 |
MINUTES |
 |
|
MINUTES |
|
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
MINUTES OF A MEETING
January 31 and February 1, 2002
Table of Contents
STUDY SESSION: INITIATIVES IN BIOSCIENCE
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
*Transfer of Property at 615 Alpha Drive to Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity (ASU Main)
*Approval of Multiple-Year Employment Contract for Head Volleyball Coach (UA)
*Revisions to Board Policy 2-102, Undergraduate Admission Requirements (Second Reading)
STUDY SESSION: STUDENT FINANCIAL AID
Update on Second Regular Session of the 45th Arizona Legislature
REPORT FROM THE BOARD'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Revised FY 2002 Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF) Budget
Proposed Process for Setting Tuition for the 2002-2003 Academic Year
Classroom, Laboratory, Computer Classroom Building: Project Approval (ASU West)
University Services Building: Project Approval (ASU Main)
Sixth Street Parking and Office Building: Revised Project Approval and Budget Increase (UA)
University Services Annex: Project Implementation Approval (UA)
Authorization to Lease Approximately 70,000 Gross Square Feet From the Marshall Foundation (UA)
Proposed Policy Framework for the Use of Capital Debt
University Medical Center Corporation (UMCC) FY 2001 Audited Financial Statements
Approval of an Amended and Restated Ground Lease for the Karsten Golf Course (ASU)
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, REPORTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
MINUTES OF A MEETING
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
January 31 and February 1, 2002
A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held January 31 and February 1, 2002, in the Alumni Lounge of the Memorial Union, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. President Elect Jack Jewett called the meeting to order at 1:16 p.m.
| PRESENT: | Regent Fred Boice |
| ABSENT: | Regent Kay McKay |
Also present were: President Lattie Coor, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Charles Backus, Mr. Paul Ward, Mr. Steve Miller, Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Dr. Elaine Maimon, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, and Dr. Gary Krahenbuhl, Arizona State University; President Peter Likins, Dr. George Davis, Dr. Patti Ota, Dr. Richard Powell, Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. Greg Fahey, Dr. Randy Groth, and Mr. Dick Roberts, University of Arizona; President John Haeger, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Mr. Kurt Davis, Dr. Susanna Maxwell, and Mr. Josh Allen, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director Linda Blessing, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, Mr. Matt Ortega, Ms. Norma Salas, Ms. Louise Houseworth, Ms. Norma Salas, Mr. Dave Harris, and Ms. Kathy Bedard, Central Office Staff; and Dr. Andrew Jackson, Arizona Faculties Council.
President Elect Jewett introduced new Regents Robert Bulla and Fred Boice.
President Elect Jewett said the purpose of the study session was to explore what appears to be a very exciting opportunity for the Arizona University System and for the State of Arizona. Dramatic improvements in healthcare, agriculture, and the biotechnology industry may be just over the horizon, due to rapidly moving developments in the biosciences. There appears to be a significant opportunity to participate at the national level in these developments by attracting to Arizona major players in this field. What is needed is a collaborative strategy that would build upon each university's current activities in this area.
President Elect Jewett introduced Phoenix Mayor Skip Rimsza and Phoenix Councilman Greg Stanton. Mayor Rimsza said the City of Phoenix was excited about this opportunity and encouraged a collaborative effort to attract and develop the biotechnology industry in Arizona. He said the City of Phoenix had already entered into a Letter of Understanding with ASU and UA and was looking forward to the same with NAU to try to move this issue forward. Councilman Stanton said he believed this project was more important than any other on the horizon for the long-term benefit of the community. Mayor Rimza said the City of Phoenix would be prepared to offer a significant level of financial assistance for the project.
President Elect Jewett said the agenda for the study session would address four basic questions: Where are we now? Where are we going? What is the International Genomics Consortium? What is the Arizona strategy? Regents have also expressed an interest in the relationship between the current research investment and activities and organization of the new consortium, the general outline of the business plan and the feasibility study for the new consortium, and the intended outcomes and accountability mechanisms for the consortium.
President Elect Jewett introduced the university vice presidents for research, Dr. Jonathan Fink from ASU, Dr. Carl Fox from NAU, and Dr. Richard Powell from UA, who would lead off with an overview of where the universities are now in terms of current research in bioscience.
Dr. Fox presented some background information about biotechnology, bioscience, and biomedicine. Biomedicine is medicine based on the application of the principles of some of the natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology. Biotechnology is an application of those principles into a useful product that might include health and welfare for many people. Biotechnology requires the participation of many disciplines. Through the use of Proposition 301 money, the universities have created three institutes that focus on biomedicine, biotechnology and bioscience. Each of the three have a number of commonalities; at the same time, each of the institutes bring something much different to the table. He illustrated how the programs cross many colleges and departments on the campuses.
Dr. Fox said much of what has come out of the research is the possibility to enhance longevity and quality of life for people. The collaboration of the three universities and others in the state would provide a unique opportunity to develop new companies and industries in Arizona and to attract industries from outside Arizona to this state. It will provide students an opportunity for training across disciplinary studies and will allow them to become leaders in the biotechnology industry. He gave a few examples of what is happening now on the campuses, such as DNA fingerprinting and plant medicine.
Dr. Powell said there are over 60 companies in Southern Arizona in the biotech cluster industry that produce over $320M a year in revenue and employ over 2,000 people, and there is a great potential for more growth in this area.
Dr. Charles Arntzen, ASU, Dr. Lee Drickamer, NAU, and Dr. Tom Baldwin, UA, joined the meeting. Dr. Arntzen gave an overview of where the universities are going in the area of bioscience. Dr. Baldwin gave an example of the broad impact a strategic hire can have in bringing grant money to the state and adding additional knowledge to various departments.
Dr. Ray Woosley, UA, told the Board about the International Genomics Consortium. He said biomedical research is the fastest growing economic and fiscal sector of U.S. industry. Genomics has been centered in the National Human Genome Research Institute that was created by the need to focus scientific efforts to sequence the human genome. Dr. Jeffrey Trent is the Intramural Research Director of the Institute. Dr. Trent grew up in Arizona and graduated from the University of Arizona. Dr. Woosley outlined Dr. Trent's work. He said Dr. Trent would like to be involved in more than the sequencing aspect; he would like to participate in research using the data from the sequencing.
Dr. Trent met with two other scientists in Arizona and they developed the International Genomics Consortium (IGC), a nonprofit corporation with a Board of Directors chaired by Richard Mallery, Esq. from Phoenix. The working hypothesis is: With knowledge of the genes that are active in diseased tissue, treatments can be targeted, sparing normal tissue. The plan is to create a consortium of scientists from many institutions who will share diseased tissue samples to detect the genes active in cancer tissue. All data obtained by IGC will be made freely available to the public.
There are two components of the IGC. There is the generation of gene activity data in diseased tissue from 15 collaborating institutions and the university faculty research to determine the clinical relevance of the expression data. IGC needs academic partners to recruit the faculty who will direct the research components of IGC. IGC faculty can be affiliated with many institutions. Dr. Woolsey said securing the IGC would require capital, but it would be a boon for the economy of in the State of Arizona.
The university presidents agreed this was a very important chance for Arizona and said they believed the universities had the capability to handle this project. It will mean collaboration on the part of the universities to a higher degree than is currently undertaken. It will also need the support of other entities to make this happen.
President Elect Jewett asked if there was the will to collaborate and was told the universities would work together and figure out a way to make this happen. Regent Stuart said he believed it would be possible to bring the IGC here, but it would take cooperation among many entities. He believed it is important to make every effort. Regent Molera asked what the Regents could do to help make this happen and was told the universities need to work out the organizational questions and demonstrate their commitment to collaboration. There will also be a need to raise a commitment for $10M per year for five years. All this needs to happen in a brief period of time.
President Elect Jewett said this issue should not be held to the Board's meeting schedule. If the presidents, working with the Central Office and other entities, such as the Governor, are able to work out organization and financing mechanisms, the Board would be willing to have a special meeting to give its approval.
The meeting recessed at 2:05 p.m. and reconvened at 2:50 p.m. Regent Boice led the Pledge of Allegiance. President Elect Jewett expressed regrets on behalf of President McKay, who was recovering from knee surgery and could not be present. He welcomed Regents Boice and Bulla to the Board.
Jacqueline Sharkey, Chairman of the University of Arizona Journalism Department, urged the Board to approve Item 14, lease from the Marshall Foundation. She told of the need for that space.
Maceo Brown, Executive Director of ASA, thanked everyone for their help in the last legislative session. He said ASA believes recent proposals by some legislators to balance the budget using tuition dollars should not be taken lightly. The students are starting their own campaign and hope to work with the administration and the Board to prevent the legislature requiring students to pay more tuition to receive less service or to cut financial aid.
Ray Quintero, UA Student Body President, expressed student concerns with the new UA residence hall policy that will limit students to 4 semesters in a residence hall. Those in their fourth semester do not believe they have been given enough time to find alternative housing. He asked for students currently in the system to be grandfathered in and given more than four semesters in the residence halls.
Jered Mansell, UA Student Senator, spoke on behalf of the students who will be displaced from the Honor's College residence hall and the approximately 200 sophomore and junior students who will be displaced from other residence halls. He read a resolution asking for current students to be allowed to stay in the residence halls beyond four semesters since this policy change occurred after they started school.
Hugh Hallman, City of Tempe Councilman, expressed regrets from the City of Tempe that they had not earlier seen the hand extended to them from ASU concerning a possible stadium site.
President Coor introduced Dr. Laurie Leshin, ASU Associate Professor of Geological Sciences and Associate Director of the Center for Meteorite Studies. He said astrobiology is trying to understand how life formed on this planet and what might be learned as other planets are explored, particularly Mars.
Dr. Leshin said ASU houses the largest university meteorite collection in the world. She showed some meteorites to the Regents and explained some of the questions scientists are trying to answer with these meteorites. She said scientists are currently limited to rocks that have survived a trip to earth through the atmosphere. She explained her team's current proposal to NASA called Sample Collection for Investigation of Mars (SCIM), which takes advantage of the fact there is Martian material in the Martian atmosphere which could be collected without landing on Mars.
President Elect Jewett announced Item 18, Amended and Restated Ground Lease for the Kartsten Golf Course at ASU, had been removed from the Consent Agenda to be discussed under the Resources Committee Agenda.
Items on the Consent Agenda, which are marked in these minutes with an *, were considered as consent matters and were adopted upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Bulla. There was no individual discussion of these items.
The Board approved the September 25 and 26, 2001, Executive Session, November 12, 2001, Special Meeting, November 29, 2001, Regular Meeting, and the November 30, 2001, Joint Meeting minutes.
The Board authorized Arizona State University to transfer the property at 615 Alpha Drive to the Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity, pursuant to the purchase option in ASU's lease agreement with the fraternity and in substantial accordance with the terms and conditions summarized below. The terms include a restriction that the conveyance of the property is limited to student housing purposes as approved by ASU; an easement in favor of the grantee for the use of the common areas and the street; a maintenance condition requiring the grantee to maintain the premises in a reasonably "safe, clean, and healthy" condition and an enforcement provision allowing ASU to enter the property, take action, and seek recovery against the grantee for violation of this provision; and a reservation of rights allowing ASU to grant a deed for the common areas, the street, and reasonable sufficient, contiguous parking to a homeowners association, in the event such an entity is developed by purchasers on Alpha Drive. Sigma Phi Epsilon has agreed to pay $5.50 per square foot for its 34,068 square foot lot, for a purchase price of $187,374. The transaction must close by August 1, 2002, and upon closing, all rights, obligations, and liabilities under the lease shall be extinguished.
The Board also authorized the execution of all legal documents by the President of ASU or his designee, subject to review of all documents by university counsel.
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to enter into a three-year employment contract with David C. Rubio as head volleyball coach for the period January 2, 2002, through January 1, 2005, according to the terms and conditions summarized below.
Coach Rubio's salary will be $82,000 per year and may be increased by an amount not to exceed the percentage increase available annually for employees of the university employed subject to the Conditions of Administrative Services. In addition, he shall receive additional compensation in an amount equal to one-twelfth of his annual salary for certain designated team accomplishments. He may also receive, annually, designated additional compensation for certain academic achievements. He must report outside income to the Athletics Director, the University President, and the Board President annually. The contract contains terms specifying liquidated damages for termination by both sides.
The Board authorized the University of Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. §15-1635.01, to permit Dr. Robert Gillies, Department of Biochemistry, to establish and maintain a substantial interest in Sabino Biosystems while continuing his employment at the University of Arizona as summarized in the Executive Summary.
Dr. Gillies will serve as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) during the nascent stages of establishing Sabino Biosystems. When a more permanent CEO is found, Dr. Gillies will remain a member of the Board of Directors and will be the Principal Investigator of the research. Sabino Biosystems will develop targeting ligands for specific uses, i.e., delivery of therapeutics and imaging reagents to specific cancers.
The Board authorized the University of Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. §15-1635.0-1, to permit Dr. C. June Maker, Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation and School Psychology, to establish and maintain a substantial interest in DISCOVER Projects while continuing her employment at the University of Arizona as summarized in the Executive Summary.
Dr. Maker's primary role will be in the areas of consulting and marketing. She will not receive a salary during her ten-months-per year obligation to the University. She will receive supplemental compensation from DISCOVER Projects during the two-month summer break, a total amount not to exceed the maximum allowable limit set by the university. DISCOVER Projects will focus initially on the dissemination of the assessment instrument (DISCOVER Assessment) for measuring seven specific types of intelligence and training educational institutions and professional organizations in its use.
The Board authorized the University of Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. §15-1635.01, to permit Dr. Joseph Perry and Dr. Seth Marder, Department of Chemistry, and Associate Vice President Bruce Wright, Office of Economic Development, to establish and maintain a substantial interest in Arizona Microsystems, L.L.C., while continuing their employment at the University of Arizona as summarized in the Executive Summary.
Dr. Perry, Dr. Marder and Mr. Wright will be on the Board of Directors upon establishment of the company. Dr. Marder and Dr. Perry will each initially own 30 percent of the issued shares of the company and Mr. Wright will initially own 20 percent. Arizona Microsystems, L.L.C., will be involved in the development of materials, methods, and instrumentation for the microfabrication of three-dimensional structures and for telecommunication applications, as well as performing contract development and service work in these areas.
The Board approved the proposed revisions to undergraduate admission policies which include maintaining the exception for students who graduate from non-accredited Arizona public charter schools, editorial changes in response to audit recommendations, providing coherent and cohesive language throughout the policy, and deleting duplicative language within the policy.
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to promote Dr. Pierre Meystre, Optical Sciences Center and Department of Physics, Dr. Michael Schaller, Department of History, Dr. Leslie P. Tolbert, Arizona Research Laboratories Division of Neurobiology and Department of Cell Biology & Anatomy at the College of Medicine, Dr. Roy R. Parker, Department of Molecular & Cellular Biology, and Dr. Michael A. Wells, College of Medicine, to the rank of Regents Professor, effective July 2, 2002, and to award the $5,000 salary increase that customarily accompanies these appointments.
The meeting recessed at 3:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, February 1.
President McKay participated in this discussion by telephone. Regent Herstam chaired this portion of the meeting. Dr. Tom Wickenden, Dr. Milt Glick, Dr. Susanna Maxwell, Dr. Patti Ota, and Dr. George Davis joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam said this study session was to review financial aid goals, programs, and management practices. It was proposed that the current policies limit institutional flexibility to manage financial aid programs and constrains Board oversight of financial aid goals. The Board is asked to provide direction in addressing these problems through possible policy changes.
Dr. Wickenden provided background information. He said the study session was about the financial aid policy framework and management practices. The proposed policy changes are procedural rather than substantive. The changes do not, in themselves, change financial aid allocations or the philosophy behind such allocations.
Dr. Ota reviewed the Board categories for financial aid--assisting with the cost of attendance, giving appropriate priority to Arizona students; addressing the requirements of both needy students and meritorious students; and managing financial aid programs effectively. A governance goal for financial aid is to integrate and enhance Board oversight of institutional financial aid programs. Dr. Ota listed the problems which require the institutions to have flexibility in managing financial aid. Under current Board policy there are two types of institutional gift aid programs–tuition waiver programs and cash grants, stipends, and scholarships.
Dr. Ota said the focus of the study session would be on four sections of the current policy: 1. Resident waivers, Policy 4-301; 2. Non-resident waivers, Policy 4-302; 3. Graduate assistant and associate waivers, Policy 4-307; and 4. Tuition set-aside for needy students, Policy 4-309. She explained the current stipulations regarding merit and need and gave examples of inflexible management and fragmented oversight.
Dr. Ota suggested strategies for addressing management and oversight problems. Policies 4-300, 4-301, 4-302, and 4-307 could be integrated. The second suggestion was more comprehensive policy guidelines. The application of policy goals for needy and meritorious students, whose thresholds are 50% and 30% respectively, for the awarding of resident waivers to undergraduates, would be generalized to include all Board of Regents' financial aid programs. This generalization could apply to resident students only or both resident and nonresident students. It is recommended the current stipulation to allocate the majority of undergraduate awards to resident students be retained.
Dr. Ota said the third suggestion is more flexible management of resources. For example, reclassifying graduate assistants who meet guidelines set by institutions as resident students for tuition purposes, integrating policy-based and budget-based financial aid programs, integrating budgeting of institutional aid, and engaging in bottom-line planning and reporting of financial aid to the Board.
Regent Herstam asked how financial aid fits into the changing demographics in Arizona and the graduation rates. Dr. Glick said the three universities had increased the retention and graduation of their students. When exit surveys are done on students that leave, the major reasons given for leaving are financial and personal. Dr. Glick said many of the resident students have to work so much to support themselves while attending school that it causes them to spend a longer time completing graduation requirements and makes it harder for them to successfully complete their studies. It would better serve society if enough financial aid could be provided so the students could move through to their degree in four or five years, especially those students from families that do not have a history of attending college.
Regent Herstam said he knew Arizona tuition was very low in relation to the rest of the country. He asked how financial aid in Arizona ranked with peer institutions and was told
it is hard to determine that because national data looks at state-sponsored programs and Arizona ranks low in state-sponsored programs. There was a discussion on the low percentage of people in Arizona with college degrees, how the percentage has lowered in the last ten years, and how this affects the economy.
President Haeger said one of the issues in Arizona is the great disparity in income levels. This creates an access issue. There was a discussion of how to encourage low-income families to send their children to college and the aid necessary to do this.
President Likins said financial aid must be sourced and is limited by constraints; but tuition waivers are price discounts. The present policy puts a ceiling, by formula, on the number of waivers the universities can use. If this would be changed, waivers would only be limited by the amount of revenue the universities are willing to forgo in their budgets.
President Likins asked if it would be the preference of the Regents that the universities apply the thresholds, 50% for students with need and 30% to meritorious students, to all financial aid for undergraduate residents, or to all financial aid to undergraduates. President Elect Jewett said he would prefer to concentrate on Arizona residents for financial aid. He believes the suggested policy changes will allow the Regents to exercise better financial aid oversight. Regent Herstam said he also would like to concentrate on Arizona residents.
Regent Stuart agreed the Regents should concentrate first on resident students. If tuition increases are potentially subject to confiscation at the legislative level, Regent Stuart asked if tuition waivers would be immune from such confiscation. If they are, perhaps this is another reason to change the Board policy.
President Haeger said there would still be a range of debates which will have tremendous impacts on each of the universities, such as debates over the percentage of need-based aid versus merit; resident students versus nonresident students; and graduate versus undergraduate. President Coor said he agreed forgone revenue is budgeted, but he did not want to leave the impression it is inconsequential.
Dr. Coor said he wanted everyone to be aware that tuition is only a part of the cost of college attendance; room, board, travel, books, and other expenses are figured into what is called the cost of attendance. He observed that treating tuition does not treat the entire problem. He believes accessibility and its relationship to tuition should be part of the discussion when tuition setting takes place. He believes the proposed policy changes will be a help, but the focus should not be just on tuition. He suggested a consideration should be given to designating a portion of tuition increases for financial aid.
Regent Bulla said he had helped with an athletic audit at ASU several years ago and the audit had found all kinds of student needs beyond help with tuition. He is inclined to give the universities flexibility, especially in these days of reduced resources. He would like to see financial proformas to see the impacts and he believes the total needs of the students should be considered rather than just tuition. He asked if there were partial tuition waivers and what portions those might be. He would like to see flexibility, simplification, and creative thinking to get at the total picture.
Regent Robinson spoke on behalf of middle class students as they frequently rank just above the needy classification. They do also need help, though, with the cost of attendance; and she believes this should especially be considered with merit help. Regent Meaker said resident students in Arizona graduate with a higher debt than nonresidents. He wondered how low tuition provides access when this is happening. He believes aid should focus on resident undergraduate students. He wondered what the financial aid picture would look like if there were no restrictions on tuition waivers due to budget restraints. President Likins said medium income families in Arizona would qualify as needy under the Federal guidelines because the medium income in Arizona is very low.
Regent Herstam said the tuition discussion has not yet begun, but he believed all Regents would agree the one place they did not want tuition to go was to the state general fund.
Dr. Wickenden said the Board puts a lot of effort into the tuition setting process each year. However, the decision about the price students must actually pay when financial aid is subtracted, is made through a hodgepodge of policies and budget items. Financial aid is
currently split into two largely distinct domains--one is described in policy and deals mostly with waivers and the other is described in budget requests and deals mostly with cash grants. The Board has clear policy goals with respect to the impact of financial aid; however, because these goals are implemented through a myriad of different policies and reports, it is impossible for the Board to tell the extent to which their goals have been achieved. Dr. Wickenden said both these issues could be addressed through the changes being proposed.
One strategy for improving decision making is to integrate waivers and cash awards and consider them together in describing the price structure of education at Arizona's public universities. The impact of financial aid on the price of education for the student has a parallel in terms of its impact on tuition receipts for the universities. Dr. Wickenden said providing information about this impact would be useful to inform the Board's decision making.
Dr. Wickenden said Board goals are currently implemented in a fragmented way, with no summary description of the way in which financial aid resources are distributed to various categories of students. This fragmentation could be addressed by making budget information and reports more comprehensive. Comprehensive budget requests might be provided in June for the following fiscal year, while summary reports on the value and distribution of actual expenditures could be reported the following spring. Proposed changes would need to be discussed in advance of the year in which financial aid awards are actually made.
To understand what comprehensive reporting should look like, Dr. Wickenden said three questions should be answered: What are the Board's policy goals? To which program should these goals apply? and Exactly how are the goals implemented? He described ways of answering these questions. Regardless of what direction the Board gives for the development of new guidelines, the universities propose to maintain the current allocation of aid for these programs for the next year. In subsequent years, any changes in the allocation of institutional financial aid to graduate and undergraduate students as well as to resident and nonresident students would be brought to the Board for review and approval well in advance of being implemented.
In conclusion, Dr. Wickenden said the presidentss recommend, if the Board finds the case for increased flexibility and oversight to be compelling, that policy revisions be brought to the next meeting. Regent Herstam said he had detected from the comments made thus far that the Board does wish to create more flexibility and asked the universities to bring proposed changes to the March meeting.
President Elect Jewett recognized former Regent Rudy Campbell who was in the audience. The meeting recessed at 10:00 a.m. and reconvened at 10:16 a.m.
Regent Palacios chaired this portion of the meeting.
Ms. Louise Houseworth, Ms. Gale Tebeau, Mr. Greg Fahey, Mr. Matt Ortega, and Mr. Kurt Davis joined the meeting for the budget discussion. Ms. Houseworth provided background on the previously approved budget and the proposed budget cuts. President Coor explained the 22 to 1 enrollment growth formula does not apply to new campuses until the student population reaches 5,000 students. That poses particular budget problems for ASU East.
Dr. Coor endorsed the priorities of annualization of existing salaries, enrollment growth funding, and then decision packages and building renewal. Dr. Coor said the budget reductions began in August as a one-time cut of 4% and this is treated differently than base cuts. The current reductions are base cuts and can't be dealt with by delaying expenditures or moving money from one place to another. President Coor explained ASU decided administrative and service programs, not related to instruction, would bear a disproportionate share of the reduction. Instruction would be protected so students can enroll in courses they need to progress toward graduation, even if the size of these classes grow. Priority research programs, particularly those that lead to large external support, will also be protected. He listed specific cuts ASU intends to make and the consequences of some of those cuts.
President Haeger said NAU's legislative priority right now is the $4M needed for debt service to back a $62M renovation of the Mountain Campus. Beyond that, annualization of salaries, funding the enrollment growth formula and building renewal are priorities. In terms of the NAU budget recissions, he said they were approached in the same manner as President Coor described. There is to be no compromise in the quality of academic programs; no layoffs of current employees or changes in their benefits; no reduction in commitment to move forward building restoration plans; and no reduction in commitment to the 5% salary increase. Only the most critical positions have been filled. Special projects have been delayed. NAU is now converting many of the temporary cuts to permanent base cuts. Dr. Haeger explained the impact of the cuts on the university and the state.
President Likins said he believed the legislature should first provide the enrollment growth funds; then ask for the necessary cuts from the universities. This would more truly reflect the cuts the universities are making as they are trying to make budget cuts with growing enrollments. Dr. Likins pointed out UA South is in the middle of a construction project that was funded for four years and failure to continue the funding that was promised would create an enormous stress and the inability of anyone to rely upon any kind of continuity on the part of the state. He said it was very important that the salary increases, which have been twice approved, be annualized. He believes it would have been better to never have approved the salary increases than to approve them twice and then take them away.
President Likins said he was honoring his commitments, such as the funding for debt service with Pima College at their north campus and the commitment to the students for salaries for teaching assistants and faculty and advising. He reported the students have recognized the budget problems and have said the promised money could be used for FY 2002 budget cuts if the money was restored in the FY 2003 budget.
Dr. Likins said the UA had the same problem as UA East with UA South, the Health Science Center in Phoenix, and the programs on Pima North Campus. He explained how the university decided what cuts to make and how key research and courses required for graduation were protected.
Regent Palacios asked if there was any disagreement with the budget cuts as proposed by the presidents and received no comments. She stated she would consider that the Regents agreed with what the presidents are proposing.
Regent Palacios asked Executive Director Blessing and Regent Stuart to comment on their
presentation to a hearing of the House Appropriations Committee on the Board's mission and priorities. The State Board of Education and the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges also presented. Regent Stuart said Executive Director Blessing was asked to set forth the combined mission statement for the universities and to answer questions. Regent Stuart said he was concerned that the university priorities and the legislative priorities are different. He believes priority-based budgeting at the legislature is focused more on elements of the mission statement. He is afraid the legislature will make budget cuts based
on which mission priority they believe should continue. President Coor said recrafting the rules of the game in the middle of a budget process always poses problems and believed Regent Stuart had raised concerns that could be a problem. He suggested the universities could make it easy for the legislature by noting they have only three priorities above the line–pay faculty and staff decently and in the same way the rest of state employees will be paid, honor the commitments to meeting student enrollment growth, and help make certain facilities are maintained in a minimal and reasonable way. Anything else would be wonderful, but salary, students and facilities are the most important things.
Dr. Blessing said she thought the hearing was impacted by the lead speaker from the Goldwater Institute who talked about the role of government in funding public programs in general. She agreed with Regent Stuart the focus became what should government fund in
terms of public education. The Goldwater Institute, for example, recommended that government support of the Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, and the Commission on the Arts be abolished. The legislature also asked for additional data which the universities are preparing.
President Likins said there are two types of people in the legislature–those who see the need to make budget cuts and allow the universities to decide how the cuts will be made, and those who want to direct how the universities spend their money and are using budget cuts as one way to accomplish this. He hoped, when the legislature and the governor finally impose the additional financial burden on the universities for 2003, they do not simultaneously tell the universities how to spend the money.
The meeting recessed at 11:16 a.m. and reconvened at 1:47 p.m. with Regent Meaker absent.
Regent Palacios explained to the Board the problem of the time between meetings during the legislative session which makes it hard for staff to respond to breaking legislation. Since she received no objections, President McKay has agreed to a legislative review subcommittee to be made up of the President of the Board, the Chair of the Public Awareness Committee, and the President Elect. The subcommittee would review legislation with substantial impact, negative or positive, on the university system and direct staff to take the appropriate positions at the capitol. In addition, Mr. Ortega will issue a weekly or bi-weekly legislative alert, by email, to keep all Regents up-to-date on current bill activities.
Mr. Matt Ortega, Mr. Kurt Davis, and Mr. Greg Fahey joined the meeting for a discussion on legislative initiatives that have a potential impact on the university system. Mr. Ortega reported on bills in process at the legislature that could impact the university system. Many of these bills are not expected to move forward, but he updated the Regents on their current status.
Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent Stuart, the Board directed staff to support SB 1257, Universities Bonding authority, SB 1079, NAU Debt Service (same as HB
2377), and SB 1243, ABOR Continuation. Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board directed staff to oppose HB 2156, Education: Project Challenge. Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board adopted a neutral position on all the remaining bills that were reported on at the meeting, including those on the addendum.
Mr. Matt Ortega, Mr. Greg Fahey, and Mr. Kurt Davis joined the meeting for this discussion.
Mr. Ortega reported the government affairs people and the Institutional Advancement Vice Presidents are working on a more strategic communications plan for the system. He reported accessibility and navigational improvements had been made to the Board's website. The printed newspaper clips have been converted to email clips which can be accessed through the ABOR website.
Regent Stuart is the new Board of Regents' representative to the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges (SBDCC), replacing former Regent Gignac. Regent Gignac supplied him with a report stating there had been a work session on certification at the last meeting and funding cuts for FY 2002 were reviewed. Both issues will continue at the next meeting.
Dr. Andrew Jackson reported the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) was asked to provide support for the evaluation process for Learner Centered Education proposals to be funded from the Innovation Fund. He reported the AFC was encouraged by the financial aid, accessibility issues, and cost of education discussion held earlier. He said there were faculty concerns with student-faculty ratios forced by budget cuts. The need to use additional temporary faculty personnel places additional problems on consistency, continuity, and standardization. Larger classes run counter to learner-centered education. He said the rise in health costs has added to the poor morale situation for faculty and staff. He asked for Board support in seeking to develop solutions for long-term sustainable funding resources for the university system.
President Elect Jewett reported the faculty athletic representatives from each university had submitted a summary of their roles and responsibilities to the Intercollegiate Subcommittee on Athletics and they have been asked to submit recommendations for improvements. The universities have provided an outline of their academic support services for student athletes and have made suggestions for improvement there as well. The subcommittee plans to meet February 14th. He reported this issue is being taken seriously at the national and regional levels and the NCAA is working toward goals that are similar to the Regents'. There will be a study session on this issue at the March meeting.
President Elect Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Joel Valdez and Mr. Dave Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. President Elect Jewett said this mid-year update to Capital Development Plans (CDP) was being provided to the Board as part of the new Capital Development Process. In addition, the Board was asked to approve a modification to the UA's CDP by adding the renovation of the recently purchased Tucson Electric Power building to this year's CDP.
Mr. Valdez explained the proposed renovation project. Mr. Harris called the Board's attention to the status reports submitted by all three universities. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board approved the addition of the Tucson Electric Power Building Renovation to the University of Arizona's FY 2002 Capital Development Plan.
Regent Herstam chaired this portion of the meeting.
Dr. George Davis, Dr. Milt Glick, Dr. Susanna Maxwell, Dr. Tom Wickenden, and Ms. Kathy Bedard joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam reported the Board was being asked to review and approve revised FY 2002 Technology and Research Initiative Fund budgets and performance measures, along with budgetary delegation for FY 2002.
Ms. Bedard reported the TRIF guidelines require the universities to bring revised current year TRIF budget and performance measures, based on actual revenue received to date and estimated revenue for the balance of the year, to the Board every January. These revisions
were based on the latest JLBC revenue projections available at the time. However, on January 21, the JLBC revised Proposition 301 estimates, projecting a 1.8% budget shortfall for FY 2002. The universities are aware of this potential shortfall and are prepared to respond if it occurs.
Because Proposition 301 tax revenues began flowing into the TRIF account and to the universities in September 2001, some three months into the fiscal year, the Board is being asked to delegate budget flexibility to the universities for the remainder of the FY 2002 as proposed. This delegation will provide the universities with the necessary flexibility within and among the revised project budgets the Board is being asked to approve to effectively and efficiently implement the projects while at the same time maintaining Board oversight, accountability, and compliance with controlling statutes.
TRIF policy calls for the universities and Central Office to present to the Board in January their requested revisions to current fiscal year budgets and performance measures. The revisions were presented in the Executive Summary and were highlighted for the Board by Dr. Glick for Arizona State University, Dr. Maxwell for Northern Arizona University, Dr. Davis for the University, and Dr. Wickenden for the Central Office. Dr. Blessing introduced Mr. Ted Christensen, the new Associate Director for Arizona Regents University at the Central Office.
Dr. Wickenden said little of the budget for the Regents' Innovation Fund had been expended, but $500,000 had been approved to support grants to the universities to promote initiatives in learner-centered education. The RFP for these grants went out two months ago and over 110 proposals have been received. A request was made for delegation authority to the Learner-Centered Education (LCE) Team to award the individual grants to be funded by the Innovation Fund. The LCE Team includes Regents McKay, Ulrich, and Meaker and a replacement to be named for Regent Gignac.
Because of the challenges associated with the start-up year of the TRIF program and because no TRIF funds were available until September 2001, the universities and Central Office request Board authorization to exercise any and all budgetary flexibility to implement the approved initiatives in FY 2002, including: Transfers for capital facilities projects (but not to exceed the 20 percent statutory limitation) (TRIF Budget Guideline 5A); Transfers of funds within initiatives (Guidelines 5B and 5C); and Transfers of funds between and among initiatives (but not to exceed the plus or minus five percent limitation) (Guideline 6).
Information about all transfers will be shared with the Central Office and reported to the Board in the June 30, 2002, TRIF financial report. The Board will name a Business Advisory Team to select and work with a consultant to develop and implement a comprehensive program evaluation for all TRIF initiatives.
Regent Stuart pointed out how low the projections are and asked how the projects would be funded with fewer dollars. He was told 10 percent had been held back and projects are being funded at the lower end of the projections. Funds are being watched on a month-to-month basis. Regent Stuart said he was aware there is a requirement the funds be spent in a statutorily required time. He realized the problem of spending conservatively because the amount of funds are unknown but trying to get the money spent in a timely manner. Dr. Glick said he believed the time requirement was imposed by the Board, not by statute.
Upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board approved university and Central Office revised FY 2002 TRIF budgets, performance measures, and budgetary delegations as requested.
Ms. Louise Houseworth joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam said the Board was asked to review and adopt a tuition setting process and calendar for the 2002-2003 academic year. It is anticipated the Board will set tuition and fees and residence hall rates at the April meeting.
Ms. Houseworth said the Tuition and Financial Aid Work Group, consisting of students, university representatives and Central Office staff, had met for the first time the day before. They are reviewing tuition and financial aid background reports. She said the proposed calendar meets all the statutory requirements.
Regent Herstam reminded the Board of the importance of the Tuition Hearing that is scheduled for April 16 from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Stuart, the Board approved the tuition setting process and calendar for the 2002-2003 academic year as proposed.
Dr. Elaine Maimon, Dr. Gary Krahenbuhl, Ms. Devin Rankin, and Mr. Dave Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam said the Board is being asked for authorization for ASU West to proceed with a Request for Proposals for a Public/Private partnership for the development of a 300-bed residence hall.
President Coor said ASU has been exploring how to manage enrollment growth. It believes the freshman class on the main campus has grown to about maximum size. Therefore, ASU
would like to position ASU East and ASU West so students would choose to attend those campuses rather than the main campus.
Dr. Krahenbuhl said he had been charged with determining how assets currently available could be used to manage enrollment growth and how to cause the three campuses to develop so they each had their own unique characteristics. He explained different ways students could be blocked from one campus as a way to direct students. However, ASU believes the preferred way is to cause ASU East and ASU West to grow and become more full service as time passes so students will be willing to choose one of those campuses. It is believed a residence hall at ASU West would be one inducement for students to chose that campus.
Dr. Maimon said the overall goal of this project is to provide affordable housing options to ASU West students in the learning-living environment. She gave a short history of ASU West and its mission to be responsible to the community. A survey conducted in 2001 revealed 69% of those surveyed expressed an interest in living on campus. Since ASU West started admitting freshman in September 2000, they have received over 700 inquiries about on-campus housing. ASU West sees a need for housing to meet student demand. She said the public/private partnership, which has been used successfully on other campuses, will not cost taxpayers money. Ms. Rankin, ASU West Student Body President, said this request is an important issue to students on the ASU West campus.
President Coor said adding this residence hall would require shifting the definition of ASU West from a non-residential campus to a residential campus. The original description of the campus described it as a primarily non-residential campus. Dr. Coor asked the Regents for permission to explore the public/private market through this proposal and come back to the Board, if they find the project is possible, to discuss the change in definition of ASU West.
Regent Stuart said he was not opposed to the project. However, he said the current revenue situation is extremely challenging and there is enormous political pressure to take ASU West from ASU and make it a free standing university with no residence halls and no sports teams. Adding this residence hall will make a fundamental change in this campus and this is the first the Regents have heard of the change. It is a matter the Regents need to take seriously.
Regent Boice said the current plan for ASU West says it is a non-residential school and he would be in opposition to this project until such time as he has seen a strategic plan that includes the residential segment plus those things that go with it such as food service, intramural fields, student union, etc.
President Haeger said he does not oppose the construction of a residential facility at ASU West, but it will head the university system in a new direction. He said he believed if competition will exist in residential campuses, there should also be competition in urban environments. Regent Robinson said she did not have a problem with the project; but she agreed it could have an impact on NAU. She would like the Regents to be mindful of how it will impact the rest of the state.
Regent Bulla said the population has changed greatly since ASU West was founded and he believes there is a need to serve students and give students choices. He also believes in competition. He would like to see some way the Board could discuss a change in the strategic plan and find a way to provide a residence facility at ASU West. Regent Palacios said she did not contemplate a residential university at ASU West when the Board approved the four-year college. She believes the issue deserves more thought and planning as she believes it is moving too fast and it is hard to stop projects once they start.
President Likins said he was surprised to hear Board members say this is a radical departure as he believes the radical departure was made when the decision was made to admit freshmen. Regent Herstam said he agreed the radical departure was made when the Board voted to allow ASU West to become a four-year institution. He also agrees with Regent Bulla about the large growing population on the west side and the traffic problem involved in traveling to the main campus.
Regent Boice moved to allow the RFP to go forward with ASU West to bring back the results of the RFP and an updated Strategic Plan for ASU West. The motion was seconded by Regent Bulla. President Coor said it would take two or three months for the RFP to go through the process, but he would like to come to the Board in March with what the pieces look like, where the boundaries ought to be, and how ASU does want to position itself so it is not expanding inappropriately. He also said the project is stoppable as this is just an RFP.
Regent Herstam said he supported the motion and would also like to see time allocated for the NAU issue during this discussion. President Coor agreed this should be included. Regent Palacios said the Board should leave the next discussion on this item with some principles about how it views ASU West in the long term. She believes there should be a larger plan rather than piecemeal efforts. President Haeger said he does not oppose the project; however, he would be more comfortable with the move if the Board understands and has a plan from a systemwide perspective of what the impact will be on the enrollment and enrollment competition at the undergraduate level and in programs and programmatic competition. The motion passed by voice vote.
Dr. Elaine Maimon and Mr. Dave Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam said the Board was being asked to grant Project Approval for the development of the Classroom Laboratory/Computer Classroom Building Phase II. The agenda for Item 9 incorrectly listed this item as Project Implementation Approval. The estimated cost of the building is $20.9M which is proposed to be financed with Proposition 301 funds ($17.7M) and local funds ($3.2M). The multi-purpose instructional facility was included in ASU West's Capital Development Plan for this fiscal year. Dr. Maimon explained the project.
Upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board granted Project Approval to Arizona State University West for the Classroom/Laboratory/Computer Classroom Building Phase II project (CLCC II).
Mr. Dave Harris and Dr. Mernoy Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam said the Board was being asked to grant Project Approval for the construction of the 120,000 square foot University Services Building at an estimated cost of $11.2M. This facility will be utilized to relocate Facilities Management and related programs from an on-campus site to free up space for the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Public Programs, and Engineering and Applied Sciences. This project was included in ASU's Capital Development Plan and is proposed to be funded with Certificates of Participation with debt service being provided with local funds.
Upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted Project Approval to Arizona State University Main Campus for construction of the proposed University Services Building.
Mr. Joel Valdez and Mr. Davis Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam said the Board was being asked to grant revised Project Approval for the Sixth Street Parking and Office Building with a budget increase from $17M to $18M. This project has been revised to accommodate the relocation of green houses adjacent to the Chemistry Building to the top floor of the Parking Structure. This project is proposed to be funded with Certificates of Participation ($16.2M) with debt service being provided from auxiliary revenues and cash ($800,000) from parking reserves and $1M in plant funds.
Mr. Valdez explained the project. Upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted Revised Project Approval and a Budget Increase of $1M to the University of Arizona for the Sixth Street Parking and Office Building.
Mr. Joel Valdez and Mr. Dave Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam said the Board was being asked to grant Project Implementation Approval to the University of Arizona for the renovation of the former Tucson Electric Power building which is now called the University Services Annex. The Board authorized the acquisition of this building in November 2000, and further authorized the transfer of $1.5M in proceeds from the sale of Certificates of Participation previously dedicated to the Mount Graham Power Line Project (but not needed) to this project in November 2001. The renovation of this building is estimated to cost $2.5M. The renovated facility will house Facilities Design and Construction, Procurement, Campus and Facilities Planning, and Facilities Management.
Mr. Valdez explained the project. Regent Boice asked if the University would have purchased the building outright if it had not had the trade with Tucson Unified School District in mind and was told yes. Upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted Project Implementation to the University of Arizona for renovations and modifications to the University Services Annex.
Mr. Ray Quintero, Student Body President, Mr. Joel Valdez, and Mr. Dave Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam said the University of Arizona Department of Campus Recreation and the Associated Students of the UA were requesting permission to pursue development and implementation of a student-initiated and directed referendum. Revenue from the referendum ($3 per semester, refundable upon request) will fund recreational programs, campus recreation student staff salary increases, sport clubs, and facility needs of the Department of Campus Recreation.
Mr. Quintero said the student government and the Department of Campus Recreation had been in discussion about possibly implementing a fee for recreation center needs. Students were surveyed approximately three years ago as to whether they would be willing to pay an additional fee to supplement what the Recreation Center currently provides. There was overwhelming support. This will be on the student ballot in March to see if the students
are interested in paying this fee. If it passes, it will be brought back to the Board for approval. Regent Boice asked if the payment of this fee by students would create any additional legal liability and was told no.
Upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted permission to the Associated Students of the University of Arizona and the Department of Campus Recreation to develop and implement a student referendum ($3 per semester refundable fee) to fund recreational programming.
Mr. Joel Valdez and Mr. Dave Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam said the University of Arizona was asking permission to enter into a five-year lease, with options to renew in five-year increments, with the Marshall Foundation for 70,000 gross square feet of a building to be constructed on a site at Park Avenue and Second Street. This facility will be utilized to accommodate new lab space for the International Sustainability of Semi-Arid Hydrology and Riparian Area Project. Mr. Valdez explained this request is really for a lease with the Community Finance Corporation (CFC), an offshoot of the Business Development Corporation. The CFC will work with the City of Tucson and the bond trustee and will be the financing agent.
Upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to lease approximately 70,000 square feet from the Marshall Foundation, subject to review by University and Board Counsel. It was also resolved that the Arizona Board of Regents authorize the negotiations for a lease from the Community Finance Corporation, subject to approval by the University and Board Counsel. Further, that the Arizona Board of Regents represented and affirmed that the project, as such term is defined in the trust indenture between The Industrial Authority of the City of Tucson, Arizona, and the bond trustee named therein, and that the Arizona board of Regents' use of the project is essential to its operations and that the project will lessen the burdens imposed upon the Arizona Board of Regents.
Mr. Dave Harris and Mr. Kurt Freund, bond advisor for all three universities, joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam reminded the Board the universities and the Central Office were directed at the September 2001 Board meeting to draft recommended
Board Policy for the use of capital debt. This direction resulted from an inquiry from the Legislature's Joint Committee on Capital Review (JCCR) on what Board of Regents guidelines were in effect for the use of Certificates of Participation and System Revenue Bonds. Mr. Freund gave an overview of system revenue bonds versus certificates of participation. Mr. Harris explained the proposed policy revisions to be brought to the Board at the March meeting. Regent Bulla asked for a copy of the annual Capital Development Plan.
Mr. Greg Pivirotto, Ms. Louise Houseworth, and Ms. Kathy Bedard joined the meeting for this discussion. Mr. Pivirotto said UMCC is facing the same issues as all other hospitals and teaching hospitals: rising costs, shortage of nurses and technicians, and cost of pharmaceuticals with reimbursements falling. He explained why the UMCC Board listed unrealized losses and gains on the balance sheet within the equity section during the year, but followed general accounting principles and ran them through profits and losses at the end of the year. He told the Board that UMCC was in the red thus far this year, but are about $1.5M ahead of last year. The good news is the busy season is approaching and they are trying to get back to a break-even point. Since the medical center has been split off from the university, it has been profitable 15 of the 17 years.
Mr. Josh Allen and Ms. Cathy McGonigle joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam said the Board was being asked to consider policy revisions relating to performance based salary incentive programs to incorporate recent changes in statute and to provide additional flexibility for the universities in developing such programs. This item will be brought back for Board approval at the March Board meeting.
Dr. Mernoy Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Harrison said this is a proposal to extend the existing ground lease between ASU and The Collegiate Golf Foundation (CGF) which will expire June 30, 2003 to: 1) Extend the term of the lease through June 30, 2006, with options to extend the lease for two periods of three years each on the same terms and provisions, subject to the mutual agreement of the parties; 2) Provide for bimonthly (rather than monthly) meetings of the Operations Review Board; 3) Increase the expenditure authority for certain improvements from $100,000 to $250,000 without prior approval of ASU; 4) Provide enhanced insurance coverage for, among other things, pollution liability; and 5) Remove certain language relating to the initial construction of the golf course.
The base rent remains at $100,000, paid in quarter-annual installments and the percentage rental rate remains at 10% of gross revenues with the new lease. Estimated rent to be paid to ASU for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002, is $450,000.
President Coor said the passage of this item would authorize the President of ASU to execute such a document. In light of the issues currently being explored with the proposed Cardinal Stadium, he would not discharge the execution of this document without consultation with Board leadership.
Upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board authorized Arizona State University to enter into a four-year ground lease with two three-year lease extensions of the Karsten Golf Course at ASU with The Collegiate Golf Foundation on substantially the same terms and provisions of the existing agreement as summarized above and subject to review and approval by university counsel.
Regent Stuart chaired this portion of the meeting.
Dr. Milt Glick, Dr. George Davis, and Dr. Susanna Maxwell joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said this is the annual report on the faculty tenure and post-tenure review process. Provost Davis said this item is a summary of the outcomes of the promotion and tenure process and the outcomes of post-tenure review. It is important for the universities and the Board to be able to track outcomes with respect to gender, majority/minority faculty, and to see how those trends look through time. It also reveals the numbers of "turn downs" for promotion and tenure and the number of tenure-track faculty who come to the university and leave before the tenure and promotion decision point.
Dr. Davis told the Regents the results of the reviews closely match the student surveys in terms of numbers of faculty rated excellent. He explained how important this process is and the results of its use. Regent Palacios said she would like to meet with the Provosts sometime as she had a few questions.
Dr. Milt Glick, Dr. Susanna Maxwell, and Dr. Charles Backus joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said the request from ASU East to implement a degree program in Human Health had been postponed until the March meeting. Dr. Glick told the Regents about the ASU Main request to plan for an Au.D. in Clinical Audiology. Dr. Maxwell told the Regents about the NAU request to plan for an M.A. in Teaching Spanish.
Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board authorized planning requests for an Au.D. in Clinical Audiology (ASU Main) and an M.S. in Teaching Spanish (NAU).
President Haeger introduced Interim Provost Susanna Maxwell, who has served previously as Dean of Social and Behavioral Sciences at NAU for eight years.
Regents Boice and Bulla were welcomed to the Board. Regents expressed their appreciation for being involved in the Regents' Professor Ceremony on Thursday. President Coor was thanked for hosting the meeting. Regent Boice asked for a study on how to better fund the universities by considering how universities are funded in other states such as Montana, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado.
The meeting adjourned at 5:04 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
____________________________
Judy E. Garza
Secretary to the BoardAPPROVED BY:
______________________________
Jack B. Jewett
President Elect
ATTEST:
_______________________
Gary Stuart
Secretary