June 2004 Special Meeting/Arizona Board of Regents

A special meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held in the Arizona Ballroom of the Memorial Union at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona. President Herstam called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.

PRESENT:	Regent Fred Boice Regent Robert Bulla Regent Ernest Calderón Regent Lorraine Frank Regent Chris Herstam Regent Jack Jewett Regent Danelle Kelling Regent Wes McCalley Regent Christina Palacios Regent Gary Stuart Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne Governor Janet Napolitano
ABSENT:	None

Also present were; President Michael Crow, Dr. Milt Glick, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Dr. Christine Wilkinson, and Mr. Paul Ward; Arizona State University; President John Haeger, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, Dr. M. J. McMahon, Mr. Josh Allen, and Mr. Kurt Davis, Northern Arizona University; President Peter Likins, Dr. George Davis, Mr. Joel Valdez, Ms. Edith Auslander, Mr. Greg Fahey, Dr. Randy Groth, Ms. Judith Leonard, Ms. Janet Bingham, and Mr. Dick Roberts, University of Arizona; and Executive Director Linda Blessing, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Tom Wickenden, Dr. Art Ashton, Ms. Cathy McGonigle, Ms. Kathy Bedard, and Dr. Mark Denke, Central Office; and Dr. David Camacho, Arizona Faculties Council Representative.

All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the June 3, 2004, Documents File.

President Herstam explained the meeting was being cable cast to Flagstaff, Yuma, Sierra Vista, ASU West, ASU East, ASU Downtown Campus, and Tucson.

President Herstam informed the audience the Board had set aside time for public comment on the proposed redesign of the university system at the end of the study session. This allows those who wish to address the Board to be able to hear and factor into account the Board’s discussion prior to making comments. He also pointed out that, if the Board decided to conduct a feasibility and planing study of the proposed redesign of the university system, mechanisms for obtaining input from stakeholders would be included.

President Herstam said meeting the demand for a quality university education will be one of the most formidable challenges faced by the Arizona university system in the years ahead and the system must be able to accommodate the expected massive increase in student enrollment. The system is already stressed by the record number of student enrollments. While the university system structure has served Arizona well over the years, it is an appropriate time for the Board to review its effectiveness in meeting tomorrow’s needs.

As currently configured, the university system is not well prepared to cope with the impending demand because each university presently is required to be all things to all people. As enrollments continue to significantly increase, it is important that a cost-effective operating model be in place. To this end, it is recommended the Board begin a discussion of a different model that will enable the university system as a whole to meet the state’s full range of needs. As a beginning point for the discussion, a possible operating model is being proposed. President Herstam said he and the university presidents support this model, believing it would serve Arizona far better in the years ahead than the current organizational structure. However, the Board may wish to discuss and consider variations of this model or another entire model. The proposed model, developed by the members of the Council of Presidents and President Herstam, was presented in the Board materials.

President Herstam said he hoped the discussion about redesigning the universities will focus on insuring that all Arizonans have ample opportunity in the years ahead to obtain a quality university education. Arizona is below the national average when it comes to the percentage of the state’s population with a four-year college degree. In today’s knowledge-based economy, a college education is critical to the prosperity and the quality of life of Arizona’s citizens and Arizona’s economic competitiveness hinges on the degree to which the state is able to develop its human talent.

He said the study session would analyze the problem, examine how Arizona relates to other states, discuss regional universities, and discuss the proposed redesign. The only decision to be made at this time would be to conduct a feasibility and planning study if the Board determines the proposed operating model deserves further review and consideration. He emphasized other plans and ideas are welcome and can be plugged into a feasibility and planning study.

President Herstam thanked the Governor for her support of education during the budget process. The Governor thanked members of the legislature for the work they did during the legislative session, especially on the budget.

The Governor said the Study Session was to get beyond the daily fiscal issues confronting the university system and to think about what the system needs to look like as Arizona continues to grow. She believes there are three fundamental criteria that need to be considered: 1) access and affordability; 2) quality; and 3) the fit with the community.

Governor Napolitano complimented President Herstam and the presidents for beginning this process. There is a need to be architects of growth and to create a new system or a new vision of a system of where and how the growth is going to occur. With respect to the process, she encouraged the Regents to examine not only the model that has been proposed, but other suggestions as well. She encouraged as public and as transparent a process as possible because every Arizonan is a stakeholder in the university system.

The Governor suggested the process should begin with a needs assessment of what the needs are of the state, particular regions, and particular communities. How does the future development of the university system correspond to or correlate to economic development areas of the state? The presidents of the universities suggest the model proposed would meet their leadership needs, but another aspect that should be considered is student needs. What are the untapped aspects of the student market that would be better served with a newly configured system? Would the new system impact first generation college goers differently than the current system? Particular attention should be given to rural Arizona and the interaction of the university system with the significant investment rural Arizona has made in community colleges.

Governor Napolitano said it is very important to watch vocabulary. She believes there should not be any talk about tiers as that implies something is better than something else. What is being discussed is differentiation, focus, and targeting that is really directed to the diversity that is Arizona.

The Governor said she supported the idea of considering how to deal with the enrollment growth, but consideration should be given to what is a reasonable time line. What is a time line that will allow the Regents to do the thinking and get the public input we need while at the same time moving forward?

President Herstam recognized Benjamin Graff, the new Student Regent as of July 1.

Regent Calderón asked, since this was the first time the proposal has really been seen by the public, if the vote on whether to go forward with a feasibility study could be taken after the public comment section of the Agenda. President Herstam said that would be fine.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said he applauded the proposal. He believes faculty members in certain program areas should teach more hours and he believes the development of undergraduate focused universities will lead to this. He believes the focus on students at undergraduate institutions will lead the brightest students to choose this type of program as they will get more individualized attention. He suggested modifying the proposal so each institution would have its own president who reports to the Board so there would not be an implied difference in status.

President Herstam introduced Dr. David Longanecker, Executive Director of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). Dr. Longanecker said he was present two years ago when the Board began a discussion about the future of higher education in the state that the Board called Changing Directions. That project has been a national model for looking at change in the financing of higher education. Now it is time to look at ways to organize the system of higher education in the state.

Dr. Longanecker said the Arizona challenge falls in the three areas of demographics, productivity, and financial limits. Looking at demographics and demand for higher education, he noted that Nevada and Arizona will have over a 51% increase in the number of high school graduates. The growth in Arizona will come mostly in the Hispanic population. There will be a huge increase in the Asian population, also, but the numbers are very small in comparison and will remain small.

On the productivity side, there really are two issues. One is how many seats there will be, the supply of education in the future; and second is how much the demand is going to be.

Dr. Longanecker reported on productivity data that showed performance relative to funding. On the charts, Arizona’s data is skewed because the University of Phoenix reports all their graduates as having graduated in Arizona; therefore raising the state to a higher level than its actual performance. Looking at the public institutions, the six-year graduation rates are among the lowest in the country. He said he believed that was because the research institutions were supporting a variety of different missions. Looking at baccalaureate degrees per FTE undergraduate, the public institutions do quite well. Part of the reason for this is the efficient transfer system between the universities and the community colleges.

Arizona is very cost effective in research expenditures per faculty member because the investment is below average in the research universities. On the general public university index, Arizona is 19th in the country, the 40th percentile. Most states, on average, invest $16,000 per student. This is a combination of tuition and state appropriations. Arizona is investing about $14,000 in 2001-2002 terms. The national average for public baccalaure-ate institutions is $9,600 per year, making a public baccalaureate and masters institution roughly $6,500 per year cheaper than a public research institution.

On the demand side, Arizona has a projected increase in demand coming from demographics, the desire to increase the share of students who participate in post-secondary education, and the share of those who succeed in achieving a degree. Arizona does not fare very well in the areas of participation or completion. This suggests the pipeline is not very efficient; many students don’t graduate from high school in Arizona and many of those who do graduate don’t go on to college.

Dr. Longanecker said almost every state is going to face a structural budget deficit over the next few years. Arizona is going to face a lower deficit than many states; however, the demand for elementary and secondary education will go up and health care costs will continue to rise. Given the constraints of flat or decreased resources, it suggests the universities will face fiscal constraints.

Dr. Longanecker summarized the challenges as huge demand, financial constraints, and limited capacity for productivity gains in the current system. However, he said the Arizona system is an efficient system. He believes Arizona, as a small state, has developed a strong capacity for higher education by being focused on the three major universities and the community college system. That model served the state well in the past.

Dr. Longanecker said he believes Arizona has the chance to grow into increased systemic cost effectiveness. He believes there can be greater undergraduate education through greater diversification of the system. The proposed plan is one bold way of approaching the future. It may not be the only appropriate idea, but it is an appropriate idea.

Dr. Longanecker presented examples of variations on the proposed model using California, Washington, Colorado, University of Wisconsin, and Eastern New Mexico University. He told about recent innovations from Nevada State College, Utah Valley State College, and California State University at Monterey Bay. He said the current Arizona system was designed for a different time and would be a very expensive system to try to maintain and to move forward in the future with the financial constraints that exist. Arizona now has an opportunity to grow into a new model of cost-productive public higher education.

President Herstam said people had expressed anxieties in the last week about the proposal in the Board material. One concern is that a regional university would have a problem recruiting quality faculty. Dr. Longanecker said making a regional university a quality institution needs to be planned but it can be an exceptional university. That type of university will not draw faculty that are primarily interested in their research scholarship. But for the faculty that are more interested in the scholarship of teaching, this will be an exceptional opportunity. And there are many exceptional faculty who would like to focus their careers on teaching.

President Herstam said another concern is how this plan will affect diversity. Dr. Longa-necker said he did not believe there is a bigger issue for the U.S., especially in the west. If universities are successful in serving the new students, the U.S. will remain a great nation; if not, our country will not be competitive. However, it is also important to look at throughput, not just input. Many of the barriers for college attendance have been eliminated, but minorities have not been served effectively in college. Among the most successful Hispanic serving institutions are baccalaureate oriented institutions like Adams State College which has the highest graduation rate of Hispanic students in Colorado and one of the highest in the country.

President Herstam said NAU supporters were concerned about how NAU would fit into the redesign. He asked if Dr. Longanecker had any thoughts on this issue. Dr. Longanecker said it depends on how NAU is expected to develop. If NAU is to be a research university, the proposal is not the right design. He did not believe this was NAU’s future as it would be too expensive for the state to develop a third research university, the other two universities already have an established research reputation, and NAU already has an excellent reputation in undergraduate education with excellence in selected graduate education.

President Herstam asked Dr. Longanecker if he believed the proposed redesign would harm the relationship between the universities and the community colleges as the universities have a very good transfer articulation system and would not want to negatively impact the community colleges. Dr. Longanecker said he did not believe the proposal would harm the community colleges and said the Arizona system has been successful in part because of the cooperation between the universities and the community colleges. He did not see why this proposal should cause problems with the community colleges.

Regent Calderón asked Dr. Longanecker to explain his slide with ASU West at $14,000. Dr. Longanecker said, for a comprehensive research university like ASU West, Arizona is paying a lot more than other states for that type of institution. Regent Calderón asked if that meant there would be less investment if ASU West were to become a regional institution. He was told the funding would not be less, but the faculty would teach more than today as the current faculty have lower teaching loads than most comparable universities.

Governor Napolitano asked for the definition of research university that is undergraduate focused and what impact the role of private colleges and universities in Arizona, given their relatively small numbers, should that have on Regents’ deliberations. Dr. Longanecker said there is a categorization in higher education of institutions by type. There are now two types of research universities, research intensive and research extensive. At the present time, ASU and UA are research extensive and NAU is research intensive. Then there is a category of doctoral and comprehensive masters and a public comprehensive that offers masters and baccalaureate degrees. There is a category of baccalaureate colleges. There are very few public baccalaureate colleges left in the country. Most baccalaureate colleges have become comprehensive research universities that don’t do extensive research.

Dr. Longanecker said most of the western states have not had a development of independent, not-for-profit, centers of higher education that helped accept some of the load of students in other states. Arizona is lucky to have a strong proprietary sector that helps take some of the two and four-year levels, but those institutions tend to have niche markets as they are for profit.

Regent Stuart said it seemed to him research universities were funded in part by research grants and regional universities, which do not currently exist in Arizona, are funded largely from state appropriated money. He asked what the mix of dollars would be under the proposed plan; will the research universities be able to function as well as they do today, and will there be enough left over in appropriated dollars to support a regional university system?

Dr. Longanecker said one of the problems the Regents will have if they try to grow the current model is denigrating both ASU and UA because the necessary resources will not be there to serve both them and the undergraduate population. But if you identify that and provide some relief by having more of the undergraduate population going to the more cost-effective teaching model, both presences will be enhanced. As regional universities, they will have some other sources of revenue such as regional economic development activities. But the major activity will be teaching and there will be gains in the teaching productivity.

Regent Bulla said there had been proposals in Arizona to take care of the increased undergraduate students by instituting four-year community colleges. He asked what would be lost and what would be gained by that change. Dr. Longanecker said historically that has not been an effective model, but it would be one option to consider. It is a
reasonable way to provide baccalaureate degrees, but you will lose the strength of the community colleges. Other states have developed four-year colleges from community colleges and they are good four-year schools, but they no longer provide service to the community at the associate-degree level, especially the applied associate degree.

President Haeger suggested the current structure of funding higher education simply doesn’t work. More money, not less, will need to be invested to meet the needs of an increased population at the same time as the graduation rate is being raised.

Regent Boice asked how important it was to move the university system away from dependence on state funding. Dr. Longanecker said he would never advocate for the state role in public higher education to be diminished. He said he believed the state would have to commit more to higher education as the need grows in the future and overall cost effectiveness will need to be increased. In the past, financial aid has been an afterthought; it now needs to be a pre-thought. Regent Boice said he believed the universities should be self-supporting in every respect they can. Dr. Longanecker said he agreed the universities need to help by using every fund source they have available, but greatly reducing the state’s obligation would make the universities private rather than public institutions.

Regent Palacios said she believed the biggest impact on university diversity will be the diversity in high school graduation. She asked Dr. Longanecker to discuss the diversity of institutions that had redesigned their colleges along the lines of the proposed model. Dr. Longanecker said the institutions he was comparing were too new to know yet what their numbers would be and some of the states, such as Washington, are not very diverse to begin with. He said California State University at Monterrey Bay would be a good institution to consider for that purpose.

The three presidents described their differentiated missions and how they would be impacted by the redesign of the university system. President Crow said everyone should keep in mind this is a design problem everyone is working to correct. The Regents have the task of designing a system that can provide access for higher education in great cultural diversification, compensate for and prepare for growth, and provide graduates who help the state maintain economic competitiveness at the accelerating rate of change.

Dr. Crow said it takes decades to build academic enterprises. So you need to start with what exists now. He said he strongly supports conducting a feasibility study without constraint. He believes Arizona is strategically advantaged by the fact this is one system with many missions. He believes this is the second phase of Changing Directions. The redesign will expand the platform, so the universities can maintain access as well as their many other missions.
Once the expansion has taken place, President Crow said the next stage would be to focus on competitiveness. He said if tiers evolved from the current proposals, the redesign would be a failure. Arizona needs to build different types of institutions that can be outstanding, each in their own way.

President Likins explained the evolution of the need for the redesign and the need for various types of institutions in Arizona. He described how the proposal had been developed and how important diversity is to Arizona’s universities.

President Haeger explained the different types of missions and their importance. He described how important education is today and the need for various types of institutions. He asked people to stop thinking about their own desires and do what is best for the students of Arizona.

President Herstam asked Dr. Longanecker to give an overview of how the feasibility and planning study might work. Dr. Longanecker suggested a small work group that essentially would work through the principal options, then take the product of that activity to a broader cross-section of people to get their reactions and input before the final report is prepared. In terms of timing, he said there is currently momentum and a lot of interest. The demographics are pretty well established and understood. There should be some more work on in-state regional needs, but there are models and demographic work already in place that could be borrowed. It may be that it could be staged in pieces so there could be a pretty good idea by the end of the calendar year of ideas to be shared with the Governor and the legislature. He said the Board should plan on no less than six months, with it being more likely it will take a year to complete.

President Herstam said one of the true values of the Changing Directions process was that, as the work group would deal with certain issues, they would come back to the Board with an update at practically every Board meeting. Also, the Call to the Audience at each meeting allowed for comment. He asked if that process could work with this proposal and was told is was an excellent idea.

Dr. Longanecker said it will be important to consider both the proposal that has been presented and other ideas. Ideas evolve and you learn from the process, so what is being proposed today may evolve over time with the end proposal being an amalgam of all presented. You do need an organized, disciplined process so people know when they can more or less expect to see the next stage.

Regent Calderón said he thought one of the most salient points made was the needs assessment. He would like to be able to size up the problem and then consider the options. He suggested a broadening of the work group that would be looking at the problem. He also believes someone from the community college districts should be part of the process, at least the assessment process. Regent Calderón said he agreed there should be a deadline. It would be unfair to the committee if someone comes up with a plan on December 31st and puts it on the table. He suggested a designated date like July 1 or July 15. He strongly recommended the Board consider expanding the circle of analysis and keeping the needs assessment as the key.

Dr. Camacho said the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) would like to see the membership of the task force expanded to include faculty, students, and staff. The early discussion suggesting teaching and research are separate entities was disturbing as they are compatible. He appreciated the Governor’s opening remarks regarding the criteria of access, affordability, and diversity that might be used to guide the study.

Representative Mark Thompson, asked the Regents to consider three things as the process moves forward: 1. the funding dynamic must change and he asked the Board to factor in the stresses the legislature must face with limited resources to make certain the universities are adequately funded; 2. The investment in research buildings made by the legislature last year should be considered; and 3. Rural legislators are concerned the regional universities are going to compete with community colleges. He asked for the community colleges to be made part of the study group.

Joseph Donaldson, Mayor of Flagstaff, commended the Regents for the proposed examination of the university system and structure. As the study is conducted, he asked that design elements be considered that specifically address the relationships among the universities, public, and private entities. He also requested there be an opportunity for active participation in the process in addition to the public comment periods.

Diane McCarthy, said she supported the ideas proposed, particularly as they relate to ASU West. She said ASU West is poised to be flexible, nimble, and creative and to teach the skills needed for the emerging high skill West Valley job market as well as traditional education. ASU West also has an outstanding location. This campus can be the coordinator to build the partnerships between the business community and education and between all the emerging entities in the West Valley.

Tracy Chavis, President of the Graduate and Professional Student Association at ASU Main campus, spoke on behalf of the students at that campus and ASU Polytechnic. She said they strongly supported the feasibility study. She encouraged the Board to include input from students on all the university campuses.

Saif Al-Alawi, ASU West Student Body President, said many students on his campus are first generation students, many are women, and they have the largest Hispanic group of students in the Valley. All these groups will be impacted by changes at ASU West. He asked that ASU West campus faculty, staff, and students be included in the study process. He said there was concern the proposed redesign would produce a bias against students of color and lower income students.

Matt Whipple, President of MEChA of ASU West, spoke on behalf of the Chicano students of the West Valley. He said the West Valley was one of the fastest growing areas of the country. He believes the West Valley would be stripped of its only research institution by the proposed plan and the East Valley will be left with two campuses to secure academic resources. He believes the West Valley is no longer agricultural and rural and must be competitive with the commercial entities that exist and are coming to the West Valley. He believes the West Valley needs a full-service research institution that can help with urban development. He believes it is great the Regents are considering the future of the universities, but he will be submitting a proposal on behalf of MEChA.

Professor Thomas McGovern, said the Board and the faculty had worked out a post-tenure review process because the Regents were concerned about undergraduate education. He said the proposed redesign demonstrates the Board is still concerned about quality undergraduate education. He described how ASU West has met the needs of undergraduates and students who are the first in their families to go to college. He explained how research makes the faculty stronger and helps students become part of the local community.

Barbara Kerr, President, ASU Academic Senate, suggested the Regents use the model used by the redesign team from ASU. She asked that the final plan allow for flexibility by faculty as many change from emphasis on research to teaching during their career. She said the faculty look forward to working with the Regents during the redesign process.

George Diaz, Jr., a graduate of ASU West and a member of the Latino Chapter of the ASU Alumni, said he supported reexamination of the university system because ASU has taken a direction that has made it less affordable and more exclusive. The idea of creating a system of universities that serve the state’s population is admirable and in the State’s constitution.

Dr. Bill Ullery, Havasu Foundation for Higher Education, supported the idea of exploring the concept of reorganizing higher education in Arizona. He said the community was hoping they could be involved in the early stages of the feasibility study.

Stephanie McKinney, Greater Flagstaff Economic Council, asked what the scope of the redesign would be as she wanted to make sure all aspects of the issue were considered, including things that could provide unintended consequences. She mentioned diversity, work force development, population growth, an economic impact analysis, emerging industries, and a cost-benefit analysis of a new system versus reinvesting in the current system.

Alistair Chapman, UA Student Body President, said he could not support the proposed plan as the students had not had time to study the proposal. The students do, however, give full support to researching the population growth needs.

Ryan Patterson, ASU Delegate, asked that students have a voice at the table during the discussion of the proposal.

Dr. Eugene Hughes, President Emeritus of NAU, supported the Governor’s comments concerning maximizing the state’s resources. He reminded the Board of all the budget-cut years and the strategic ways the universities have dealt with growth issues. He suggested people with a history in the university system be part of the discussions concerning proposals to change the system. He said it is important that everyone move forward together from this point.

Gary Munk, said he had been asked by citizens of Yuma to let the Board know they would like the special relationship to continue with the UA agricultural program and NAU.

Linda Munk, said she was a great supporter of higher education. She called the Board’s attention to the 2+2 program that exists between NAU and Arizona Western Community College and said she would not like to see anything happen that would diminish that program.

Diane Bellock, representing the Staff Advisory Councils at all the universities, said the staff would like to be a resource for the proposed study. The staff is imbedded within the communities all around the state and could have an impact on the decision making.

Angela Delacruz, incoming President of the NAU Alumni Association, said she was encouraged that the Board planned to study the larger issue of the shape and structure of four-year degree granting institutions in Arizona before making a decision. The NAU Alumni Association will be accepting of those ideas that advance Northern Arizona University and others currently within the Arizona university system. However, they will be unable to support those ideas that diminish NAU.

John Kromko, asked the Regents to do something for undergraduate education. He suggested freshman classes at the universities be eliminated and everyone be made to start in the community colleges. The students would all then come back to the universities for the second year. He believes that would lower tuition at the universities to $1000 and would take care of diversity. Since the state gives the community colleges less per student, this would save the state money.

Larry Mohrweis, President of NAU Faculty Senate, said cost is very important, but quality is also important.

Terry Callaway, President of Central Arizona College and Chair of the Arizona Community College Association (ACCA) for next year, said the ACCA is in full support of a model that would increase access and quality, be more efficient and affordable, and leverage existing resources. He does not believe the proposed plan meets that criteria. ACCA agrees with a statewide plan for public higher education; however, the Association believes any discussion of higher education policy must include the community college system as an equal partner in the feasibility study, the decision making process, and in the implementation plan.

Charles Pilon, the President of the Past President’s Club of the Northern Arizona University Alumni Association and an educator in Arizona for 45 years, said his concern was that NAU not come out on the short end. He believes NAU is one of the outstanding universities in the nation with a definite role in this state. He asked the Regents to allow NAU to remain a major player in the State of Arizona.

Jack Lunsford, President and CEO of WESTMARC, said WESTMARC was reviewing President Crow’s proposal for one university in many places and has added the proposed redesign to this study. They are focusing on ASU West. They wish to be an integral part of the feasibility study.

George Powers, student at ASU West, said he was looking forward to a diploma from ASU. He said he would like to see high school students co-enrolled at community colleges with community colleges moving into the high schools. There could be a sharing of facilities as the high schools close in the late afternoon and the community colleges could use the buildings at night. He said he hoped the Regents would look at all the options that exist before making any plans.

Modesta Ortega, ASU West student and MEChA de ASU West, said he did not believe this proposal would adequately serve all of Arizona, in particular, those from the West Valley. She asked the Regents to consider moving the research university to the West Valley.

Arthur Garcia, a graduate of ASU and ASU College of Law, said he worked with a group of people who believe ASU West or the proposed Central Arizona University, will be the key university for Hispanics. They support the regional concept with the following differences: a separate board for the regional universities, a president for each university, and the inclusion of a college of nursing and a college of law at this university.

Maura Mackowski, said this expansion is long overdue as the state is hemorrhaging highly educated people who cannot find a job in Arizona. She also argued for the expansion of brick and mortar instead of computer classes.

President Herstam asked Dr. Longanecker about the possibility of grant money from the Ford Foundation or the Lumina Foundation to fund the feasibility and planning study. Dr. Longanecker said there is a modest amount of money from those foundations that could be applied to this study.

Regent Boice moved that the Board authorize a feasibility and planning study to review the redesign proposal that was discussed at this meeting as well as any other meritorious proposals that may be submitted to the Board or its Central Office. The motion was seconded by Regent Kelling.

Governor Napolitano amended the motion to state, “to consider any alternative proposals submitted by the first of July.” The motion was seconded by President Herstam and passed by unanimous vote. Regent Boice moved the motion as amended. It was seconded by Regent Jewett and passed by unanimous voice vote.

Regent Stuart said he planned to appoint Regent Herstam as the lead Regent on the Redesign project for the following year.

President Herstam thanked the Governor for giving such a large block of her time to help with the discussion.

	MINUTES

MINUTES