficulty with
recruitment and retention be given priority in the distribution of funds. These
funds will be distributed over all classes of employees.
University Animal Care Heating and Ventilation Air Conditioning Modification
Project: Conceptual and Project Approval (UofA)
Dr. McKeown-Moak joined the meeting for the remainder of the Resources Committee
items. Mr. Valdez joined the meeting for the discussion of this item. Upon
motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent Chapa, the Board granted combined
Conceptual Approval and Project Approval for the University Animal Care HVAC
Modifications, funded through Building Renewal and a National Institutes of
Health grant. Regent Davis noted this project is important for accreditation,
animal health and welfare, to prevent fines from USDA, and to prevent loss of
all Public Health Services funding.
Purchase or Lease-Purchase 1030 North Mountain Avenue, Tucson (UofA)
Mr. Valdez joined the meeting for the discussion of this item and summarized the
university's request to purchase, or in the alternative, to lease-purchase from
the University of Arizona Foundation, 1030 N. Mountain Avenue. The property is
located in the core of the UofA campus. Regent Amos asked why the University of
Arizona Foundation did not just purchase the property and gift it to the UofA.
Mr. Valdez said the Foundation had not yet purchased the property as it was
waiting to see what action the Board would take, and he had not asked the
Foundation to
gift the property to the university. Regent Amos suggested
he take that approach. Upon motion of Regent Ulrich, seconded by Regent Gignac,
the Board authorized the University of Arizona to purchase property located at
1030 North Mountain Avenue at the sale price of $400,000 and to waive the
requirement for a current appraisal, or in the alternative, to lease-purchase
the property from the University of Arizona Foundation, subject to approval of
legal documents by University Counsel. The motion passed with Regent Amos voting
no because he believes the Foundation should gift the property to the
university.
Award of Tuition Waivers to Members of the "All-Arizona Academic
Team"
Dr. Besnette told the Board this is a temporary proposal to allow tuition
waivers that may exceed the numerical limitations prescribed by ABOR 4-301 (A)
for community college members of the "All Arizona Academic Team." The
presidents will come back to the Board with a request for a policy change at a
later date. Regent Chapa thanked the presidents for moving quickly on this
issue. Regent Gignac asked the presidents, as they consider a policy change, to
also consider a way for community colleges to notify the universities of their
meritorious scholar graduates. Regent Davis said he believed this should be
publicized across the state as it is a good step for both the universities and
the community colleges. Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent Gignac,
the Board authorized the universities to award up to ten resident tuition
waivers to members of the All-Arizona Academic Team for the 1997-98 academic
year, notwithstanding the numerical limitations for tuition waivers otherwise
prescribed by the ABOR policy framework (ABOR 4-301 (A)).
Naming the New Extension to the Arizona Cancer Center in Honor of Sydney E.
Salmon, M.D. (UofA)
President Likins said Dr. Sydney Salmon, the founding director, had played an
instrumental role in establishing the Arizona Cancer Center. The University of
Arizona intends to dedicate the new extension to the Cancer Center on Saturday
and this will be an opportunity to pay tribute to Dr. Salmon for all his
accomplishments. Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Keegan, the
Board authorized the University of Arizona to name the new extension to the
Arizona Cancer Center as "The Sydney E. Salmon Building."
Offer to Settle a Claim by the Center for Image Processing in Education
Upon motion of Regent Chapa, seconded by Regent Munger, the Board authorized the
University of Arizona to contribute to a settlement of the pending Center for
Image Processing in Education (CIPE) litigation or to accept Plaintiff's Offer
of Judgment in an amount not to exceed $35,000.
The meeting recessed at 5:40 p.m. and reconvened at 10:35 a.m. on Friday,
January 9. President Campbell complimented the City of Yuma, Arizona Western
Community College, and NAU Yuma for the hospitality extended to the Regents the
night before.
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA
FACULTIES COUNCIL
Dr. Gould said the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) has concerns about the
continuing external attacks on the Constitutional authority of the Arizona Board
of Regents to govern the public universities in Arizona. One concern is the
proposed changes in the Whistler Blower law. The AFC has entered into the
discussions with the proposers of the legislation and has prepared a position
statement questioning the process by which the legislation has been proposed.
The major concern, however, is the varying methods by which salary adjustments
are allocated. The AFC proposes there should be three means by which the salary
structures could be changed: through general adjustment, classification
maintenance review, and a merit plan. In the area of merit, the AFC strongly
urges the 1995 Board approved merit-based salary plan finally be implemented.
PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
Regent Amos chaired the Programs Committee portion of the meeting. Dr. Thomas
Wickenden joined the meeting for the Programs Committee items.
Amendments to Board Policy 2-102, Undergraduate Admission Requirements
(Second Reading)
Mr. Don-Paul Benjamin joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Amos said
the changes to Board Policy 2-102, Undergraduate Admission Requirements, have
been divided into two broad categories to facilitate the discussion. The first
set addresses the general aptitude requirements, those that describe the
required cut-off levels for a students' class rank, grade point average, or
standardized test scores. The proposed changes to these policies will establish
special and exceptional admission requirements for students attending home
schools, non-accredited schools, and Arizona public charter schools. Dr.
Wickenden summarized the concerns discussed at the last meeting on this issue.
President Likins said he now understands all the requirements charter schools
must meet, even if they are not accredited, and supports the policy changes as
written. President Lovett agreed, saying charter schools are new in Arizona and
there is no way at this point to know what will happen in the future. Regents
stated their comfort with the new policy, especially since there will be an
evaluation in three years to see if further changes need to be made.
Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board approved the
following first group of proposed changes in Board Policy 2-102, Undergraduate
Admissions: 1) Editorial changes to clarify admission requirements for
degree-seeking students from regionally accredited schools; 2) The addition of a
new policy section for special admission of students who complete home
schooling; 3) The addition of a new policy section for special admission of
students who graduate from non-accredited Arizona public, private, or charter
schools; and 4) The addition of a new policy section to provide an exception for
students who graduate from non-accredited Arizona public charter schools.
The second set of changes address the competency or curricular requirements for
admission. These include the courses that students must take in the areas of
English, math, laboratory science, social science, foreign language, and fine
arts. These changes will establish the exceptions from and extensions of those
requirements for students who have completed the Arizona General Education
Curriculum or Associate Degree or higher or were admitted with deficiencies. Dr.
Wickenden summarized the proposed changes.
Regent Platt noted the change to C. 5. allows the universities to give students
one additional calendar year to satisfy conditions, it does not require an
extension. He asked how difficult it is for students to appeal if they are not
granted the extension and was told it is not difficult.
Dr. Glick said this wording is not meant to be punitive to students; it is
to allow the universities, during this transitional period of implementing the
new admission requirements, to grant some students two years when the university
believes this will be helpful to the students.
Regent Davis asked if the universities recommend that a student with three
deficiencies attend a community college and then reapply to the university. Dr.
Glick said it would depend on the student's high school record. Regent Keegan
said she believes the data collected concerning the new admission standards will
be helpful to the Arizona Board of Education, also.
Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board approved the
following second group of proposed changes in Board Policy 2-102, Undergraduate
Admissions: 5) Editorial changes to clarify that all degree-seeking students
will be held to competency requirements; 6) The addition of a new policy section
to provide an exemption from Undergraduate Admission requirements for completers
of the Arizona General Education Curriculum (AGEC) or an Associate Degree or
higher; and 7) Editorial changes to provide an extension of time allowed for
students to complete competency deficiencies.
Work Plan for Developing the University Role in K-12 Improvement
Regent Amos said the Regents's Action Plan for 1997-98 calls for an
analysis of the impacts upon university teacher education programs at the
universities of the many changes occurring in Arizona K-12 schools. Regent
Gignac was asked to take the lead in coordinating this analysis and in December
the Board agreed with her recommendation the universities join the Board for a
briefing session in April and a consideration of action plans the following
meeting.
President Lovett said she believed this issue is very timely. She would like to
see, in addition to the Work Plan, an Education Summit in which the universities
would be responsible for preparing the ground work and studies, in collaboration
with the State Board of Education, and from which some tri-university responses
could be developed to changes in teacher certification and addressing the key
needs of the state. Faculty and staff at NAU have commented the Work Plan
schedule is ambitious as it requires considerable staff work. They suggested
part of the third stage of the work plan be initiated before the work groups are
established and materials are developed as it would be helpful to know what the
Colleges of Education and Center for Excellence in Education are currently
doing.
Dr. Glick said ASU is prepared to accomplish the Work Plan; however, he agreed
with President Lovett it is an ambitious schedule due to the staff work
involved. Regent Gignac said she had no problem with moving the College of
Educations' plans to the first part; however, she does not want the briefing to
start with all the wonderful things the colleges are currently doing. She wants
to focus on the certification rules for teachers, for administrators, and on
teacher preparation. Regent Gignac said she believes the suggestion of a
statewide meeting was reasonable, providing the other two universities also
believe it is reasonable.
Regent Davis said he believes this process is to support and strengthen any of
the elements of the Arizona educational system, whether it be private,
traditional, non-traditional, or public. He would like to include ways of
reducing barriers so retired people from successful careers could be recruited
to teach. Regent Gignac said she believes this is imbedded in the topic,
"Focus recruitment on under-represented and non-traditional
populations."
Regent Keegan said she believes in having this discussion; however, she does not
want to see the Board become involved in the national move to become accredited
with the NCA process. She would not like to see national accreditation for
accreditation sake as she has not seen any compelling research that shows the
quality of teaching in NCA organizations is superior, and NCA organizations do
not recruit minorities as successfully as non NCA programs. Regent Gignac said
the topic had been envisioned as a discussion of whether it would be valuable
for the College of Education to become accredited or whether there would be
little value to the process.
Regent Amos said he heard a sense of the Board the Work
Plan should proceed, incorporating comments expressed today.
Bachelor of Applied Sciences: Planning Authorization (NAU)
Provost Connell joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Amos announced
NAU has asked for this request to be considered outside the regular review cycle
for planning or implementing new programs because of the rapidly emerging need
for this type of program. This program is designed specifically to serve
additional educational needs of students who have earned community college
Associate of Applied Science (AAS) degrees. Upon motion of Regent Munger,
seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board granted planning authorization for the
Bachelor of Applied Science (BAS) degree at NAU.
President Lovett wanted to emphasize NAU had consulted with the community
colleges offering Applied Associate of Science Degrees in developing this
program as remarks had been made that NAU had planned this program in a vacuum.
She believes this model will work well for other programs such as Associate
Degree in Dental Hygiene. Regent Platt asked how long it will take to implement
the program and was told NAU would like to bring back a request for
implementation at the February or April meeting so the program could begin in
the summer or fall of this year.
STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Regent Gignac chaired the Strategic Planning Committee portion of the meeting.
Dr. Art Ashton joined the meeting for the discussion of the Strategic Planning
Committee items.
Review of ABOR Policy Framework Regarding Statewide Academic Programs
Executive Director Besnette said the current policy framework for statewide
academic programs states ASU will serve Maricopa County, the UofA will serve
Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise Counties, and NAU will serve all other counties.
One exception to the general policy states if a university is unable or
unwilling for good reasons to provide courses or programs in its service area,
then another university can and often does, meet that need. A second exception
is for the masters level education program which NAU offers all over the state.
Any university can provide education services for Indian tribes and on military
reservations.
Dr. Besnette said he and the presidents debated possible changes and variations
to the policy and decided the current policy structure is satisfactory and
doesn't need major revisions. There is an interest by ASU and the UofA, over
time, to provide additional masters level education in their respective areas
under the concept of managed competition. The presidents also strongly agreed to
commit to additional collaboration in the delivery of statewide programs. They
would like to bring to the Board a collaborative budget request at every budget
cycle for a joint venture. The Board should expect there will be some policy
changes presented from time to time to adapt to changing situations.
Revised Mission Statement for the University of Arizona Sierra Vista Campus
(UofA)
Dr. Randy Groth joined the meeting for this discussion. President Likins said an
updated mission statement is needed as the University of Arizona Sierra Vista is
moving toward the accreditation process. The prior statement is being refined
and modernized. Regent Davis asked why it is necessary to seek separate
accreditation and was told it will provide the Sierra Vista Campus with an
identity that is an extension of the UofA, but will differ slightly, as there is
a different research emphasis between the two institutions.
Regent Davis asked for the meaning of the sentence, "To enrich instruction
through the integration of technology in resident and distance learning
programs." President Likins answered every university must commit itself to
this type of integration today to remain competitive. For example, Sierra Vista
currently has electronic transmission of instruction with Cochise College in
Douglas. Regent Amos asked if this would strengthen Sierra Vista's distance
education with Douglas and other areas where NAU has a presence, or if it is
distance learning live from the main campus in Tucson. Dr. Likins said Sierra
Vista is present in Douglas now with a joint venture with Cochise College which
just received a $280,000 grant to improve its articulation with that program.
This collaborative program requires technology learning.
Regent Munger asked if there was a geographical parameter placed on the mission
statement for distance learning. He asked if there was a plan to expand the
distance learning beyond Cochise County as he believes Sierra Vista is to serve
the southeast corner of the state as a branch campus of the UofA. Dr. Likins
said he was not aware of any current plan to expand Sierra Vista beyond Cochise
County. However, he could not predict what future circumstance might arise that
would lead him to want to use Sierra Vista capabilities in some manner
elsewhere.
Regent Davis said he would not like to see two highways built next to each other
and he would not like to see Sierra Vista with its own administration, separate
from the University of Arizona. President Likins said at this time he did not
foresee Sierra Vista separating from the UofA. He wants Sierra Vista to be a
branch campus, to be an instrumentality of the strategies that are generated
within the UofA.
Dr. Groth told a questioning Regent Chapa that Sierra Vista currently has an FTE
of 239 and anticipates 262 in the Spring. Only approximately 10% of the students
are from Fort Huachuca. President Lovett said NAU Yuma will have close to 500
FTE in the Spring Semester. Regent Chapa said he believed the Board was
concerned about whether it had made the right choice in making Sierra Vista a
branch campus since the numbers of students was so small. Dr. Groth reminded the
Regents how Sierra Vista Campus had evolved and how it had been built with
community support.
Regent Munger said he supported Sierra Vista as a branch campus; he continues to
be concerned about the competition among the campuses with everyone trying to
serve everyone. However, his concerns have been alleviated by Dr. Likins'
comments that Sierra Vista is not operating independently of the University of
Arizona and has no current plans to operate outside of Cochise County.
There was a thorough discussion of the merits of separate accreditation for
Sierra Vista. Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent Chapa, the Board
approved the revised mission statement for the University of Arizona Sierra
Vista as presented, with the words and primarily Cochise County to be
added after "citizens of the State," and the words as a branch
campus of the University of Arizona to be added after the words
"liberal arts and professional instruction."
Extended Education: Program Assessment Review (PAR)
Regent Gignac said the university Extended Education Programs went through the
Program Assessment Review (PAR) process. The Office of Strategic Planning and
Budgeting (OSPB) and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) staffs made
their recommendations to the legislative Education and Natural Resources
Committee (ENRC). The ENRC recommended the Arizona Board of Regents and the
universities report to the PAR Committee by January 15, 1998, on the suggested
improvements in performance measures for the ASU and UofA programs and clarify
responsibility for course offerings and fiscal control. The Board is currently
reviewing off-campus issues which is part of the second recommendation.
Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Munger, the Board adopted the
recommended performance measures.
INQUIRIES,
REQUESTS, REPORTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF
PRESIDENTS
Regent Chapa said it had been an honor to serve as a Regent; he had learned a
lot and hoped he had contributed some. He believes the three universities are
the crown jewels of the state and he believes they are run by three excellent
presidents. He thanked Dr. Besnette for all his help and said he appreciated the
chance to work with all the individual Regents. Regent Chapa received a standing
ovation of appreciation for his service.
Executive Director Besnette announced the dates and times for the budget
hearings and encouraged as many Regents as possible to attend.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:27 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
_____________________________
Judy E. Garza, Secretary to the Board
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
________________________________
Rudy E. Campbell, President
___________________________
Don Ulrich, Assistant Secretary