Arizona Board of Regents-June 24-25, 2004 Minutes

A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held June 24 and 25, 2004, in the Havasupai Room of the University Union at Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. President Herstam called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. on June 24.

PRESENT:	Regent Fred Boice Regent Ernest Calderón Regent Lorraine Frank Regent Chris Herstam Regent Jack Jewett Regent Danelle Kelling Regent Wes McCalley Regent Christina Palacios (Thursday Only) Regent Gary Stuart Superintendent Tom Horne (Friday only)
ABSENT:	Regent Robert Bulla Governor Janet Napolitano

Also present were: President John Haeger, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, Dr. Susanna Maxwell, Mr. David Lorenz, Dr. David Cain, and Dr. M. J. McMahon, Northern Arizona University; President Michael Crow, Dr. Milt Glick, Dr. Kathleen Church, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Dr. Christine Wilkinson, and Mr. Scott Cole, Arizona State University; President Peter Likins, Dr. George Davis, Ms. Judith Leonard, Ms. Edith Auslander, Mr. Dick Roberts, Dr. Patti Ota, Dr. Randy Groth, Mr. Greg Fahey, and Mr. Joel Valdez, University of Arizona; Executive Director Linda Blessing, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Art Ashton, Ms. Cathy McGonigle, Mr. Ted Gates, Ms. Stephanie Jacobson, Ms. Kathy Bedard, Dr. Tom Wickenden, and Dr. Mark Denke, Central Office; and Dr. David Camacho, Arizona Faculties Council.

All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the June 24 and 25, 2004, Documents File.

Regent Kelling led the Pledge of Allegiance. President Herstam welcomed everyone to the June meeting.

Senator Jim Weiers, said he had concerns with the proposed redesign. He asked the Board to delay the process so as many people as possible can participate because there is a perception this is taking place in a vacuum. During the summer, legislators, students, and faculty are gone. He believes the proposed changes to higher education currently being discussed are the most significant in recent history and he believes this is a great opportunity. He believes the turf issues, the egos, and the self-serving agendas should be put away so a plan that can best serve the citizens of the state can be adopted.

Representative Doug Quelland, said the people had a lot of input when Arizona State Teachers College was changed to Arizona State University. He believes this process should have input from as many people as possible. He agreed there will be a large population increase and there will be a need for an expansion in higher education. However, he does not want to see anything taken away from ASU West or Northern Arizona University.

Representative Debbie McCune Davis, said she also thought more time should be devoted to the redesign process. She said the decisions made will have a direct impact on working families and their children’s access to education. She is concerned about the creation of a two-tier system and the impact of the redesign on ASU West and NAU.

Joseph Donaldson, Mayor of Flagstaff, welcomed the Regents to Flagstaff. He commended the Regents for considering a redesign of the university system in light of anticipated student enrollment growth and the Board’s willingness to consider other proposals. He said NAU has provided a quality education. The community supports President Haeger and NAU in its array of educational programs that meet the needs of the entire state. He asked the Regents to consider how NAU serves as an integral part of the local and regional economy.

David Maurer, President and CEO of the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, said the community is very active in serving as volunteers at NAU. This interaction is magnified in the smaller community of Flagstaff.

Jeremy Christopher, 2002 alumnus of NAU and Vice President Director of Business Development of the Greater Flagstaff Economic Council, thanked the Regents for taking the time to critically look at the education structure in northern Arizona, especially as it relates to NAU. The ability of the Flagstaff community, through stakeholder groups, to come to the table is encouraging. He explained the economic impact NAU has on Coconino County.

Dana Russel, CEO for Native Americans for Community Action, said NAU devotes a considerable effort to its Native American student population and it is important that this individualized attention continue. This is what has helped make NAU a leader in higher education. The proposals for redesigning into regional configurations leads to the perception that NAU will not hold the same status as before. He urged the Regents to take a deliberate and careful approach in considering any redesign that will affect NAU and the members of this community.

Eve Ross, W. L. Gore and Associates and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Greater Flagstaff Economic Council, said Gore’s medical products division is headquartered in Flagstaff and is the largest private employer in Northern Arizona. Over 1/3 of their scientists and engineers have some connection to NAU. NAU is critical to Gore’s ability to recruit and retain talent in Flagstaff. She urged the Regents to look optimistically to Arizona’s future and to redesign accordingly.

Tom Jordan, President of Coconino Community College and a member of the Community College Association, concurs that a comprehensive plan for higher education is long overdue. He said the community colleges were concerned about how the proposed plan would impact their students. Therefore, he asked for a broader-based, more strategic look at all of higher education. To facilitate the public policy debate, the community colleges plan to commission a white paper, to be completed in early fall, to form the public policy debate that is necessary before any redesign is considered. It will articulate how Arizona’s educational pipeline uniquely positions community colleges to continue their contributions to the overall system. The white paper, in framing the public policy debate, will act as a lens by which all stakeholders can view the current strengths, gaps, and solutions to a reconstituted delivery model of higher education.

Liz Archuletta, Coconino County Supervisor, said the Flagstaff community supported the feasibility study and slowing down the process to make sure all voices are heard so a decision can be made that is beneficial to the state. She said the community supports President Haeger and NAU and what the university does impacts the community. She said it is critical that the process end in a university system structure that will allow NAU to maintain and build upon its strengths in undergraduate education, distance learning, and research.

Dr. Larry Mohrweis, President of the NAU Faculty Senate, said the faculty spent a considerable amount of time discussing NAU’s reorganization and the Faculty Senate voted to accept the reorganization. In relation to the proposed system redesign, the faculty is concerned with the word regional as they believe NAU has programs with a national reputation. He asked the Regents to polish the jewels that are the universities and to make sure they are not tarnished.

Saif Al-Alawi, Student Body President at ASU West, referred to a document titled, “Redesigning Higher Education in Arizona,” the ASU West Response to the Proposed redesign. In reference to Dr. Longanecker’s models for ASU West presented at the June 3 meeting, Saif outlined the reasons he believed the models were not in any way comparable to ASU West. He believes ASU West should be resourced to grow to 20,000 students to meet the growing student population.

George Powers referenced Tables 1 and 2 in “Redesigning Higher Education in Arizona.” He said the proposed redesign does not address the expected student population growth in Arizona, especially the increase in Hispanic students.

Jack Lunsford, President and CEO of WESTMARC, said they had hosted a community forum and had taken a focused effort to raise the level of understanding of his board concerning the redesign proposal.

Dr. Richard Morris asked the Regents to consider that the plan presented to the Board at the June 3 meeting is a disservice to the State of Arizona as it creates a two-tiered system of education in which the universities would be severely limited in their ability to provide cost-effective, quality education. He believes the state already has a deficit in the number of Masters 1 and research universities and the plan exacerbates these deficiencies by limiting the growth of ASU West and other state universities. He listed the strengths of ASU West and said he believed ASU West could satisfy all the concerns the Regents have for a growing student population.

Bill Grabe, Executive Director of the Academic Chairs Council at NAU and Co-Chair of the NAU Task Force on Higher Education, said his group supported the rationale and several principles in the ABOR redesign proposal. He expects his group to submit a proposal that will build on and expand the ABOR redesign proposal.

Bill Simmons, representing the ASU West Academic Senate, refuted the information provided at the June 3 Study Session with information contained in “Redesigning Higher Education in Arizona.” Based on the data he submitted, ASU West is producing a high quality education in a research environment and is nationally ranked for its community imbeddedness, doing so in a very cost effective way. He asked that ASU West be allowed to continue as a public metropolitan research university.

Jody Harwood, a manager of a local hotel company, the past chair of the Arizona Lodging Association, and the Vice Chair of the Arizona Tourism Alliance, came to support the Hotel Restaurant Management program at NAU.

Fran Bernat, a faculty member at ASU West and Past President of the ASU West Senate, spoke about the qualities of ASU West and its expectations. She asked that the representative from the Arizona Faculties Council not have the dual role of representing the university from which they come as a faculty member. She also urged the Board to consider appointing the chairs of each stakeholder group to the feasibility work group.

David Patton, Dean of the NAU School of Forestry, said the School of Forestry has a unique role in the state educational system and he described the program. He spoke on behalf of the proposed consortium of professional schools and colleges at NAU.

Jane Carey, an Associate Professor of Information Systems at ASU West, discussed Table 5 of the “Redesigning Higher Education in Arizona” paper. She said the state needs and deserves a public metropolitan research university that provides access, affordability, quality, effectiveness, and efficiency. ASU West can provide those needs.

Tom Loomis, representing the NAU College of Engineering Industrial Council regarding the proposed NAU reorganization, read a statement of support for the combination of engineering and the sciences into a new college at NAU.

Cherie Hudson, President of the Classified Staff Council at ASU West, said the staff agrees the current system is not adequate for the proposed growth in the student population and believes detailed and comprehensive studies should be done to find the best solution. While the studies are being conducted, especially on the removal of ASU West from ASU, the staff asks the Regents to consider how the changes will affect staff and employees’ spouses and children’s educational benefits, employees who work at more than one campus, employees who work for combined departments such as DPS, the effect on retirement and years of service, employee salary issues, research at ASU West, the level of community service, ASU’s current ranking in the state, and the impact on the West Valley, especially in funding. She also asked for the chairs of the stakeholder committees to serve on the main ABOR feasibility work group.

Keith Underwood, the general manager of the Phoenix Country Club and a member of the NAU Hotel School Advisory Board, spoke on behalf of the proposed consortium of professional schools and colleges at NAU.

Bob Salmon, Acting President of Yavapai Community College, spoke as a representative of the Arizona Community College Association (ACCA). The ACCA has gone on record stating that a comprehensive, strategic plan for public higher education is long overdue and they applaud the Regents for beginning the discussion. However, they believe any review of higher education in Arizona must include the community college system as an equal partner in the feasibility study-decision making process and the implementation process. He said the proposed plan does not address the impact of this plan on community college students and does not contemplate the significant investment already made by state and local communities in the community colleges. In the proposed plan, the community colleges are relegated to a third party voice and no direct representation on the work group itself. He stated Dr. Terry Calloway, incoming president of the ACCA, has been tasked with sending to the Regents a list of four names to be placed on the work group as equal partners in the dialogue.

George Acuňa, past president of the Classified Staff Advisory Council at NAU, spoke on behalf of the classified staffs from all three universities. He addressed issues of employee concern. He thanked the Regents for their support of employee pay raises, for helping keep health insurance increases to a minimum, and the Blue Cross/Blue Shield initiative at NAU. He acknowledged the foresight of the presidents and the Regents of including a staff representative on the task force as the staff stakeholder group will bring a valuable perspective to the initiative.

Hari Kowitha, Associated Students of NAU, raised the issue of increased involvement of faculty, staff, and students in the redesign process. Due to the timing of the process, students and faculty will not be available by July 1. He asked the Board to slow down the process.

Laura Huenneke, currently Dean of Arts and Sciences at NAU, spoke on behalf of the proposed NAU restructuring.

Bill Auberle, Director of Engineering programs at NAU, spoke on behalf of the proposed restructuring at NAU.

President Herstam said Northern Arizona University was asking for approval of its implementation plan for academic restructuring. Key points of the plan include: combining the existing ten colleges and schools into six units and aligning disciplines in new ways to better foster collaboration and economies of scale as well as aligning a number of research centers with academic units for better accountability and cooperation.

President Haeger asked Provost Elizabeth Grobsmith and Dr. Susan Fitzmaurice, Chair of the Blue Ribbon Restructuring Committee, to join the discussion. President Haeger said NAU has taken the charge to do what it does best very seriously and undergraduate education is the core part of the NAU mission. In order to continue to offer quality education, NAU must deal with the reality of limited state funding. So there is a need to make the academic institution more effective academically and more efficient in terms of cost. He told about the progress that has been made in overcoming NAU’s problems in the past three years.

Dr. Haeger said the academic portion of the university is the most important and the one that consumes the most resources. When examined, it was found the academic organization was split in many different directions and it was obvious there needed to be a more organized approach.

Dr. Fitzmaurice explained there was a task force from the NAU academic community that was charged with assessing the feasibility of organizational change at NAU and with drawing up a plan to present to the campus for discussion. She explained the process used by this task force to prepare and distribute a plan across the campus for discussion. After the task force and university leadership agreed on a plan, it was discussed across the campus for seven weeks before President Haeger unveiled his plan that is today the NAU community’s plan for the future.

Provost Grobsmith said the plan being presented today is a synthesis of the two plans presented by the task force. The administration listened to the campus discussion and developed the plan being presented today for adoption. She explained the new organization of the current 10 colleges into 6 and the integration of centers and programs into the colleges. The result is a reduction in administrative structure, better fiscal and IT management, more efficient fiscal management, the elimination of duplicative functions, and the merging of staff functions.

Dr. Grobsmith said there is a new committee on oversight of implementation that will oversee the major structural changes. President Haeger said this will create an effective administrative structure to make the right decisions as a university for the future. He believes there will be some short term and more long term budget savings. He hopes this has created an environment on the campus for innovation, collaboration, and responsiveness.

Regent Calderón complimented everyone at NAU for coming together to produce a plan that is workable. He asked if the restructuring would in any way endanger the reputation of the Hotel-Hospitality program at NAU. President Haeger said they have been very careful about this point and have talked to the accreditation groups in both the hotel-restaurant and forestry fields before making this recommendation.

Upon motion of President Herstam, seconded by Regent Calderón, the Board approved the implementation of the plan for academic restructuring at Northern Arizona university as presented.

Dr. Tom Wickenden, Ms. Mary Jo Waits, and Ms. Cathy McGonigle joined this discussion. President Herstam said he was pleased with the public support for conducting the feasibility and planning study. There is widespread agreement that we need to examine the structure of the university system. And there’s broad support for doing it now so that we are able to meet the skyrocketing demand for a university education that’s expected in the years ahead. At the June special study session, the Board laid out and discussed a proposed plan for redesigning the system, recognizing, at the time, that there would be other perspectives on the best way to go about such an effort. The Board remains committed to listening to these different views and considering alternative proposals to restructure the system.

President Herstam suggested extending the deadline for submitting alternative proposals from July 1 to August 1. Stakeholders have voiced a need for more time. Upon motion of Regent Calderón, seconded by Regent Palacios, the Board voted to extend the deadline for submitting alternative proposals to August 1.

President Herstam reported the Board had hired Mary Jo Waits as ABOR’s staff director of the study. She will work closely with David Longanecker, Executive Director for the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, who will serve as the project consultant. An internal work group has been established to perform the technical work associated with the study, and is in the process of establishing eight stakeholder groups to involve stakeholders in the process.

President Herstam stated that all meetings of the planning and feasibility study work group will be publically noticed and will be public meetings. He said Arizona’s community colleges clearly are critical to meeting Arizona’s higher education needs. With any redesign of the university system, we will be looking to strengthen - not diminish - community college partnerships so both systems will be better able to handle the tremendous influx of students expected on each of the campuses.

Dr. Wickenden said the proposed scope of work includes 4 components: guiding principles, needs assessment, strategic questions, and the elements of an implementation plan. The scope may be further developed as stakeholders work to identify other issues to be addressed in the study.

Dr. Wickenden said the guiding principles include several of the points recommended by the Governor as criteria for evaluating proposals. They are: to provide access, to ensure affordability, to maintain a high level of quality in higher education, to provide education that is effective at helping students learn, persist, and graduate with solid preparation for the future, and to provide education that is efficient and cost effective.

Dr. Wickenden said the study itself should begin by validating the need for redesigning the university system. This could be done by a needs assessment. It is recommended that the feasibility study itself be designed to provide answers to a set of strategic questions for the original proposal together with all modifications and alternatives that are recommended. The work group should determine whether the original or alternative proposals are capable of providing affordable access for all qualified Arizona students to high quality university education. The study should also answer other specific questions dealing with various strategic topics such as educational quality, access, economic feasibility, etc.

Dr. Wickenden proposed, that if the study finds a redesign to be feasible and if the Board approves it for planning purposes, the study should then shift its focus toward implementation. He recommended that the Internal Work Group, with input from the stakeholder groups, refine that proposal by developing preliminary plans to address topics such as mission definition, management practices, organizational structure, statutory changes, academic programs, campuses and physical facilities, resource implications, funding mechanisms, and accountability for providing affordable access for qualified Arizona students to high quality university education.

Ms. Waits said eight stakeholder groups have been established. A lot of communications have been sent to representatives of the eight stakeholder groups asking them to suggest people to serve on the groups. She said staff’s job is to help identify a facilitator or chair for each of the stakeholder groups and help them identify who they think should be around the table. The internal group will be interacting all the time throughout the entire process with the stakeholder groups and asking them for input on the needs, how to measure the guiding principles, and what are the recommendations to meet the needs. There will also be public forums. It is hoped there will be an action plan and a schedule presented to the Board in August.

Regent Jewett said Dr. Wickenden had been very helpful in the “Changing Directions” process and now was helping to get the redesign process off to a good start. Regent Jewett said he was very sorry to see Dr. Wickenden leave for a new job in Washington, D. C. However, he believed the results of “Changing Directions” had been widely accepted and he believed Ms. Waits would help the redesign process to produce a quality product. He saw the material presented as laying out a very open, transparent process that is consistent with how the Board has acted in the last two years. He believes this process will leave the university system in a much better place.

Regent Stuart reminded everyone the Regents do not respond publically to the comments made at the Call to the Audience. He noted the morning’s presentation was similar to the audience presentation at the June 3 Special Meeting. He said the Regents heard a lot of fervent prayers and hopes from some very committed people. He said the Regents were with the commentators; they understand how important ASU West and NAU are to their communities and to the state. The Regents have no intention of demeaning either university. He said this process would take at least a year to study and a couple of years to implement whatever is decided; so he did not want people to think it would be a rushed process. Regent Stuart said the requests for the work group to be expanded were well intentioned; but it would be difficult to work with the work group as large as it is now.

Regent Stuart said nothing that had been presented so far was written in stone; it was just a proposal to begin the study. He said he would try to support the work group in any way he could and would meet with as many of the stakeholders as he possibly can.

Regent Stuart said he had been the Regents’ representative to the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges for several years and he believes the community college system is vital. He agreed it should be included in the process. However, he said this process is to redesign what will happen to baccalaureate, masters, doctoral, and post doctoral programs, not all of higher education. The Regents cannot speak for all of higher education in Arizona. Because of budgetary issues, legislative and executive branch input will be very important. He wants everyone to know this is not some plan to harm any institution or graduate thereof.

Regent Calderón asked for an explanation of the middle committee. He said there is a study committee, the eight stakeholder groups, and the review team. President Herstam said the review team adds the presidents into the public process when they review the recommendations coming from the work group.

President Haeger said he would like to bring the Board up to date on a number of building projects as well as a master plan for the campus. Dr. David Lorenz, Dr. David Cain, and Mr. Jim Wheeler, the principal from Ayers Saint Gross Architects and Campus Planners, joined the meeting for this discussion.

Mr. Wheeler presented the Phase I part of the Campus Master Plan. It has four topics--the physical campus plan, the analysis of underutilized land, the hotel conference study, and a study of the sky dome for expansion-renovation or for the potential of a new arena. The master plan will support the strategic plan laid out by President Haeger earlier. Mr. Wheeler said there are five themes he believes the campus should embrace–the academic programs, the natural environment, the gateway to the regional culture, the historic resort town, and the high altitude training facility. He explained how the plan was developed.

Dr. Cain reminded the Regents of the problems NAU had with its buildings three years ago and explained the progress that had been made since then. He described the buildings that are about to come on line and those in progress and being planned. Chillers are being built on the south campus so air conditioning can be added there. One of the buildings will be a “green” building, one that meets all environmental criteria.

Mr. Wheeler showed the Regents how the campus could benefit from parking decks that would eliminate parking lots. This would allow for pedestrian walkways that incorporate the beautiful views of the mountains in Flagstaff.

Dr. Lorenz said the changes could be dramatic and could make the heart of campus more student friendly. They are also considering if any of the older buildings are becoming obsolete and should be put in a plan to be demolished. This would be a long-term plan and take place over the next 20 years. Many of the one-story buildings in the heart of campus sit on prime real estate. If these buildings were replaced over time with 3 or 4 story modern buildings, NAU could net out 1.6M million gross square feet of new space. That could be built around a series of open spaces and green pedestrian walk ways and 3,000 more students could be served.

The firm of Jones Lang LaSalle was engaged to study NAU’s underutilized land that is not in the core of the campus but is scattered throughout the area. Dr. Lorenz described the land use in the area and how they are considering ways the land could be used and the challenges that would be faced in developing a hotel conference center. He described how the Sky Dome has been changed through the years, how it could be updated, what new facilities could be constructed, and what they would cost.

President Herstam announced that Item 22, Academic Program Planning and Organizational Unit Change Requests and Summary Report on Program and Organizational Changes Approved by the Executive Director, had been removed from the Consent Agenda to be discussed under the Programs Committee Agenda. The remaining items on the Consent Agenda, which are marked in these minutes with an *, were considered as consent matters and were adopted upon the motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Boice. There was no discussion of these items.

The Board approved the March 11 and 12, Executive Session, and the April 29 and 30, 2004, Regular Meeting minutes.

The Board approved the expenditure of $816,750 to install optical fiber to the Mars Project command center, to the Qwest POP, and to the disaster recovery site. Funding for this project has come from multiple sources, including a previously-approved TRIF expenditure.

The Board approved the appointment of Dr. Mark Searle as Vice President and Provost, ASU West Campus. Dr. Searle’s fiscal-year salary will be $185,000.

The Board approved the License Agreement between AzTE and AzERx, Inc. Subject to satisfaction of certain conditions under an option agreement entered previously between AzTE and AzERx, AzTE will transfer certain technology in the field of therapeutic proteins produced by the ASU Center for Proteins and Peptides as Therapeutics to AzERx pursuant to the License Agreement . The technology transferred by ASU/AzTE will provide the basis for AzERx to develop human therapeutics for vascular diseases.

The Board granted Project Approval to Arizona State University Main for the Utilities Systems Expansion project. This project will construct utility delivery systems to serve the Arizona Biodesign Institute (all phases) and the new Resident Life Facilities on Lot 40. The total project cost is $2M. ASUM is using Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) for the construction delivery method. The cost estimates from the architect/engineer and the CMAR Guaranteed Maximum Price are both within the approved budget.

The Board authorized ASU to accept an amendment to a cooperative agreement from the Department of Defense - Army Research Office #DAMD-170220015, to increase funding and provide continuing support for a School of Life Sciences research project to develop plan production of vaccines and antibodies for protection against biowarfare agents. The proposed amount of the amendment is $701,336 for a total new award amount of $2,201,336 and the project period is June 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005.

The Board authorized ASU to accept an award from the National Science Foundation #0304682 for support of a Department of Physics and Astronomy, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences research project to understand and control the self-assembly process of silicide nanowires and to explore their potential applications. The amount of the award is $1.1M in federal funding with $142,001 cost sharing from non-federal sources and the project period is June 15, 2003 - August 31, 2004.

The Board authorized ASU to accept an award from the National Science Foundation #0353470 for support of a Center for Research, Education, Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology (CRESMET), Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering research project to produce a model for a Professional Learning Community for precalculus teachers in secondary schools. The amount of the award is $1,725,560 in federal funding and the project period is May 1, 2004, to April 30, 2006.

The Board authorized ASU to accept an award from the Gadsden Elementary School District for support of a Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education instructional development project. The amount of the award is $1,325,435 and the project period is September 1, 2003 - August 31, 2006.

The Board authorized ASU to accept an award from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting #AGR 12/03/03 for support of ASU’s KAET Public Television Station to provide operating support. The amount of the award is $1,364,149 and the project period is October 1, 2003 - September 30, 2005.

The Board authorized ASU to accept an award from the Department of Defense, Army Research Office #W911NF-04-2-0005 for support of a Flexible Display Center cooperative agreement. The amount of the award is $4,808,000 in federal funding with $7M cost sharing from non-federal sources. Total expected federal funding is $40.5M. The project period funded to date is February 6, 2004 - December 31, 2004. The anticipated total period of performance is anticipated through December 31, 2009.

The Board authorized ASU to accept an award from the U.S. Department of Education #S349A030112 for support of a Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education public service project to develop an early childhood professional development project in collaboration with the Arizona State Board for School Readiness. The amount of the award is $1,649,395 federal funding with $1,654,169 cost sharing from non-federal sources. The project period is September 15, 2003 - September 14, 2005.

The Board authorized ASU to accept an award from the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation #JFB103085 to develop an integrated microfluidic system that integrated all of the necessary steps of forensic STR analysis and performs them automatically. The amount of the award is $3,756,554 and the project period is August 28, 2003 - August 27, 2006.

The Board granted authority to Arizona State University to initiate litigation in Maricopa County Superior Court to obtain a judicial determination of legal ownership of Artworks created by decedent Pedro Alvarez so that the artwork and/or any sale proceeds is returned to the legal owner of same.

The Board granted Project Approval for the new College of Business Administration and authorized NAU to proceed to complete design and construction documentation. The estimated cost is $22M. The new 111,000sf facility will replace the existing College of Business and received Project Implementation Approval at the August 2003 Board meeting. System Revenue Bonds and possible gifts/grant will fund the project and the debt service will be funded by State appropriations.

The Board granted Project Approval to Northern Arizona University for the Applied Research and Development facility and authorized NAU to proceed to complete design and construction documentation. The estimated cost is $20.5M. This new 60,000sf facility will provide additional research infrastructure and incubation space and will incorporate energy efficient systems, environmental designs, and sustainable building systems. This project received Project Implementation Approval at the March 2004 Board meeting. Certificates of Participation will fund the project and the debt service will be funded form State Research Infrastructure funds, beginning July 1, 2007, and from $2.5M in grant funds.

The Board approved the FY 2005 budget for the Arizona Area Health Education centers (Arizona AHEC) for use of Arizona Tobacco Litigation Settlement Funds (Proposition 204) as proposed in the Executive Summary. The FY 2005 budget has been developed to assure that priority AHEC community-based programs are core-funded (contingent on continued federal support). Arizona AHEC will focus on maintaining the core AHEC activities and will continue to bring together key community stakeholders to develop programs that enhance the quantity and quality of patient care providers, with a particular emphasis on the nursing workforce serving in Arizona’s rural and/or medically underserved communities. A collaborative effort has been developed with the Arizona Association of Community Health Centers to develop coordinated programs to enhance the health workforce.

The Board approved appointments of new members to the Arizona Area Health Education Centers Program (Arizona AHEC) advisory commission and to the EAHEC, MHEC, NAHEC, SEAHEC, and WAHEC governing boards for terms as specified in the Executive Summary.

The Board approved the Fifth Amendment to the Arizona Board of Regents Optional Retirement plan, effective July 1, 2003, and authorized the Executive Director to execute this Amendment. This amendment revises the definition of Normal Retirement.

At the request of the UMCC Board, the ABOR appointed Mr. Edmund L. Jenkins to the Board of Directors for UMCC for a term expiring in September 2008. He was appointed to membership, pending ABOR approval, at the May 20, 2004 UMCC Board of Directors meeting.

The Board granted Revised Project Approval and a Budget Increase of $1.1M to the University of Arizona for the Chemistry Building Expansion project. Increases in construction prices have been offset with Value Engineering efforts and contingency fund allocations, but the budget increase is necessary to preserve the $42M project. This project originally received Project Approval at the August 2003 Board meeting. Certifi-cates of Participation will fund the project, and the debt service will be funded from gifts and Indirect Cost Recovery until State Research Infrastructure funds begin July 1, 2007.

The Board granted permission to the University of Arizona to advertise and sell at auction two parcels of undeveloped land, totaling approximately 8.23 acres, located on Valencia Road between Old Nogales Highway and Sixth Avenue, in Pima County, Tucson, Arizona, at no less than the fair market value as determined by appraisal, subject to approval of legal documents by University and Board Counsel.

The Board authorized the University of Arizona to receive a grant from the National Cancer Institute to provide support for the Chemoprevention of Skin Cancer Program Project. The proposed amount of the grant is $3,548,393 for the first year of the project, July 1, 2004, through June 20, 2005. Future proposed funding amendments would bring the total amount of this award to $18,959,878 with the anticipated life of the project going through June 30, 2009.

Pursuant to A.R.S. §15-1635.01, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to permit Dr. Roy L. Ax, Professor of Animal Science, to establish and maintain a substantial equity interest in TMI Laboratories International, LLC, while continuing his employment at the University of Arizona. TMI is a Tucson-based research organization that is conducting follow-on research related to patents and disclosures that TMI is licensing from the UA. TMI intends to make recombinant forms of certain proteins to evaluate whether their addition to sperm would improve function and subsequent fertility.

Pursuant to A.R.S. §15-1635.01, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to permit Dr. David T. Harris, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, and Dr. Tom C. Tsang, Assistant Research Scientist, to establish and maintain a substantial equity interest in Genetic Tools/Genetic Engineering Tools (Genetic Tools), while continuing his employment at the University of Arizona. Dr. Harris and Tsang will be shareholders in Genetic Tools, with neither holding more than 50% of the stock. Both individuals will serve as members of the board and as consultants to the company. Neither will be employed by the company.

Genetic Tools is a Tucson-based biotechnology company, being formed based on intellectual property derived form Dr. Harris’ laboratory. Drs. Harris and Tsang are co-inventors of the intellectual property. The company will be divided into three parts: 1) provision of genetic tools to the molecular biology/gene therapy research community, 2) provision of instrumentation needed by this community to use the aforementioned tools, and 3) provision of molecular biology services using these tools.

The Board authorized the execution of an Agreement and Mutual Release of All Claims on behalf of the University of Arizona concerning its dispute with certain former faculty, Cybernomics, Inc., and the International Foundation for Research in experimental Economics. This agreement is the result of mediation. All parties except ABOR already have approved and executed the Agreement. It is a condition of the finalization of the Agreement that ABOR approve and execute the Agreement.

Under the Agreement, the Faculty Group has agreed (without admission of any wrongdoing) to reimburse salary earned by the Faculty Group while employed by the UA. The Agreement provides a complete mutual release and protects the ABOR’s rights to any intellectual property resulting from the Faculty Group’s prior employment with the University. The Agreement provides that the Cybernomics stock held by the ABOR will be transferred to Cybernomics, an administratively dissolved corporation.

Dr. Art Ashton and Dr. Ron Pitt joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said the Board was being asked to review and discuss, on first reading, the elimination of Board Policy 2-205, Sections C, D, E, F, G, and I, “Off-Campus Courses and Programs,” related to sites, centers, branch campuses, free-standing campuses, programs on Indian Reservations, and military bases. This item is in response to a Board request to explore revisions to policies dealing with off-campus learning. A work group of university and central office personnel reviewed these policies in light of the Changing Directions initiative.

These policies were designed to constrain the growth of entities beyond the main campuses. With the advent of e-education and other electronic education delivery, it has become clear that these policies provide unnecessary barriers to student access. In addition, population growth and student demand throughout Arizona encourage extensive and rapid deployment of education opportunities throughout the state, something these policies constrain.

Regent Palacios asked the Board to always watch for unintended consequences as new policies are implemented.

Mr. Bruce Wright joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said the Board was being asked to review and discuss, on first reading, a proposed revision to the University of Arizona Science and Technology Park Master Plan. The revised Plan updates the Park’s land-use plan that was last revised and adopted by the Board in March 2001.

Mr. Wright gave a history of the Park which was purchased in 1994 from IBM and told how the land is currently designated. He told of the Park successes. It became self-supporting after 3 ½ years. The current Master Plan was adopted in 1996 and was revised by ABOR in 2001. The new Master Plan is consistent with the current Plan. It identifies 12 land use areas and 7 different uses which would include the addition of residential and commercial areas for development. Additionally, as there is an attempt to make the Park a flexible area for technology, designated areas for agriculture research uses, for a golf course, and for other areas designed to support the state’s efforts with sustainable technologies and environmental technology.

Under the proposed revision, new development would include multi-tenant laboratory buildings to support the growing biotechnology industry in Tucson, a hotel and conference center, and manufacturing facilities for companies moving out of the startup and emerging phases so they would have a place to begin to produce their products.

Mr. Wright said the majority of the Park falls under the active runway from Davis Monthan Air Force Base; this has been a significant issue as the Plan was revised. He said the Park Board had participated the last 2 years with the Air Force, the Arizona Department of Commerce, the City of Tucson, and Pima County in the Davis Monthan Joint Land Use Study in an effort to make the various uses of land around the Base consistent with its present and future operations. Modifications in the original land-use plan were made in response to concerns raised by the Air Force. The site of the proposed hotel conference center has been moved, an open space was designated along the northern edge of the park close to the center line of the runway, a series of density and height development restrictions have been agreed to consistent with the Joint Land Use Study, and it has been agreed, in cooperation with Vail High School, to relocate the high school to a new location in the Park or outside the Park.

Mr. Wright said the revised Plan is designed to assist the continued development of the Park and its contribution to the mission of the university and the economic development of the community. In a companion activity to the new Plan, the university has developed a series of development guidelines to guide development at the Park which will be adopted once the revised Plan is approved by the Board of Regents. The guidelines meet or exceed any county or city standards in all aspects and are consistent with the regulations being asked for by Davis Monthan and the Air Force.

Regent Jewett asked if the modifications in the Plan has resulted in any formal acceptance by Davis Monthan and was told the Park had the approval and support of the Air Force, the City of Tucson and Pima County in the adoption of the Plan. Once the Board authorizes the Plan, the City and the County will recognize the Park as part of the adoption of the ordinances that implement the Joint Land Use Study recommendations. The Park will be given special treatment under recommendations and ordinances in recognition of the steps that have been taken. Mr. Wright said he intended to bring letters of support for the Plan to the Board at the next meeting when this is on the Agenda for second reading.

Regent Palacios asked if Vail High School agreed with its proposed move and was told the high school is working closely with the Park and the Air Force to develop a plan that will be approved and accepted by the Air Force for their relocation. Vail High School was started at the Park as charter high school in recognition that the Park took its property off the tax rolls which caused a significant problem for Vail. It has become an outstanding high school and the Park would like to preserve it within the Park boundaries as it is an essential part of the work force development program in Tucson.

Regent Boice asked what would happen to Keene Elementary School and was told it would be shut down since it is located on the northern flight approach zone of Davis Monthan and the students moved to other schools in the Tucson Unified School District. Regent Boice said the reason the Park is being developed under the Air Force flight paddle is because the Air Force keeps extending the size of the paddle.

Regent Jewett said this item would return in August for second reading and possible adoption.

Ms. Cathy McGonigle joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said the FY 2005 budget resulted in a $40M increase over FY 2004, which is a 5.4% increase. He thanked the Governor and the supportive legislators in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Ms. McGonigle said SB 1158 expands the list of persons eligible for tuition waivers to include National Guard members who received a purple heart on or after September 11, 2001, and those injured and medically discharged from the National Guard. It also includes the spouse or child of a correctional officer killed in the line of duty. HB 2369 will require the Board to establish a policy for the guaranteed admission of home-schooled students. These will be coming to the Board for a first reading on proposed policies in August.

Ms. McGonigle said the Teratogen Information Program (part of the state Poison Control System) at the University of Arizona received $82,000. The adopted budget mirrored the Governor’s recommendations except she had asked for more money for employee pay raises and for health insurance. The universities will most likely have to absorb some of the cost of health care for employees.

Regent Stuart said there were important messages in the budget about redesign. It includes enrollment funding, but at only 39% of what the universities asked for and no money for building renewal. This should be remembered during the redesign process. He thanked the Regents for talking to legislators during the session.

Regent Stuart said the Audit Committee had put into place a series of recommendations the Working Group had recommended in the wake of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. A summary of the more significant recommendations was contained in the Executive Summary for this item.

Regent Stuart said this was a first reading on a proposed amendment to Board Policy 3-701 (aka central office internal audit charter) that formally documents the reporting relationships for the Assistant Executive Director for Audit Services. This makes certain the central office internal auditor has the same reporting status that the university lead auditors have.

Regent Stuart said there would be an item on the Agenda the next day that deals with the restructuring of the Joint Conference Committee. He said that had been a very positive dialogue between the community college boards and ABOR. It deals with transfer of community college credits and can be used to deal with other issues.

Upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board adopted the 2005-2006 meeting schedule as proposed.

August 16 and 17, 2005 UA (Tues.-Wed.)
September 29 and 30, 2005 NAU
December 1 and 2, 2005 UA
February 2 and 3, 2006 ASU
March 9 and 10, 2006 UA
April 27 and 28, 2006 ASU
June 22 and 23, 2006 NAU

Regent Jewett moved the following slate of officers for the 2004-2005 fiscal year: President - Gary Stuart, President Elect - Christina Palacios, Treasurer - Robert Bulla, Secretary - Fred Boice, Assistant Secretary - Lorraine Frank, Assistant Treasurer - Wes McCalley. The motion was seconded by Regent Kelling and passed by voice vote.

President Herstam thanked Dr. David Camacho on behalf of the Regents for his good work as the Arizona Faculties Council representative for the past year. He said the Board appreciated his efforts to bring the faculty position to the Board.

Dr. Camacho said the AFC had reached final review of its new by-laws. This document reflects some of the changes that have taken place in the AFC and makes the practices more formal. It is expected the AFC faculty salary plan will be ready at the beginning of the next academic year.

Dr. Camacho said the AFC-Board relationship is a healthy one. He has appreciated working with the Board this year. He recognized Dr. Tom Wickenden as instrumental in helping that relationship and he will be greatly missed. Dr. Camacho would like to see this relationship continue to develop and the AFC now looks forward to working with Stephanie Jacobson. This is especially important in light of the proposed restructuring and Dr. Jory Hancock will be a productive member of the Task Force who will speak for the faculty. He believes the restructuring will provide an opportunity for a better understanding of the faculty role and contribution in the Arizona system.

Dr. Camacho said Dr. Frances Bernat will be his successor. She is an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at ASU West.

The meeting recessed at 3:10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:09 a.m. on Friday, June 25.

President Herstam asked that Item 20, Awarding of Regents’ Medal and Designation of Emeritus Status, be deferred to the end of the meeting. He said this is the last meeting for Dr. Tom Wickenden, the Associate Director for Academic and Academic Affairs for the Board. He is leaving for a job in Washington, D. C. President Herstam read a resolution in honor of Dr. Wickenden. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board approved the resolution and thanked Dr. Wickenden for all his help and good work during his time with the Regents’ office. Dr. Wickenden thanked the Board for the resolution and said he had enjoyed working with them and all the other people in the Arizona system.

Dr. Tom Wickenden, Mr. Rick Kroc, and Mr. Dan Anderson joined the meeting for this discussion. Mr. Anderson said the Eligibility Study is a periodic sample of high school transcripts of Arizona’s seniors. It provides information that the universities use to identify the total potential pool of Arizona high school graduates who would be eligible to compete for admission to the universities. It is a tri-university survey. The survey also provides detailed information about how well students are completing the 16 core competencies that are required for admission without deficiencies.

Mr. Kroc said the university system definition of eligibility rate is the percentage of Arizona high school graduates who meet the criteria for university admission. Knowing the eligibility rate allows important issues to be examined, like under-represented populations, numbers in rural areas, etc. Using this data, the impact on existing students or those who have graduated can be modeled when changes are made. This is also a critical piece for setting accountability measures.

Mr. Kroc said studies were done in 1989 in response to Our Common Commitment, in 1996 prior to an admission requirement change, and in 1998 after the admission requirement change. This 2002 study is to update the 1998 study and to look at the impact of “Changing Directions.” A data base has been established from individual transcripts, on a sampling basis, from Arizona public high schools. One limitation of the study is there is not a large population in the state. Sampling was done in a stratified way to make sure there were enough transcripts from under-represented groups and from different regions of the state. However, confidentiality was guaranteed and there is no identifying information on the transcripts There was a response rate of almost 70%. The error rate is 4% or less.

The chart of the History of Eligibility Rates shows whether African Americans, American Indians, Asian Americans, Hispanics, and Whites have increased, decreased or remained the same in how many high school graduates are eligible to attend the universities.

The Findings Chart focuses on the 2002 data and splits the data into Assured Admissions and Delegated Admissions. The new Assured Admissions will require all 16 credits; there will be no deficiency admission. However, the Delegated Admission category allows for two deficiencies.

Mr. Kroc discussed the Completion Rate for 2002 of the Competency Courses of the Top Quartile Graduates. The biggest gaps are in math; l out of 4 students in the top quartile are not taking the required four years of math. They are still eligible in the delegated category. The conclusions are that eligibility has improved since 1998, but only modestly. Eligibility rates continue to differ substantially among ethnic groups. Completion of the required four units of math would have the greatest impact on eligibility, followed by completion of the science and foreign language requirements.

Dr. Wickenden said back in 1998 it was expected eligibility would drop because of the tightening of admissions standards significantly. The experience of other states showed that eligibility rates came back up to the trend 3 or 4 years after the admission criteria were modified and it was hoped the 2002 data would show rates had climbed back over 50%, but they haven’t. In order to increase these numbers, it will require a concerted effort from the entire educational community. The Department of Education and the universities have already undertaken significant initiatives to improve academic preparation of students and their chances for success. Dr. Wickenden mentioned several of those programs.

Dr. Wickenden said the standards-based reform process being carried out in Arizona by the Department of Education, the changes in the Regents Honors endorsement program, together with the new policy on Tuition Scholarships for high honors students, are all directly aimed at providing an incentive for the very best students.

In addition, a major new program has been proposed that is targeted directly at the problem of increasing the number of high school students who are eligible for admission to the universities. Arizona’s business community, working through the Arizona Business and Education Coalition (ABEC) has, with the support of Governor Napolitano, Superintendent Tom Horne, and ABOR, applied for a grant to create incentives and support mechanisms in schools across the state for students to complete an academic curriculum. The funds have not yet been officially awarded, but Arizona has been identified as the first state this year that will receive a grant, and ABEC has already begun the hiring process for a project director and has identified 4 schools for the first, pilot phase of the program.

Dr. Wickenden said this new partnership program, together with the efforts already underway at the universities and the Department of Education, should go a long way to raising eligibility rates for all student groups back up to an acceptable level.

President Likins asked what the evidence is that four years of math in high school is an indicator of success in the university. Mr. Kroc said there are national studies that show the higher the level of math the students take the more successful they are in baccalaureate education. Dr. Wickenden said the evidence in 1994, when raising requirements was being considered, showed taking math in the senior year made a tremendous difference in baccalaureate success.

Superintendent Horne said he believed he could do more to work with high school counselors to get students to take more challenging courses. However, he questioned the 4-year math requirement for all college-bound students. He suggested the math requirement be reduced to 3 years but require one of those math courses to be taken in the senior year.

Regent Boice asked if Superintendent Horne was asking that there be one less math requirement or was asking for the overall requirements to be reduced from 16 to 15. Superintendent Horne said he would think 15 requirements would be reasonable, but he would like to see the social studies requirement be raised from 2 years to 3 years and the 16 credit requirement kept.

President Likins reminded the Board the NCAA had adopted minimum course requirement standards for athletic eligibility, so freshmen would not be eligible two years from now if they had only 15 academic courses as they will need 16. And the 16 requirement does not count art, so the current ABOR requirements would not produce eligibility for NCAA athletic competition. He said the Board needs to be cautious about reducing the number of required course credits.

Regent Frank asked why taking math in the senior year leads to a higher college success rate and was told it has to do in part with the placement testing the students do when entering college. Most of those who did not take math in their senior year scored low and were required to take math at the university or remedial math.

Regent Jewett asked what the minimum 4 math courses are that are required and was told college preparatory math including Algebra 1 and 2, Geometry, and one course of advanced math for which Algebra 2 is a prerequisite. The last course could be trigonometry, pre-calculus, probability, or statistics.

Regent Jewett asked if the K-12 system had teachers that are able to teach math to the students who are intimidated by math. Superintendent Horne said some schools do, but not all. One of the biggest problem on the reservations is attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers. There are teachers who go there, but leave because they do not like the isolation. There are efforts now to recruit people who have grown up in the area to be teachers.

Superintendent Horne said lowering the math requirement to 3 credits, requiring a math course to be taken during the senior year, and requiring a government and economics class would still maintain the 16 credit requirement. Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Kelling, the Board accepted the report and strongly supported continued efforts by the universities, the Arizona Department of education, and the Arizona Business and Education Coalition, with support from the Governor’s Office and the Department of Education to raise the eligibility rates of all student groups.

Superintendent Horne asked how the issue of changing the math requirement could be brought before the Board. President Herstam said he thought it would make a good study session item where additional research from other states could be considered. President Elect Stuart said he thought this should be considered soon. Regent Boice said he thought admission requirements should be constantly reviewed, especially in light of the NCAA requirements.

Dr. Tom Wickenden, Dr. Elizabeth Goldsmith, Dr. George Davis, Dr. Milt Glick, and Mr. Dan Anderson joined the meeting for this discussion.

Dr. Wickenden reviewed the background of the accountability measures. He said the purpose of the report being considered was to define and describe the ways in which performance at the universities will be improving as a result of Changing Directions. Back in November of last year the universities pulled together the various measures the Board had asked for and that the universities had proposed into a format for this report. At that time, the Board also asked for a streamlined report to replace the Undergraduate Consolidated Accountability Report which had grown to over 100 separate measures. The focus that time was on 21 measures–6 system measures based on common data from all three universities and 5 measures from each university that reflect the performance objectives of their differential missions. The universities were recommending one additional system measure, student debt, to be considered for a revised total of 22 measures.

Two other things to note about the measures are: each of the universities is using measures that cover each of the 4 performance areas mentioned in the original definition of Changing Directions–affordability and participation, programs and learning, work force development, and economic development, and that none of the system measures have goals associated with them. Measures are incomplete without goals and at the end of the presentations Dr. Wickenden will suggest a framework within which the goals might be set.

Mr. Anderson highlighted 7 system measures--2 in the area of access, 3 in the area of affordability, and 2 in the area of success. The first measure is the percent of eligible Arizona high school graduates who enroll within one year of graduation and not quite 50% of eligible students enrolled as freshmen.

The second measure looks at combined access–not only the students who enroll as freshmen, but those who may transfer or were delayed–the percent of all Arizona high school graduates who enroll within 4 years of graduation. The third measure is gift aid provided to resident undergraduate Pell students with cost of attendance not met by family contribution, grants, scholarships, and waivers. Increase in gift aid was more than the increase in tuition in 2003. The new measure is the average amount of debt for resident full-time undergraduate students with subsidized loans. There is a lot of variation among different groups, but the average across the entire population is about $4,000.

The fifth measure is unmet need--all resident, full-time undergraduate students with cost of attendance not met by family contribution, grants, scholarship, waivers, subsidized loans, and federal work study. Once again, there is a lot of variation in different groups, but the average is about $5,300. The sixth measure is the direct graduation rate for Arizona high school graduates 6 years after enrolling as freshmen and the last measure is the combined graduation rate for Arizona resident students who entered directly as freshmen, transferred or delayed entry for up to 4 years. The last measure is under development because there was a need to clean up some of the historical data.

Provost Glick presented ASU’s accountability measures. He said the first measure is student access and quality which has submeasures of the annual degree production, graduation effectiveness, and student satisfaction. The second measure is resource generation which is gifts, grants, and contracts. The third measure is community imbeddedness which is education support programs.

Provost Grobsmith said NAU’s accountability measures pertain to their mission as a doctoral intensive institution. The first measure is the number of student credit hours delivered at the lower division by tenured track and tenured faculty. The goal is 55% and now the number is 48%. Budgetary constraints may make this goal hard to achieve. The second measure is the number of undergraduate students who are participating in a research or capstone experiences. The goal is 95% and they are at 89%. The third undergraduate measure relates to the satisfaction the students demonstrate through rating their university experience as either excellent or good. The goal is to stay above 95%.

In the area concerning the graduate mission, the goal is to continue to increase to accommodate the demand for particular graduate degrees for teachers. The final measure is related to workforce development and access to education--the student credit hours distributed across the state. Currently, over 40,000 student credit hours are delivered in sites throughout the state through the distance learning network and the goal is to increase this to approximately 43,000.

Provost Davis presented 5 accountability measures for UA: undergraduate-graduation rates for 4, 5, and 6 year windows of time, student engagement, total grant and contract expenditures, total number of doctoral degrees granted, and service in the area in telehealth and telemedicine. The graduation rate for 6 years is 55% and the goal is 58%,but they hope to exceed the goal. Student engagement should be faculty linked, intellectually based, and learner centered and could include honor’s theses, independent research, international study activity, service learning, and other types of experiences.

Dr. Davis said grants and contracts are important to both the state and the university. They expect to report their grants and contracts expenditures are in excess of $500M. Doctoral degrees granted is quite a challenge since the days of 9-11. In relation to telemedicine and telehealth, the university chose this measure because they are a land-grant university with unique responsibilities in medicine.

Regent Jewett thanked everyone who worked on this item. Regent Stuart said the Board would be looking at accountability when the redesign is considered.

Dr. Wickenden said goals were not presented for the system measures because they are complex issues and each of the measures interact with one another. It was thought it might be more useful to provide an overarching framework within which the Board might consider how to set individual goals for system measures.

The purpose of providing a framework is that it helps explain the relationship of the various measures and the impact they all have on the outcome of the educational process. As a background, the student pipeline was used as a framework within which to view system measures. It was suggested that the outcome of the pipeline could be used to set an overarching objective for the system measures, an objective at the statewide level that could be considered in comparison to national averages. There was one example of a scenario, or a set of assumptions that goals for how students move through the pipeline to increase Arizona’s output of citizens with bachelor degrees.

The pipeline consists of traditional students going through the public universities and into the work force; the cohort of 25 through 34 year olds. To discuss the overall outcome, which is the educational level of Arizona’s workforce, there is a need to look at students coming through the public universities--non-traditional students, and students who come into the state after having graduated from a college of university in another state. There is also a need to look at graduates of Arizona universities who leave the State of Arizona and determine the net in-migration.

Dr. Wickenden said, having looked at the three pipelines, the overarching objective can now be compared to the national data on the percent of 25 to 30 year olds with a bachelor’s degree or higher. Arizona is currently a little behind the national average. Arizona is increasing, but not as fast as the national average.

Dr. Wickenden illustrated three approaches to setting goals. The first is to continue the current increase which would put the state farther behind, assuming the national average would continue to increase at this rate. Goals could be set that would drive the universities forward to begin to keep up with the increase of the workforce nationally. The third would be to increase our goals to catch up with the national average and that may not be possible in the near term. These could be combined, beginning a process where we would begin to keep up and then increase the rate to catch up.

Dr. Wickenden described one sample scenario with several assumptions of areas the universities do not control. The goals would be for the traditional and nontraditional areas of the pipeline for increases in enrollment rates and graduation rates that are equal to the average of the current goals for increases in the university graduation rates. The result would be to move the state above the current rate of increase in the educational level of the work force. But it would not be quite enough to keep up with the national rate.

Dr. Wickenden said the presidents, anticipating the Regents might not be entirely satisfied with that approach to setting goals, recommend two next steps in this process. One would be to ask the internal work group for the feasibility and planning study to consider the implications of system redesign for increasing enrollment and graduation rates. A second approach would be to ask the Chief Academic Officers to return by the November Board meeting with an analysis of both national best practices and institutional best practices, including proposals for goals for the 7 system measures that might include both assumptions about the structure of our current system as well as the implications of a possible redesign.

Regent Jewett said he thought the Regents should pursue both suggestions. However, Regent Stuart said he thought catching up and keeping up with the national standard falls short of what this system is about. These next steps would put the universities in a better position to know what needs to be done to exceed the national standard.

President Herstam agreed both steps are necessary, but he said the most progressive states that have higher education systems that are doing what Arizona would like to do have four components. They have research institutions, universities or colleges that are undergraduate or master’s level oriented, excellent community colleges, and a lot of excellent private colleges. We are limited in the number of private colleges and the undergraduate or master’s level institutions. He agreed the feasibility study needs to address these issues.

Regent Stuart said he thinks there should be a third point that tells what the cost is per bachelor’s degree to meet whichever goal the Board picks. He would like to see at the November meeting the data that would help cost the product. In addition, he would like to see in the redesign study the process started as early as possible that involves the other stakeholders, such as the Governor’s office and the education supporters in the legislature. He doesn’t think a system should be designed that we can’t afford.

President Haeger said these goals are not ones the universities alone can answer. He said the percentage of students who assume in high school they will go on to college is not high in Arizona compared to national averages. President Crow said planning without resources is not helpful. Many things enter into graduation rates, even something that appears to be disconnected such as dormitories on campus.

President Likins asked about the net in-migration rates of workers and was told approximately 30% of the growth in degrees in the work force came from net in-migration.

Mr. Anderson said we lose two and gain three in the labor market. President Crow said he had just read an article about this issue that focused on Arizona as it is a huge draw for college graduates. He said he would send the article to the Regents.

Superintendent Horne said he believes the statistics illustrate the interconnectedness of the two levels; the universities cannot possible produce more graduates if they don’t receive more students who are properly prepared for university. He said the Department of Education is engaged in an intensive effort to raise academic standards in schools and that will become more controversial as diplomas are denied to people who don’t meet the standards.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Kelling, the Board accepted the Regents Accountability Measures report, including the proposed additional affordability measure for student debt, and charged the internal work group with the feasibility and planning study to consider the implications of system redesign for increasing enrollment and graduation rates and charged the university provosts to bring back to the Board at its November meeting proposed goals for the system measures.

Dr. Tom Wickenden and Mr. Dan Anderson joined the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Wickenden said at the last meeting it had been demonstrated the modified criteria for awarding honors endorsements proposed by Superintendent Horne would have resulted in 600 tuition scholarships and all those students were eligible for those scholarships anyway. Research was also presented that showed AIMS scores are now as good a predictor of success in college as SAT or ACT scores. It was concluded, therefore, that Superintendent Horne’s proposal would have had no fiscal impact on the universities.

In order to receive an honors endorsement and be recommended for a tuition scholar-ship, students must complete all 16 Core Competency courses by graduation with a B or better in each course and have a cumulative GPA of 3.5 on a 4.0 scale or be in the top 5% of their high school graduating class upon graduation, and either exceed the Standards on 3 out of the 3 AIMS Tests or Exceed the Standards on 2 out of the 3 AIMS Tests and get at least 3's on 2 of the AP or IB Tests. The proposed new policy authorizes the awarding of resident tuition scholarships for students meeting the criteria. The policy also documents the Board’s authority to determine program criteria and administration and the universities’ authority to award the scholarships. Dr. Wickenden said the only change from the draft the Regents saw at an earlier meeting was the addition of Paragraph H, that calls for a systematic review of the program every five years. There is also an ad hoc review called for in the policy in response to any change or anticipated change in the criteria. However, the intention of the new provision is to prescribe a regular review procedure to be doubly sure any misalignment of the criteria will be detected well in advance. This partnership between the Regents and the Superintendent of Instruction is intended to help increase the percentage of high school graduates who are eligible for admission to the universities by establishing a new incentive for the brightest of Arizona’s high school students.

Regent Boice said this was a first reading and the policy will come back to the Board for a vote at the August meeting.

Ms. Stephanie Jacobson joined the meeting for this discussion. Ms. Jacobson said this policy amendment is proposed as a result of the elimination of the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges by the state legislature in 2002. At that time, the Joint Conference Committee (JCC) included four Regents and four State Board Directors. In the reconstituted JCC, the community college representation is made up of two college presidents and two trustees. It is recommended that Board representation to the JCC be comprised of three Regents and one university president. In addition, changes are proposed to reflect the new by-laws approved by the JCC this past Spring.

Regent Boice said this was a first reading and the policy will come back to the Board for a vote at the August meeting.

Dr. Tom Wickenden and Dr. Jerry Hogle joined the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Wickenden said the Board had reviewed a proposal by the presidents at the April Board meeting to modify the policy on delegated admission in order to provide for the universities to take into consideration whether or not a high school graduate has taken certain courses in career and technical education. The purpose of this policy change is to recognize that certain career technical education courses at the high schools enhance the student’s chances of succeeding at the university by providing competencies beneficial to preparation for specific programs of study at the universities, especially in identifying qualified applicants in areas where the universities are seeking to expand enrollments in response to the state’s economic development needs and critical work force shortages. The transcripts of applicants for delegated admission will be examined as part of that admissions process and successful completion of these courses will enhance a student’s’ opportunity for admission.

Dr. Wickenden said the Board had requested this policy be brought for a first reading along with information regarding two related issues. One issue was to determine whether the Fine Arts courses that are accepted for admission actually meet the Board’s definition of acceptable courses. The Chief Academic Officers Admissions Work Group, of which Dr. Hogle and Dr. Wickenden were members, reviewed the process used to determine the acceptability of the Fine Arts courses. Based on that review, the Work Group recommended to the provosts and presidents that no change was needed in the Board’s Fine Arts requirement or the process by which it was implemented.

Dr. Wickenden said the second issue was raised by the new bylaw of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) that requires all student athletes admitted to a university who wish to qualify for financial aid to have completed 16 academic courses at the high school level. The NCAA list does not include a Fine Arts course even though the arts have been defined by the Federal Government as part of the academic core. An examination of the PAC-10 Schools reveals that Arizona’s situation is quite typical. The recommendation of the Work Group to the provosts and presidents was that the new NCAA bylaw be viewed as one of several special requirements for student athletes rather than as a reason to change undergraduate admission requirements for all undergraduate students.

Based on the findings of the Work Group, the presidents recommend that no change be made to the Fine Arts requirement and that no course be added to the curricular requirements at this time in response specifically to the NCAA bylaw change.

Dr. Hogle explained the process by which the policy modification would be carried through at the universities. He said the work on this policy and many others was made possible by the leadership of Dr. Wickenden and he would be missed.

Regent Boice said this was a first reading and the policy will come back to the Board for a vote at the August meeting.

Dr. Tom Wickenden and Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith joined the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Grobsmith said the Board approved a change in policy nearly a year ago that allowed the universities to add to the category of individuals eligible for multiple-year appointments. While this privilege was then available only to lecturers and senior lecturers, the new policy language extended it to professors of practice, research professors, or clinical professors. The intent of this change was to allow the universities to appoint qualified individuals to multiple-year terms without tenure eligibility. This has greatly added to the universities’ flexibility by allowing them to attract individuals who might not be willing to serve without a multiple-year appointment, especially in areas such as education and the health professions. However, the policy did not clearly define the levels of appointment. This amendment will include Assistant, Associate, and Full Professors in the definition.

Regent Boice said this was a first reading and the policy will come back to the Board for a vote at the August meeting. Regent Calderón asked for the necessity of multi-year contacts and the extent to which the universities utilize them. Dr. Wickenden said this proposal will increase the flexibility of the universities for making the appointment; however, there is in the policy a limit to 15% of the tenured and tenure-track faculty.

Provost Grobsmith said the limit is 15%, but NAU has less than 2% of their faculty on this kind of appointment. She said this had been a great help to them to recruit faculty, especially in nursing, who will not move to Flagstaff for one year as the cost is prohibitive. President Likins said the alternative to a multiple-year contract is a tenure appointment that leads to a great deal more job assurance.

Regent Frank asked what happens after one year when a 3-year appointment has been made to someone who is a total mistake and was told every appointment is reviewed annually before the person is reappointed. The contract would say, “Pending the successful completion of your first year and a positive review, you will be reappointed.”

Dr. Camacho said this is a good proposal as it strikes a middle ground between the part-time faculty person and a tenure-track faculty member. On the other hand, he argued that tenure-track faculty contribute more to quality education prior to earning tenure. Also, once the faculty member earns tenure, you have institutional loyalty. This policy speaks to the variety of faculty on the campuses.

Provost Glick joined the meeting for this discussion. President Crow said the goal at ASU is to build a comprehensive metropolitan research university. The approach the university has selected is the college-school-centric approach; the building of strong individual schools and strong individual colleges on the various campuses of ASU. The objective is that every school will be nationally competitive, complimentary to each other, and excellent in their individual national niches. Dr. Crow said ASU is in the process of implementing an 18-month conceptualization and design activity wherein they have studied every college, school and program.

President Crow said ASU is living in three simultaneously complex states. The primary focus is a roughly 60,000 student university that is attempting to enhance its educational quality, productivity, and research quality. Secondly, ASU is advancing toward the objective of a comprehensive metropolitan research university of national stature. The plan being presented today is the plan to accomplish the second objective. The third area of concentration is being a part of the redesign of the system. He believes everything in the second objective will fit within whatever redesign is developed.

Dr. Crow said ASU is looking at 4 distinct campuses. The Tempe campus will be the home for the historical and more traditional schools of the university, most notably the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The West Campus focus is on interdisciplinary liberal arts and sciences in a range of specially designed interdisciplinary professional programs. The East Campus, which hopefully will become the Polytechnic Campus, will focus on applied science and technology as well as a number of speciality programs and a general education program with a technology theme. The Capital Center Campus, now the Downtown Campus, will focus on professional schools already operating in health, social and public policy oriented areas as well as journalism.

President Crow explained the 18-month process and the different group inputs utilized to come to these recommendations.

Upon motion of President Herstam, seconded by Regent Stuart, the Board authorized Arizona State University to implement the reorganizations and name changes outlined in the executive summary. The changes outlined and summarized can be found in the June 24-25, 2004, Documents File.

President Crow said the renaming of the ASU East Campus located on the old Williams Air Force Base requires Board authorization to seek a statutory change. ASU desires to give this campus a theme name that is reflective of the cluster of schools that are located there. The Polytechnic Campus will be close to industry, practical in its orientation, and heavily technology driven. The identity and niche of each of the schools located there will be correlated with enterprises around the country such as Purdue, Texas A and M, and Cal Poly Pomona.

President Herstam said the legislature actually named ASU West and ASU East when they were created, so it requires a legislative change to rename either. Upon motion of President Herstam, seconded by Regent Kelling, the Board resolved to support the renaming of Arizona State University East Campus as Arizona State University Polytechnic and authorized the ASU President, working in conjunction with the appropriate members of the Arizona Board of Regents staff, to seek approval from the Arizona Legislature and the Governor of Arizona to amend Arizona Revised Statutes §15-1601.A to rename Arizona State University East Campus as Arizona State University Polytechnic.

Regent Calderón asked if this move would allow a future Board to change the name again without legislative action and was told this will be explored with the legislature. Regent Stuart asked if there was any downside to this new name and was told the downside is it has a mixed-use application around the world. In various parts of the world it has come to mean vocational. However, many universities use it in the original French mode which was engineering. The term usually is associated with industry and the practical arts. This name will require ASU to define it with a certain set of characteristics.

Ms. Cathy McGonigle and Ms. Cynthia Jewett joined the meeting for this discussion. Ms. McGonigle said this is a proposed policy that provides for mandatory background checks for employees and a process for addressing the hiring, retention, or termination of employees convicted of a felony offense. This policy was prompted by two bills introduced in the last legislative session. The universities agreed to establish a policy and the sponsor agreed to hold the bills if this was done. There was a first reading in April, but extensive revisions were made; so it is on the Agenda again for a first reading.

Ms. Jewett said universities recognize the substantive provisions to implement the policy will have to occur at the university level, but they believed it would be helpful to have a common understanding of core principles and parameters in the Board policy. The changes made since the last time the Board saw this policy were to provide further definition in that respect.

Regent Boice said this was a first reading and the policy will come back to the Board for a vote at the August meeting.

Provosts Milt Glick and George Davis joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said Regent Calderón had asked for this item to be removed from the Consent Agenda. Regent Calderón said he had removed the item to ask a question. Two universities are in the midst of a restructuring and all three are involved in the redesign. This item adds new degrees. He asked how this fits with the changes that may occur down the road.

President Likins said the UA is proposing to disestablish one program and to implement one new bachelor of science program. The rest of the requests are for planning purposes. President Haeger said restructuring is a beginning, not an end. NAU has tried to create a climate for change which will produce review of programs, disestablishment of programs, and addition of new programs. As the restructuring and redesign processes continue. Dr. Haeger said he thought the worst thing that could be done would be to halt the activities of the faculty on the campuses. President Crow said it is an area that needs sensitive treatment. He said the proposals that would be coming from ASU are those that are coming from the faculty in response to something that needs to be done to advance the existing enterprise or something the school has been asked to do. Dr. Crow said ASU’s program requests include two at ASU East defining the way computer science will evolve and two new programs at the law school.

Upon motion of Regent Calderón, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board authorized the following requests: Implementation of a Master of Laws in Biotechnology and Genomics at ASU Main, the Bachelor of Science in Applied Computer Science and the Master of Computing Studies at ASU East, Planning for the Master of Laws in Tribal Policy, Law and Government at ASU Main, Implementation of the Bachelor of Science in Commerce at UA South, Planning for the Bachelor of Science in Crop Production, the Master of Science in Human Language Technology and the Doctor of Juridical Sciences at the University of Arizona, and Disestablishment of the graduate program in Comparative Cultural and Literary Studies at the UA.

Ms. Gale Tebeau joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said the Board was being asked to review and approve the universities’ and central office FY 2005 salary plans. Ms. Tebeau said the universities and the central office were appropriated $16.1M for salary adjustments for FY 2005. The salary appropriation was allocated to the central office for reallocation back to the universities. The legislation required each university and the central office to develop a plan for distribution of the funds and report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee by July 31, 2004 on how the monies were distributed by campus. The allocations will be incorporated into each university’s and the central office’s FY 2005 state expenditure authority.

Ms. Tebeau said all four entities have targeted the lowest paid employees with across the board increases. NAU, UA, and the central office have targeted classified staff with a $1,000 across the board increase. ASU has targeted those making $30,000 or less with a $1,000 across the board increase. Following is the allocation by university and central office: ASUM - $6,470,000; ASUE - $310,300; ASUW - $747,700; NAU - $2,098,200; UA - $5,736,000; UA AHSC - $705,900; CO - $31,900.

Regent Boice said he didn’t like the distribution. He agreed the lower income staff should receive a raise, but beyond that he would like to see increases based on merit. Regent Stuart recused himself on the vote on this matter. President Crow agreed and said ASU is giving raises based on merit while at the same time adjusting for other reasons relating to market and equity for the lowest paid at the university. He said there was no formula for giving raises to those above $30,000.

President Likins said he was glad the legislature allowed the universities to give raises based on merit, as all other state agencies were required to give across-the-board raises. UA has insisted faculty and administrators be given raises based on merit-based perform-ance. Classified staff level raises have been given more in line with other state agencies.

President Haeger said NAU has not been able to keep its salaries up to market over the last 10 or 25 years. They augmented the money given by the legislature with nearly $2M of their own money to begin to bring salaries to market. He said the distribution would be a combination of market and merit, not solely across the board. President Likins said the UA had also allocated some money for purely merit-based salary awards.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board approved the FY 2005 salary plans as presented by each university and the central office.

Ms. Gale Tebeau joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said the Board was being asked to review and approve the FY 2005 State Expenditure Authority. Ms. Tebeau said the State Expenditure Authority includes general fund appropriations and tuition and fee revenues that support the general fund along with some other miscellaneous revenues. The FY 2005 State Expenditure Authority is approximately $1.1B. This is an increase of about 8.3% or $87.8M over FY 2004. She said $44.1M is general fund increase and $47.7M is the increase in tuition collections.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Frank, the Board approved the FY 2005 State Expenditure Authority as presented.

Ms. Gale Tebeau joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said the Board was being asked to discuss and provide guidance on the development of the FY 2006 State Operating Budget Requests. Ms. Tebeau said the Board would be asked to review the universities preliminary FY 2006 State Operating Budget Requests in August. The final request will be submitted at the September meeting. The Governor’s guidelines have not yet been issued, but it is assumed they will be similar to past year’s which limit the requests to mandated spending formulas, entitlement case load funding, and base adjustments for contractual obligations.

Ms. Tebeau said the proposed elements of the FY 2006 Guidelines include three elements that were approved by the Board in April as part of the State Funding Formula Revision; a modification to the 22 to 1 formula, the inclusion of performance funding formula components, and the increase in the state match for the Arizona Financial Aid Trust. The remaining guidelines are similar to the past which include basic demographic increases, new facilities support annualization, and technical adjustments and decision packages.

Regent Stuart said this is an opportunity and a requirement to very carefully array and portray the two new measures when the budget is presented in August. This will be an education tool for legislators.

Mr. Ted Gates, Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, and Mr. Dick Davis joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said Board Policy requires each university to submit to the Board for approval an annual Capital Development Plan (CDP) identifying all projects for the upcoming fiscal year.

Mr Gates said each of the universities had generated their FY 2005 CDP as required by Chapter 7 of Board Policy. He pointed out that ASU and UA had included building renewal related projects which include such work as replacing heating and cooling systems, carpeting, replacing roofs, doors, windows, etc. In response to a lack of building renewal funding by the state, these universities are incurring long-term debt to address short and midterm needs. Although the transfer of this responsibility, hopefully only temporary, may seem as an appropriate shift in the climate of making the end user pay, in the end it extends the cost and the financial burden and is paid mainly by tuition.

Mr. Gates said the UA and ASU have requested authority to exceed the programming and design cost limits of $15,000 or 3% of the total project cost prior to Project Implementation Approval. All three universities are now using a construction procurement methodology, called Construction Manager at Risk, which is characterized by designing more of the project earlier on in the process so that a construction manager can provide a guaranteed maximum price earlier in the building development process. The total design costs for any project are not exceeded; the only thing that changes is when the funds are used. Board staff will be working with the universities to develop new percentages that are more accommodating to the methodology of Construction Manager at Risk and will bring those changes to the Board for approval in the future.

Mr. David Lorenz said NAU’s CDP only had one new item, the north campus infrastructure. Two projects were reactivated, the complex for residence life which was delayed a year ago, and the laboratory tied in with the laboratory building for infrastructure research which was approved for levels 1 and 2 over a year ago. In January they might come back with a slight revision after they have learned and studied the components of the first phase of the Master Plan.

Mr. Valdez said UA had 3 new projects, the Cherry Avenue Garage, the deferred maintenance on buildings, streets, and sidewalks, and the engineering research building.

Regent Boice asked why the renovation of the Cherry Street Garage cost somewhere between $25K per space when garages have been built over the last two years at a cost of somewhere between $9K to $11K. Mr. Valdez said renovations, because of ADA, cost more.

Dr. Harrison said ASU had 3 financed projects, the Academic Renovations and Deferred Maintenance Phase II, Instructional Laboratory Renovation Phase II, and the Arizona Futures Decision Theater. ASU also has 3 public/private partnership projects, ASUD Capital Center Complex Phase I and the ASUM Wrestling Facility. There was a discussion of possible downtown sites.

Regent Boice said he would like staff to separate out AZ Bio and prepare a cash flow analysis. Regent Stuart asked Mr. Gates to consult with his colleagues to see if it would be practical to consider a rolling list of projects that are in the CIP but not necessarily on the annual CDP. He believes the current process is convoluted and overly complicated, and he would like to see it simplified. Regent Kelling said she had been contacted by students who were concerned about the use of tuition dollars for renovations and would like to see this evaluated on an annual basis.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board approved the FY 2005 Capital Development Plans for the universities as presented.

Mr. Ted Gates, Mr. David Lorenz, and Dr. David Cain joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said Northern Arizona University was requesting Project Approval for the College of Engineering and Technology Renovation project at an estimated cost of $15M. The project will be funded from the sale of Certificates of Participation, with debt service funded with State Research Infrastructure appropriations beginning July 1, 2007.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Calderón, the Board granted Project Approval for the College of Engineering and Technology Renovation Project at NAU as presented.

Mr. Dave Lorenz, and Mr. Ted Gates joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said Northern Arizona University was requesting authority to sell Certificates of Participation in an amount not to exceed $44M to finance two projects included in their just-approved FY 2005 Capital Development Plan.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Kelling, the Board authorized NAU to sell Certificates of Participation in an amount not to exceed $44M to finance two projects as presented.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Calderón, the Board authorized Northern Arizona University to enter into a multiple-year employment contract with James E. Fallis, as summarized below, for the period July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2007.

Director Fallis’ salary for performance of Program duties related specifically to the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics will be $115,000 per year. Subject to the President’s prior written approval, the Director may enter into agreements with other parties to provide services not included within this contract as long as such services can be performed within prescribed limits. Director Fallis shall not receive from any third party, without the prior written approval of the President, certain prescribed gifts, gratuities, favors, entertainment, or loans. Standards for behavior and professional conduct are included.

Mr. Ted Gates and Mr. Joel Valdez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said the University of Arizona was requesting Project Implementation Approval for the construction of a new Poetry Center at an estimated cost of $5.8M. The project will be funded through gifts and the sale of Certificates of Participation, with debt service funded from tuition. Regent Boice asked about the funding and was told $1.9M of the project would be funded from COPs and the remainder from gifts.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Kelling, the Board granted the University of Arizona Project Implementation Approval for the Poetry Center project as submitted.

Mr. Ted Gates, Mr. Joel Valdez, and Mr. Dick Davis joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said the University of Arizona was requesting authorization to enter into a sublease with Pima County Community College District for an existing UA building located on the Northwest Campus of Pima Community College. Mr. Valdez explained the agreement with Pima Community College for the use and ownership of this building.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to enter into an Amended and Restated Sublease with Pima County Community College District as presented.

Mr. Ted Gates and Dr. Mernoy Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said Arizona State University was requesting Project Approval for the construction of the Interdisciplinary Science and Technology Building 1 at an estimated cost of $74M. The project will be funded through the sale of Certificates of Participation, with debt service funded with State Research Infrastructure appropriations beginning July 1, 2007.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board granted Project Approval to Arizona State University for the Interdisciplinary Science and Technology Building One project as presented.

Mr. Ted Gates and Dr. Mernoy Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said Arizona State University was requesting approval to enter into an Intergovern-mental Agreement with the City of Tempe for the construction of the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit Project. Dr. Harrison said ASU was making both a land swap and a dollar payment of $294,500 for this project. Dr. Crow said ASU was contributing money to this project because the station had been moved at their request based on certain physical characteristics and affect the light rail line has on research related buildings.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Kelling, the Board authorized ASU to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Tempe to enable construction of the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit Project as presented. This includes approval to exchange the ASU properties described in the Executive Summary, a waiver of the appraisal requirement in Board Policy 7-206B, authorization for the ASU President, ASU Executive Vice President for Administration and Finance, or the ASU Associate Vice President for Administration to take all appropriate actions to finalize negotiations, sign and enter into an IGA with the City of Tempe; and authorization for the ASU President, the ASU Executive Vice President for Administration and Finance, or the ASU Associate Vice President for Administration to take all appropriate actions to finalize negotiations, sign, deliver all documents and agreements associated with the exchange of real property with the City of Tempe on substantially the terms described in the Executive Summary.

Regent Jewett said the Board was being asked to approve the appointment of Dr. Gerald S. Jakubowski as Vice President and Provost at Arizona State University East Campus President Crow said Dr. Jakubowski was the Dean of Science and Engineering at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Kelling, the Board approved the appointment of Dr. Gerald S. Jakubowski as Vice President and Provost at ASU East Campus at an annual salary of $200,000 as presented.

President Crow introduced Dr. Mark Searle, the new Vice President and Provost at ASU West whose appointment had been approved on the Consent Agenda the day before.

Regent Jewett said the Board was being asked to approve a settlement agreement with B & B Holdings, doing business as the Arizona Cardinals, to resolve a contract claim involving certain signage at Sun Devil Stadium. President Crow said ASU and the Arizona Cardinals had a dispute with regard to the use of Sun Devil Stadium and that has been resolved through the renegotiation of the operating agreement between the two organizations.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Kelling, the Board authorized ASU to enter into a settlement agreement with B & B Holdings, doing business as the Arizona Cardinals, to resolve a contract claim involving certain signage at Sun Devil stadium, according to the terms and conditions set forth in the Executive Summary. President Herstam declared a conflict of interest and did not participate or vote on this item.

ASU shall pay the Cardinals all gross revenue from parking, less $120,000 annually, the approximate ASU parking operation expenses based on last year’s numbers. The Cardinals shall have the right to use the ICA Building Stadium Club and Atrium, Wells Fargo Arena, the Arboretum, and certain parking areas on game days and for other events, all subject to ASU’s reasonable approval. For the 2004-2005 seasons only, the Cardinals shall have the right to market an agreed upon inventory of signage within the stadium and to offer exclusivity in marketing categories not already sold by ASU.

President Herstam said Dr. Linda Blessing would be retiring from her position as Executive Director of the Board of Regents June 30, 2004. Dr. Blessing has spent 30 years serving the State of Arizona in both state government and the university system. She has taught at ASU for many years, served in the Board Office, assisted two governors as the Director of the Department of Economic Security, and is retiring after five years as the Executive Director of the Board.

Upon motion of President Herstam, seconded by Regent Kelling, the Board honored Linda J. Blessing in recognition of her years of service, dedication, and achievement by designating her Executive Director Emeritus, effective on July 1, 2004. The Board also authorized awarding of the Regents’ Medal to Dr. Blessing.

President Herstam presented the Regents’ Medal to Dr. Blessing and thanked her for her years of service. Dr. Blessing said she was fortunate to be completing her 30 years in government at the Board of Regents because it had been a personally fullfilling job for her. She thanked the presidents and their staffs, the Regents, and the central office staff for their help during her five years at the Board office.

President Haeger, President Likins, and President Crow thanked Dr. Blessing for maintaining harmony and for her strong contribution to the system. They each presented her with a gift.

President Herstam presented Student Regent Danelle Kelling with a glass piece in honor of her service as a Student Regent for two years. Regent Kelling thanked the universities and the central office for helping her during her term Mr. Maceo Brown, Executive Director of the Arizona Students’ Association, recognized President Herstam, President Elect Stuart, Student Regent Kelling, and Executive Director Blessing on behalf of ASA. President Haeger, President Likins, and President Crow each presented Student Regent Kelling a gift of appreciation for her service during her term as Student Regent. President Elect Stuart presented President Herstam with a framed picture of each university’s Old Main building. President Herstam thanked the central office staff for their help during his year as president.

	MINUTES

MINUTES