MINUTES

Minutes of a RETREAT Meeting

June 17, 2005

The Arizona Board of Regents met in Retreat Session at the Kilted Kat in the Equestrian Estates in Flagstaff, Arizona, June 17, 2005. President Christina Palacios called the meeting to order at 9 AM.

Also present were: President John Haeger, Dr. M. J. McMahon, Dr. Pat Haeuser, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, Ms. Christy Farley, and Dr. Patty Moore, Northern Arizona University; President Peter Likins, Dr. George Davis, Ms. Edith Auslander, and Dr. Ron Marx, University of Arizona; President Michael Crow, Dr. Milt Glick, and Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Arizona State University; Dr. Roy Flores, Pima Community College; Dr. Terry Calaway, Central Arizona Community College; and Dr. Rufus Glasper and Dr. Maria Harper-Marinick from Maricopa Community College; Darcy Renfro, Office of the Governor; Executive Director Joel Sideman, Board Counsel Paulina Vazquez-Morris, Ms. Stephanie Jacobson, Dr. Art Ashton, Ms. Cathy McGonigle, and Ms. Anne Barton, Central Office Staff. Others in attendance included Dr. Tom Jordan, President of Coconino Community College; Dr. James Zaharis from Greater Phoenix Leadership; Sherry Anne Rubiano from the Arizona Republic, and Eric Swedlund, Arizona Daily Star.

All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the June 17, 2005, documents file.

President Palacios opened the meeting with introductions and an overview. She indicated that the theme for the day’s discussion would be, “Moving Forward with Changing Directions and Redesign;” and she told the Board that members have the opportunity to consider the “next steps” required to implement their Redesign initiatives.

Other agenda items were highlighted, including the process of setting tuition and fees, studying a tuition cap for continuing students as mandated by SB 1517, and studying the policy framework relative to special undergraduate class and program fees.

President Palacios said the major topic for the day would be a review and discussion of the status of Arizona university/community college current and prospective partnerships and national community college trends. Other agenda items were announced as well: an overview of university finances and reviewing both the Draft Public Awareness Action Plan for 2005-2006 and the Draft Board Action Plan for 2005-2006.

Cathy McGonigle presented a list of strategic questions for implementing Redesign that could be the basis for subsequent university reporting in September. They dealt with mission differentiation, student enrollments, undergraduate education, community college partnerships, diversity, research, resources, and accountability.

Regent Palacios, hearing no objections, said the Board would proceed with this approach for reporting on implementation of Redesign. She pointed out that the individual university plans related to this framework will be presented to the Board at the September meeting.

President Palacios discussed the requirements established in SB 1517 during this year’s legislative session, including a report to the Governor and legislature on the advisability and options for implementing a tuition structure that limits tuition increases for continuing students to no more than inflation, studying the policy framework relative to special undergraduate class and program fees, and examining the advisability of setting tuition and fees at a single Board meeting in the spring.

She proposed establishing a tri-university work group, led by a Regent and consisting of central office and university staff, to prepare recommendations on the previously mentioned topics, keeping in mind student needs and on-going university funding requirements. The work group recommendations would be considered by the Board in a study session at the September 29-30, 2005, meeting.

Regent Bulla asked what economic modeling would be done. He said the bill’s language reminds him of a wage and control issue and that sophisticated modeling will be required to arrive at potential solutions. He suggested that the universities have experts, such as Dennis Hoffman at ASU, whose knowledge could be utilized.

Executive Director Sideman agreed, saying a number of models, in addition to the work group efforts, would be needed.

Mr. Sideman presented some history related to Board decision-making on tuition and fees. He recalled the changes to the tuition-setting process that have come about over the years, including the statutory language that now specifies certain requirements. He indicated that in the late 80’s, the Board began holding public hearings on tuition and hearings and now the hearings are conducted with universities’ interactive television equipment, providing an opportunity for interested students and others to participate from various locations around the state.

Mr. Sideman said that until recently, all recommendations on tuition and fees went into one Board meeting, with the primary focus being on undergraduate residential tuition and less attention to special class and program fees and non-resident and graduate tuition and fees. With this in mind, the Board initiated a process of deciding all tuition at one meeting and all program and special class fees at the next meeting. However, separating the Board’s deliberations into two meetings may impact the context for the Board as it sets rates that will affect a significant number of students.

One alternative, Mr. Sideman told the Board, would be to have one session – perhaps in the morning of the March meeting – as a study session, and follow that with the public hearing at the March meeting. The Board could then call a special meeting to consider tuition and fees – perhaps between the March and April meetings. This would allow for more concentration on the dual process of deciding tuition and special class and program fees.

Regent Stuart replied that the Board’s timeline’s for setting tuition comes in the middle of the legislative session and near the end of the academic year, and this timing is wrong. He would prefer to do this in the fall.

Mr. Sideman said following such a schedule would be complicated for the current year since the legislature has mandated a December deadline for the Board’s report on capping tuition, and the expectation may be that the legislature would have the opportunity to respond to the report before the next Board action.

Regent Stuart suggested that the Board invite legislative participation.

Regent Bulla asked how late the decision could be made and still be effective for next fall. He indicated that six months of history would be lost by deciding new rates in the fall. Also, by going to a fall schedule, the Board would not know how much would be available to universities in state funding.

Regent Graff felt that the notice of new rates in the fall would be welcome, but having six months of evaluation of the current year’s tuition results might not be enough time to make the needed adjustments if any were needed for the new year.

President Crow said the Board should consider linking new rates, by colleges, to the tuition in comparable universities’ colleges. For example, arrive at a decision for tuition in the UA English department by comparing it with peer universities’ English departments.

Dr. Glick, when asked, said ASU could deal with either a spring or a fall timeline, but the issue of legislative decision-making is important.

President Palacios added that another year would be better to begin setting tuition in the fall because doing it this year would look like the Regents are trying to preempt legislative caps.

Regent Stuart repeated that he would want the Board to work with the legislature, and that the reporting requirements are not sufficient reason to stay with the same cycle.

Regent Jewett felt that it is not good that the two-step process leaves students wondering about what their fees will be at the time tuition is set. Whatever can be done to align the process would be helpful.

Regent Jewett added that it’s important to avoid legislation that would set an arbitrary tuition cap. He believes that setting rates in the fall would make it difficult to get the national comparison of Arizona’s tuition and fees to other states if the timing changed to the fall. The issue of when to set tuition could be mitigated by working with legislators, telling them the Board’s target tuition for the new year. Following those discussions, the Board could arrive at a reasonable policy that could then be communicated to the full legislature.

Regent Stuart replied that it is difficult to get the attention of legislators during the session, and it would be better to decide tuition in the fall for that reason.

Regent Boice said the current timing is not good, and the Board needs to combine its decision on tuition and fees in one meeting.

President Likins told the group that the complexities of the issue are increasing as presidents and the Board consider differential tuition rates. He said the Board could consider scheduling two meetings for setting tuition and fees—one to decide the rates for undergraduates (in March) and the second to determine tuition and fees for graduate students (in April). He agreed with Regent Stuart in the abstract that setting tuition and fees in the fall is better for students, but he’s not sure how the Board gets there.

President Palacios said more legislative input is needed, regardless of the timing.

Regent Frank told the Board that most of the questions she had regarding this year’s decisions had more to do with fees than with tuition. She felt people objected most to the Board’s setting fees at a separate meeting.

Regent Calderón told the Board he agreed with everything that had been said. This has to be a multi-stage process. He supported Regent Graff’s comments about working with old data, but the Board can’t wait to discuss tuition caps. The Board must get back to the legislature with something by December.

Dr. Crow suggested that a three-step process be followed to set tuition and fees: (1) This fall, the Board solicits presidents’ thinking, (2) By end of fall, Regents give policy guidance to presidents, and (3) Presidents come back in early spring with final recommendations.

Dr. Haeger said the universities are already planning next year’s budgets, and the tuition-setting process should be timed in concert with budgets proposals. The earlier the Board gives policy guidance, the better.

President Palacios said she understands that any transition to a new process may be painful. She said that the Tuition Study Work Group, with the guidance of the Board’s discussion today, should address changing the timing for setting tuition and fees and be sure to include possible unintended consequences.

The next item on the agenda was a discussion of the status of university/community college programs. Regent Palacios said she has a sincere desire, as does the entire Board, to better understand community college issues. She invited representatives from the community colleges to join the Regents at this retreat in order to take a first step in improving the working relationship between the Board and the state’s community colleges.

Dr. Ron Marx presented some background and national policy issues related to community colleges. He said that although he is the dean of the UA College of Education, his purpose was not to be an advocate but rather to provide a context for the day’s discussion.

Dr. Marx said community colleges across the nation traditionally serve as an access point for poor, minority, and older students. They offer career education, adult education, and economic viability for the community. Their policy issues are access, quality, and cost. Older students are more highly represented at community colleges. They employ fewer full-time faculty than do universities, and the costs of a community college education are less than they are at an institution that offers upper-level and graduate education and/or are engaged in extensive research.

Dr. Marx added that the goals of a community college will typically reflect the missions of job training and other local community needs. Many students are not enrolled in transfer courses with the goal of completing a degree.

He cautioned that one cannot use a community college’s existing cost per full-time-equivalent student to discover how expensive it would be for a community college to begin offering one or more baccalaureate degrees. This is because the community college might need to add full-time faculty and make other adjustments that would make such a calculation inadequate.

Dr. Marx concluded by telling the group that it is very important that Arizona has a series of routes for poor students into the university system to be successful. Universities and community colleges in Arizona must have a strong working relationship.

Dr. Milt Glick discussed the current articulation process between community colleges and universities. He said Arizona has a great model, but the measure of success is to create more graduates. He said there are currently 40 articulation task forces in place, with members from the community colleges and universities. Of those, 38 are discipline-specific groups.

Regent Stuart mentioned that there is little knowledge about the existence of the Joint Conference Committee (JCC) where so many of the articulation issues are resolved. It is appalling how little the legislature knows about the efforts of the JCC. The same is true of the ARU, Arizona Regents University. Perhaps ARU should be renamed.

Dr. Glick described some specific committees that contribute to the articulation effort. For example, the Arizona General Education Core (AGEC) is a 35-hour block of credits that empowers community colleges to put their own imprint on the degree. If a student has a 2.0, he or she is known to have fulfilled the required general education units and is automatically accepted in the state universities.

Regent Jewett asked how real the use of AGEC is. Stephanie Jacobson from the Central Office responded that there were 3,500 students who completed this block of credits last year, and more results will soon be available. Regent Jewett asked about the extent to which community colleges are marketing this opportunity.

Central Arizona College President Terry Calloway responded that it is being addressed. Originally universities were encouraging students to transfer before their junior year, but that is changing. His college is doing more to market the idea to students, and he expects a dramatic increase ahead in the number of students who take advantage of the provisions of AGEC.

Pima Community College President Roy Flores agreed that a big change is ahead as community colleges increase their marketing of the AGEC.

Dr. Crow and Dr. Glasper said that students don’t always have the GPA required for their major, and this necessitates taking more courses – this is the case not only for community college transfers but also for those who start at the university. Provost Glick commented that major-specific AGECs have been designed now to improve the students’ ability to take the correct lower-division courses for their major.

Dr. Glick said ASU maintains the database, Arizona State System for Information on Student Transfer (ASSIST), that students across the state can use as an on-line guide to plan their courses of study. This is a very powerful tool for students. There are 1.1 million community college students and 400,000 university students (with their identity disguised) in this database.

In answer to Regent Frank’s question, Stephanie Jacobson told the group that this information goes back far enough now that universities are beginning to see how many students are completing. In another six months, staff should be better able to tell the Board how students in the system are doing.

President Likins began his presentation by saying that as UA admissions become more selective, more students may want to begin their study at the community college and transfer as juniors. He talked about the capacity to grow at UA South that is designed to be a partner with Cochise Community College. He said UA knows that they need the community colleges as partners.

Further, with the growth in Southern Arizona, especially in the Hispanic population, the UA must become more diverse. This goal will be served in large part through the pipeline from Pima and other community colleges.

Dr. Likins also raised the issue of Tucson’s high-tech economy, saying the area requires a trained workforce. Dr. Roy Flores agreed. He added that Pima Community College has wonderful partnerships in place with UA and NAU but what is required is to go beyond the traditional partnerships. Under current agreements, it makes no difference to the students where they’re enrolled. However, for staff there is a difference. For example, the community college faculty must look at what is required for the students in their junior and senior years, and with that approach, the community college faculty does not “own” the curriculum.

Dr. Flores went on to say that it is time to redefine the university-community college relationship. Universities need to say how effective the community colleges are with respect to students’ success. The community college has to know what the universities’ majors require.

Dr. Likins commented that is very unusual for a community college to ask how their students are doing. One concern is that students’ must have adequate math preparation, and Dr. Flores said that is a concern within his institution as well.

As Dr. Haeger started his portion of the presentation, he indicated 6,000 students are enrolled in NAU distance learning programs currently, with about 4,000 in Phoenix and 1,000 students in Tucson. Many of those students are in graduate programs. To illustrate the cooperative relationships between NAU and community colleges, he said NAU opened their residence halls to full-time Coconino Community College students. He reminded the group that the Arizona Western-NAU partnership is a national model of higher education delivery.

Dr. Calloway of Central Arizona College commented that he considers NAU their primary partner, although they are geographically located between ASU and UA. He pointed out that the rural areas have unique higher education challenges, although his community in the Coolidge-Casa Grande area is fast becoming mid-size rather than a rural/small institution. He estimates that by 2015-20, enrollment at his college could reach 50,000 students.

He indicated that he and President Haeger’s leadership team have recently had some rich discussions on the future of their partnership and that ASU representatives visited CAC yesterday. In light of these positive discussions, Dr. Calloway stated that at this time he does not believe they need to offer baccalaureate degrees at his community college. In particular, he mentioned getting some very positive comments on how Central Arizona College’s doctorally prepared faculty could eventually receive joint faculty appointments with NAU. President Haeger said NAU already does this with some faculty at Pima Community College.

Dr. Crow told the group that University of California, Berkeley, is admitting only 4% of California’s graduating seniors. In contrast, Dr. Crow is striving for a non-elitist model of higher education at ASU. He considers the community colleges to be a part of his “family.” He added that both Maricopa Community College District and ASU are immensely complex organizations.

Dr. Crow and Dr.Glasper agree that they must enhance quality baccalaureate degree offerings in the area. In response to Dr. Crow’s comment that issues of quality are sometimes raised, Regent Frank asked whether the ASU University College is planned as a “catch all.” Dr. Crow explained that it is important to make sure that this isn’t the case. He is recruiting top-quality people and will continue to be sensitive to that perception.

Dr. Glasper described how Arizona is different from the national trends presented by Dr. Marx earlier in the meeting. He said the average age of students in his district has dropped from 34 to 28. In round numbers, Arizona has 500,000 students enrolled in higher education; 400,000 of those are enrolled in community colleges; and of that number, 300,000 of them are attending Maricopa Community College. However, only 2,000-3,000 of those students transfer to universities. The question is how community colleges can increase that number.

Regarding transfers, Dr. Glasper said the Board’s current policies provide for the transfer of 60-64 credits from community colleges to universities. An issue that should be on the table is to increase affordability for students by allowing the transfer of 75 community college credits. Dr. Glasper said there are a large number of collaborations between his district and ASU and it’s important to increase the number of joint meetings in order to break down barriers. He indicated that ASU is perhaps doing a better job at remembering to include his faculty and staff in their meetings than the community colleges are doing when the reverse is needed. He said it isn’t sensible to have geographic boundaries between community colleges, and he used the example of Central Arizona College boundaries separate from Maricopa’s community colleges.

Dr. Glasper also said the ASU-MCC alliance is not as strong as he would like. He mentioned that his district is a national leader in teacher education, and he talked about increasing relationships with business to build a career pipeline. Since 50% of his faculty hold doctoral degrees, expanding the joint faculty appointments should be feasible. He also mused that community colleges are stealing their faculty from universities. A way must be found around the standard hierarchical culture of community college-university status.

Dr. Glasper concluded his comments by saying that the participants should embrace their future collectively, beginning today.

Dr. Haeger pointed out that according to NCHEMS, the U.S. is 7th in the world and moving down in the number of citizens with baccalaureate degrees. He attributed the decline in rank to an inability in our country to solve some of the problems and challenges being mentioned by the administrators today.

Dr. Likins asked how to change the fact that enrollment demand is growing and the state is not committed to funding the costs associated with growth. Regent Stuart said the universities could say to legislators that we are not opposed to baccalaureate degrees in community colleges. On the community college side, they will not want to start pilot projects without the state funding.

Dr. Crow said political interests have almost successfully divided the higher education community. University and community college presidents should come together, saying what it would take in the way of the state’s investment for Outcome “X.”

Dr. Haeger said this would require a huge shift at both the academic and administrative level, and that would be very difficult. However, he added that if we are not able to do it, the legislature will do it for us.

Regent Palacios said the key is to continue meeting to address academics, admissions, and minority issues.

President Flores brought up the matter of community colleges offering baccalaureate programs, and Regent Palacios said the Regents’ reaction was received as being more defensive than intended. She said Regents aren’t afraid of community college baccalaureates, but they want to work out what is best.

Ms. Renfro told everyone that Governor Napolitano wants to take on this issue by creating a P-20 Council that can help guide ideas and generate more degrees. The K-12 sector is an integral part of these issues and needs to be included. The governor’s office has asked for a grant from the National Governors Association to fund this project. The membership of the council and more information will be available shortly.

Dr. Glasper said he testified in appropriations committee this year that the legislative concept of baccalaureates in community colleges is good, but he won’t recommend it to his board because he can’t jeopardize the primary mission of his district. He said the group at the table needs to be more united.

Dr. Crow suggested that he and Dr. Glasper take the lead in developing a Values Proposition. He offered the assistance of a group at ASU that could help with a section on the economic value of higher education opportunities in Arizona. Dr. Glasper said the document would be symbolic of the two higher education sectors’ willingness to be cohesive.

Regent Calderon said he is pleased that the Regents and community college presidents are having a good discussion. He was embarrassed the way it went this year in the legislature. He said concrete plans and a process are needed this fall, and the Joint Conference Committee could provide some leadership in such an endeavor.

President Palacios supported the idea of a Memo of Understanding between community colleges and universities. It could be signed by chancellors/presidents from the community colleges and by the three university presidents. She suggested that Dr. Likins and Dr. Flores take the lead on drafting the MOU. Dr.Glasper said the document should be a declaration to work together toward common goals and principles. Regent Stuart added that it could go to the Governor and help her with the P-20 Council efforts. Regent Palacios agreed with Dr. Flores that the MOU could include certain benchmarks.

Dr. Haeger said it is very important to get the vast majority of community college presidents to sign. Dr. Glasper volunteered to take responsibility to get the other community college presidents signed on.

Regent Jewett reiterated that the Values Proposition is incredibly important. He pointed out that it could become an educational tool to give to rank-and-file legislators.

The agenda moved to Sources and Uses of Funds with an ASU presentation. Dr. Crow said that ASU is on sound financial footing, but that’s different from having enough resources. Dr. Rich Stanley presented information on revenue from tuition and the enrollment numbers that affect collections. He said that Proposition 301 funding is growing and endowments are not increasing at the level that ASU needs. Dr. Crow pointed out that the growth at ASU in unrestricted dollars and explained that the flexibility at ASU is greater than at UA where unearmarked funds are very limited.

Dr. Haeger showed charts illustrating that NAU, as an enterprise, has almost no similarity to either ASU or UA. NAU is much more dependent on tuition and state funding. The distinction is that on Main Campus, tenured faculty teach in small classes, and it would be a mistake to go to part-time faculty and larger classes.

Ms. McGonigle presented the last agenda item on Public Awareness. The Board will review the plan and take action at the August meeting.

In closing the meeting, Regent Palacios thanked everyone for their participation and expressed her confidence that the Board will capitalize on the substantive information and planning that occurred during the retreat.

The meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.

SUBMITTED BY:

_______________________
Ann Barton, ABOR Staff

ATTEST:

APPROVED BY:

_____________________________
Fred Boice, Secretary

_________________________
Gary L. Stuart, President