March 2001 Minutes/Arizona Board of Regents

A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held March 2, 2001, at the University of Arizona Health Sciences Center, Arizona Cancer Center, 1515 N. Campbell Avenue, Tucson, Arizona. President Elect Kay McKay called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.

PRESENT:	Regent George H. Amos, III Regent Mary Echeverria Regent Judy Gignac Regent Chris Herstam Regent Jack Jewett Regent Kay McKay Regent Christina Palacios Regent Gary Stuart
ABSENT:	Regent Donald Ulrich Governor Jane Dee Hull Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan

Present in addition to the Regents were: President Peter Likins, Dr George Davis, Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Randy Groth, Dr. Richard Powell, Dr. Patti Ota, Mr. Greg Fahey, Mr. Bob Smith, and Dr. Elizabeth Ervin, University of Arizona; President Lattie Coor, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Gary Krahenbuhl, Dr. Tom Trotter, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Dr. Elaine Maimon, Mr. Steve Miller, Mr. Allan Price, and Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Arizona State University; President Clara Lovett, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Ms. Anne Barton, Mr. Kurt Davis, Dr. John Haeger, and Dr. Michael Mullen, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director Linda Blessing, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Mr. Dave Harris, Ms. Louise Houseworth, Ms. Norma Salas, Mr. Matt Ortega, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, and Dr. Art Ashton, Central Office Staff; and Dr. Judith Sellers, Arizona Faculties Council Representative.

CALL TO THE AUDIENCE

President Elect McKay read into the record the names of those who had requested to speak on the topic of Graduate Student Tuition Waivers: Anna Nunez, Gizella Meneses, Mary Louise Babineau, David Mencheca, Jason Auxier, Amy Hamilton, Linda Pierce, John Miles, Samantha Andrus, Ramon Miranda, Elieth Salazar-Alpízar, and Nelson M. Suàrez. She asked the group to select three spokespersons as many of the group had spoken to the Board one or two times before on this same subject and there were more speakers than time allotted.

Carol Bernstein, American Association of University Professors, Arizona Conference, (AAUP), asked the Regents to delay adopting the proposed Whistleblower Policy as she believed there should be some changes made. She explained her request for additions, deletions, and revisions.

Stacey Plassmann, Rincon Heights Neighborhood Association (RHNA), told the Regents there had been a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entered into five years ago with RHNA, the University of Arizona, and the City of Tucson. She reported the MOU has been successful in settling disagreements and as a guiding document. She asked that additional dollars be provided to the university for mitigation and that the dollars not be tied to specific projects.

Jose Saorzano. President of the University of Arizona Staff Advisory Council, expressed appreciation on behalf of the Tri-University Staff Advisory Council for the Boards recent adoption of revisions to Policies 6-804, Sick Leave, and 6-806, Bereavement Leave, to provide for the use of sick and bereavement leave for relatives not covered in the current policy.

Glen Johnson, University of Arizona Director of Information, American Indian Graduate Center, asked the Regents to support a strong Whistleblower policy as he believes he has suffered retaliation for actions he took in relation to donor money.

Linda Pierce, Co-chair of the University of Arizona English Graduate Union, pointed out there were graduate teaching assistant representatives from all three universities present. She reviewed the history of the University of Arizona Subcommittee on Maintaining and Improving the Quality of Graduate Education and its recommendations, which included fee waivers for graduate students. A second task force also recommended fee waivers for all graduate students. Since then, graduate students have been attending Board meetings to raise the issue of fee waivers. She listed reasons why fee waivers should be granted and said students were willing to unionize to get this benefit.

John Miles, Co-chair of the University of Arizona English Graduate Union, said there was a strong model of graduate student solidarity around the country. The Coalition of Organized Graduate Students is growing at the University of Arizona. They believe they are undervalued and underappreciated at all three universities. They believe their goals are fair and reasonable--fair working conditions for graduate students and a higher quality of education across the Arizona university system.

Mary Louise Babineau, ASU graduate student, spoke on the problems of graduate students, especially those who have children.

Gizella Meneses, ASU graduate student representative for the Department of Languages and Literatures, explained the duties of graduate teaching assistants in her department. A student in her department could conceivably be taught by only graduate teaching assistants all the way through graduation. She asked for those contributions to be recognized.

Samantha Andrus, representative of graduate teaching assistants at NAU and single mothers, explained her financial situation.

Nelson Suàrez, an ASU international student from Bolivia, said the demonstration today was not to complain, but to explain the needs of graduate teaching assistants.

Jason Auxier, president of the UA Graduate Professional Student Council, said fee waivers for graduate teaching assistants would benefit the economy of Arizona by attracting top graduate students in the technology area. They would also make the Arizona universities more competitive with peer institutions that do provide waivers. He said a 2% growth in the research budget at UA would equal the cost of waivers for graduate research and teaching assistants. He offered various suggestions to finance the waivers.

David Mancheca, representing UA Coalition of Organized Graduate Students (COG), said the mission of COG is to insure the equitable compensation and treatment of UA graduate student workers, protect graduate students in the professional and scholarly positions, and insure the quality of work graduate students perform. He said graduate students teach over 50% of the lower division courses in many departments on campus. He said COG would like to work with the Regents on the fee waiver issue.

Sarah Presler, ASNAU President, expressed student concerns about the proposed NAU Master Plan. She expressed support for NAU's request for a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science in Women's Studies and Extended Bachelor of Arts in Women's Studies (Honors) and the creation of the Martin-Springer Institute for Teaching the Holocaust, Tolerance, and Humanitarian Values. She commended President Lovett for her leadership in these areas. She asked the Regents to support the request for additional funding for the Arizona Financial Aid Trust Fund as it makes it way through the legislature.

Shaun Alex Bainbridge, ASASU President, reported the students were very pleased as President Coor had pledged five acres of the Rio Salado property for student use. The students have organized a committee to consider possibilities for the use of this land, including a multi-purpose facility that would host intercollegiate athletic teams and club teams and/or an education facility that could be used for meetings and business use during the summer. The ASU students are working with the Graduate College to see how to improve conditions for graduate students and support the concerns of graduate students on other campuses.

Oubai, ASASU, said ASASU had garnered support from students to lobby for the proposed increase in legislative contribution to the Arizona Financial Aid Trust Fund.

CONSENT AGENDA

Items on the Consent Agenda, which are marked in these minutes with an * were considered as consent matters and were adopted upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Herstam. There was no individual discussion of these items.

*Minutes

The Board approved the January 25 and 26, 2001, Regular Meeting, and the January 26, 2001, Executive Session minutes.

Resources Committee Consent

*Voluntary Release of Right to Continued Employment by James Blanchard

The University of Arizona was authorized to proceed with Professor Blanchard's retirement agreement as set forth below, provided the written retirement agreement be in a form acceptable to University Counsel and Board Counsel, and that no payment be made by the university until such agreement is executed. The university will pay Dr. Blanchard severance pay in the amount of $100,000, or approximately one years' salary, in a lump sum, in exchange for the voluntary release of his position and resignation, effective July 1, 2001, and written relinquishment of all tenure rights and privileges except for normal retirement benefits. The proposed payment would be made on June 30, 2001, Dr. Blanchard's last day of employment. The source of funding for Dr. Blanchard's severance pay will be indirect cost recovery.

*Revisions to Board Policy 4-104, "Procedure for Setting and Distributing Tuition and Fees" (Second Reading)

The Board approved the proposed revisions to Board Policy 4-104, "Procedure for Setting and Distributing Tuition and Fees" that are responsive to legislation requiring the Board to adopt rules to govern its tuition and fee setting process. The changes state the Board shall adopt rules to govern its tuition and fee setting process and shall provide for the following: at least one public hearing at each university; publication of the public hearing at least ten days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in Maricopa County, Coconino County, and Pima County; public disclosure by each university of any recommended increases in tuition or fees at least ten days prior to the public hearing; and roll call vote on final Board action on changes in tuition or fees. Other revisions include updating the policy for technical changes and to reflect the use of the State Expenditure Authority Per Full-Time Equivalent Student (SEAPS).

*Adoption of Board Policy 3-412, "Administration of Technology and Research Initiative Fund" (Second Reading)

The Board adopted Policy 3-412, "Administration of Technology and Research Initiative Fund," which governs the administration of the Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF) as mandated by Proposition 301. The policy framework includes proposed funding criteria, the need for the Board to adopt a separate set of guidelines for the allocation of monies from the fund, and a requirement that funding proposals be submitted in a format to be approved by the Executive Director. The policy framework incorporates revisions suggested by the Governor's Office that are intended to reflect the Board's ongoing commitment to be responsive to recommendations from the Arizona Partnership for the New Economy or its successor agency.

*Revisions to Board Policy 6-908, "Intellectual Property" (Second Reading)

The Board adopted revisions to Policy 6-908, "Intellectual Property," that facilitates technology transfer between universities and Arizona state agencies. The revision will facilitate the universities' ability to enter into contracts for the next funding cycle with state agencies, such as Arizona Disease Control Research Commission (ADCRC), which restrict payment by the agency for overhead.

*Head Soccer Coach Multiple-Year Employment Contract (ASU)

The Board authorized ASU to enter into a multiple-year employment contract with Ray Leone according to the summary of terms and conditions set forth below.

The period of the appointment will be from the date of execution of the contract through December 31, 2006, at a combined base salary and additional salary of $80,000 per year. This will cover basic duties relating specifically to coaching soccer and additional duties consisting of participation in media programs, development activities, public relations activities, and endorsement and other promotion activities. This will be increased for the year commencing January 1, 2002, and on each January 1 thereafter in percentage increments depending on achievement of certain performance milestones, but with a minimum increase for established performance criteria.

Coach Leone may receive Special Compensation annually in agreements negotiated by ASU with manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, vendors, and others relating to use and promotion of athletic equipment, athletic clothing, athletic shoes, and other athletic apparel.

Coach Leone may receive Supplemental Compensation annually for Academic Performance of Scholarship Student Athletes and for Soccer Team Performance. Coach Leone will receive additional benefits such as tickets to sporting events, automobile and golf privileges, and a soccer summer camp.

Strategic Planning Committee

*Revisions to the University of Arizona Research Park Master Plan (Second Reading)

The Board approved revisions to the University of Arizona Science and Technology Park Master Plan as presented. The revised Plan updates the original Park land-use plan adopted by the Board in March 1997. The revised Plan authorizes 10 land uses within the Park, including affiliated uses, assembly and manufacturing, business support, commercial, flexible uses, hotel/commercial, park center, research and development, office, and open space.

*Extension of Research Park Designation at the University of Arizona Science and Technology Park

The Board extended the designation of "Research Park," as provided for under Section 35-701 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, to an additional 121 acres of land within the University of Arizona Science and Technology Park. This designation will provide for the anticipated expansion of research and development activities and enterprises at the Science and Technology Park and will permit Park management to begin a thoughtful planning process to address future site and infrastructure requirements.

Programs Committee

*Appointment of Regents' Professors (NAU)

The Board authorized Northern Arizona University to promote Dr. Thomas McPoil, Dr. Zachary Smith, and Dr. Karen VanWinkle-Swift to the rank of Regents' Professor, effective July 1, 2001, and to award the $5,000 salary increase that customarily accompanies those appointments.

Dr. McPoil is professor of physical therapy and is noted for research concerning the management of dysfunction of foot and ankle and the establishment of the Gait Analysis Laboratory. Dr. Smith is a professor of political science and is noted for combining environmental issues with policy bridging the political and environmental sciences. Dr. VanWinkle-Swift is professor of biological sciences and is noted for contributions to the area of cellular biology.

Administrative Business

*Designations of Emeritus Status

In recognition of his years of service, dedication, and achievement, the Board honored Frank H. Besnette by designating him "Executive Director Emeritus," effective immediately. In recognition of her years of service, dedication, and achievement, the Board honored Clara M. Lovett by designating her "President Emeritus," effective July 1, 2001.

REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

Provost George Davis introduced Dr. Laurence Hurley, holder of the Howard J. Schaeffer Professorship in Pharmaceutical Sciences, and professor of medicinal chemistry. Dr. Hurley is working to develop cancer therapeutic agents. Dr. Hurley explained his approach to teaching and what he hoped to accomplish at the Cancer Center.

He explained the Cancer Center starts out with identification of cancer specific molecular targets. From this, they proceed with drug lead identification, which is the identification of small molecules that will usually target the receptors, and their subsequent optimization. Next is a phase of drug development to make them patient friendly; and, finally, they go into clinical trials and proceed to market. Dr. Hurley's part of the process is the lead identification and the optimization. He hopes to help the University of Arizona achieve the number one medicinal chemistry program in the country.

RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Requests for Proposition 301 Funding

Provosts Glick, Haeger, and Davis and Dr. Wickenden joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett explained this item was a follow-up to the study session in January where the Regents discussed the universities' proposed initiatives for Proposition 301 funding. The Board was being asked to approve university and central office budget requests for the initiatives. The budget requests are for the next five years, subject to the process of review and revisions described in the Board materials. For the first time, the Board is able not only to approve budget requests, but also to allocate the funding for those requests.

Executive Director Blessing gave an overview of the process that was developed for allocating the funds, including both what the Board was asked to approve and what it will be reviewing or approving over the next five years. It was proposed that the budget requests before the Board today be viewed as initial requests. The recommendations will have a lower and higher end as it cannot be determined with certainty at this time what the revenues will be. A 5% growth in revenue is projected over the duration of the 301 monies. The duration of the initiatives before the Board is five years, subject to receiving budget revisions, annual reports, and detailed three-year reviews which may require mid-course corrections. The capital projects will not exceed the 20% cap as required by Proposition 301. The performance measures attempt to address the questions raised by Regents in January.

Executive Director Blessing said the capital projects involve buildings, one-time renovations, or continuing debt service for new construction. The funds for capital projects exceed the five year period as they support bonded debt that can run twenty years. It is recommend that budgets be revised after several months of looking at actual revenues when better projections for actual monies will be available. The universities will bring those to the Board's attention no later than January 2002.

Dr. Blessing said there is also a recommendation for some ability for budget reallocation, a balance between flexibility and good public accountability. The initial budget approvals will be covering personnel, operating budget, and the capital projects. As more is known about the revenue stream, there may be a need to make changes. So it is recommended the universities come back for Board approval for reallocations for capital projects. It is also recommended the universities come for Board approval if operational funds are going to be reallocated for personnel. Reallocations for capital equipment should also come for Board approval. It is recommended the universities be allowed to move funds from one initiative to another up to 5%. Above 5%, it would require Board approval.

Executive Director Blessing said the National Science Foundation requirements for Federally funded research were used as a model when these guidelines were developed. There are only general budget numbers in regard to Arizona Regents University and Regents Innovation Fund for consideration. There are no initiatives identified as it is believed they will come on an ad hoc basis or in response to annual requests for proposals or both.

Dr. Blessing reminded the Regents the Board is required to file an annual report about the Proposition 301 monies with the legislature and the Governor. Therefore, the Board needs annual reports from the universities. The annual reports will include performance measures and goals versus actuals on achieving performance. They will include annual financial data-- budgeted expenditures versus actual expenditures. Is also recommended more detailed performance reviews be conducted in the third year, allowing enough time for the initiatives to mature so a meaningful evaluation could be conducted. The more detailed reviews would include financial reports and this would be a good opportunity for the Board to make mid-course corrections. Ideas for the next five-year period would come forward during the fourth year.

Regent Stuart said state revenue projections had changed and he wondered how possible changes in sales tax revenues would affect the time lines presented. Dr. Blessing said the upper ranges for the initiative budgets were based on the assumption the sales tax revenues would increase 5% per year, a conservative estimate. The startup time would not allow expenditures at a high level in the beginning. If the Board approves funding between the upper and lower ranges, it gives the universities the opportunity to start gearing up the projects before the actual revenue amount is known. It is likely the budgets will be between the upper and lower range when they come back in January 2002.

Regent Gignac said she believed there should be a Number 11 added to the recommended process for Board approval and review of the requests. She believes there should be a lag-time for the monies that come in each month. She would like the Regents to allocate based on the percentage of the lower end against what is actually received and make the mid-year adjustment for the higher end, rather than being forced to cut back at the mid-year adjustment because the revenues were not as high as expected. President Likins said he believed the purpose of the range from high to low was to allow the universities to spend just the amount of money generated by the sales tax without requiring a return to the Board for authority for expenditure every time the amount of the sales tax changes. He said the universities expect to spend at the level generated by the sales tax. Regent Gignac said she had no problem with that; she just wanted an understanding among the Board members that the disbursement of the dollars occurs based on the reality of the revenues as they come in.

Dr. Blessing called the Regents' attention to the tri-university requests for bioscience and biotechnology, information science and information technology, and access and workforce development. Regent Gignac asked about the differences of ERE among the three universities and ABOR, variations between FTE and the cost of ERE and personal services, how the numbers were reached for the overall performance measures, how the number of patents are determined that start up with the new collaboration, or rate of the return on investment, and whether the new grants are actually new based on these dollars or are they grants that are already in place.

Provost Glick said each university bases its ERE numbers on actual experience and they are developed with the JLBC and the federal auditors on grants. They depend somewhat on the cost of doing business in different communities, but more on the different mix between graduate assistants, faculty, and staff. The universities are audited on these average numbers annually.

Provost Davis said the variations between FTE and cost of ERE and personal services are the result of various priced personnel, such as directors and administrative assistants, being used on projects. Provost Glick said the universities report annually to the Board on patents. Perform-ance measures for things like startups and spinoffs will be complicated and the universities intend to come back to the Board next year with significant revisions both on quantitative numbers associated with the performance numbers and qualitative changes. Stakeholders will be consulted in the development of new numbers.

Provost Glick said if a three-year grant exists and this is the second year; it is not a new grant. If there was a three-year grant and a new grant is submitted from scratch, that is a new grant. There is no intent to count renewal dollars, but they do intend to count new submissions. Provost Davis said the projection of new start-ups will be very challenging, but the opportunity exists for the universities to do this in partnership with local leadership and the private sector. The quality of the new companies should be significant; therefore, the impact may be greater than the numbers suggest.

President Coor outlined ASU's initiatives and told the Regents about various activities already underway involving the private sector. He informed the Regents ASU intended to utilize the Morrison Institute to help develop the qualitative performance measures.

Regent Echeverria asked the universities to keep undergraduate students in mind as the initiatives become developed and try to integrate them where possible. President Coor said this is part of learner-centered education and the university tries to provide opportunities for undergraduates in research as much as possible.

Regent Stuart asked if the Board would receive a report from the Morrison Institute on a timely basis that would assess the impact of programmatic outcomes on an annual basis. He would like the Institute to let the Board know, in its independent judgment, that intellectual property has been increased or decreased, whether more intellectual property has been acquired, whether more or less tech transfer has been accomplished, whether competitiveness has been strengthened, whether we can identify specifically new spinoffs and new startups, and whether the pool of masters and Ph.D. candidates is bigger in the areas covered by these proposals. He wants the outcomes to be measurable. Provost Glick said ASU intended to integrate the annual assessment of the Morrison Institute with the ASU annual report of performance measures. If the Board wishes, ASU could identify within those measures the specific conclusions from the Morrison Institute. Dr. Glick said the Institute had been asked to validate the performance measures presented, to meet with stakeholders (key business people, Regents, small business people, legislators) to ask what these people would like to see happen with 301 monies in five years.

President Lovett summarized the NAU initiatives. She said the goal is to graduate students who have, along with their degree program, some kind of certification that demonstrates an ability to use information technology. She said NAU has tried to build on its own strengths in both work force development and research.

President Likins summarized the UA initiatives. He said he believed the accountability measures were important not only to the Regents, but also to the business community. He also said any technology transfer needs to have the university infrastructure necessary to provide the services to the faculty to facilitate the movement to market of the intellectual property.

Regent Stuart said he hoped these 301 initiatives would also provide a greater degree of access, including for minorities and disadvantaged youth. Executive Director Blessing summarized the requests for Arizona Regents University and the Innovation Fund. Regent Herstam summarized the ARU subcommittee meeting held the day before where the draft of the mission and vision statements were discussed. Work group teams to consider enrollment management, student services, articulation, data definition exchange, financial aid, and tuition revenue distribution were considered. Characteristics for a new ARU coordinator were also discussed. Regent Echeverria said she believed consideration should be given as to whether ARU would appear as part of the UCAR or whether it would have a separate instrument to report student satisfaction.

Regent Gignac asked how debt service would be covered on capital projects built with 301 funds when the funds are only scheduled to run for twenty years and the debt service would last longer than twenty years. President Likins said it was not unusual for a capital project to be funded from one kind of funds in the early years and something different in the later years. Dr. Blessing indicated that Central Office staff would work with the Universities to develop a more detailed explanation of how Proposition 301 funds would be allocated to the universities, depending on the actual receipt of sales tax proceeds.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board approved the university and Central Office budget requests and performance measures, together with the low level and high level expenditures ranges, that have been submitted for Proposition 301 Funding, with the understanding that by January 2002, the universities will submit revised budgets within these ranges. It was understood the ten areas listed on Pages 2 and 3 of the summary material would serve as guidelines for the process.

Apache-Santa Cruz Renovations: Conceptual Approval (UA)

Mr. Valdez and Mr. Smith joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said the University of Arizona was requesting Conceptual Approval for the renovation of 48,600 sq. ft. of space in the Apache-Santa Cruz Residence Hall Complex. The project has an estimated cost of $2.2M which will be financed with Residence Life Auxiliary Funds. Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board granted Conceptual Approval to the University of Arizona for the Apache-Santa Cruz Renovations project.

Mars/JPL Expansion/Renovation: Conceptual Approval (ASU Main)

Dr. Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said Arizona State University was requesting Conceptual Approval for the expansion and renovation of 16,646 sq. ft. in the Moeur Building on Main Campus to house the Mars/Jet Propulsion Laboratory Program outreach activities. The estimated cost of the project is $2.25M which will be funded with Plant Funds and Building Renewal funds. Completion of this project would enable ASU to compete for between $20M and $30M in future grants and contracts from the Mars 2005 Mission. Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Palacios, the Board granted Conceptual Approval to Arizona State University for the Mars/JPL Expansion/Renovation project on Main Campus.

Central Plant III: Revised Conceptual Approval (ASU West)

Provost Maimon joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said Arizona State University West was requesting revised Conceptual Approval for the expansion of the Central Plant to provide infrastructure necessary to support the upcoming Classroom/Laboratory/Computer Classroom Building Phase II. The revised estimated cost is $4.6M. $4.1M will be funded with Certificates of Participation with debt service provided from Proposition 301 allocations and $.5M will come from local funds. This project has been in the ASU West Capital Improvement Plan for several years, but was awaiting funding for both it and the Classroom/Laboratory/Computer Classroom Phase II Building. Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board granted Revised Conceptual Approval to Arizona State University West for the Central Plant III Project.

Lease of Certain ASU Land in the Rio Salado Project to a Legal Entity to be Formed by Benton Robb Development Associates and Camden (ASU)

Mr. Price joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said ASU was requesting Board approval to finalize negotiations for the lease of 9.3 acres of university property within the Rio Salado Project located along the south shore of the Tempe Town Lake to the BR/Camden Entity for the development of a 500 unit luxury apartment complex. The base term of the lease will be for a period of 40 years, with two optional extension terms of 15 years each.

Mr. Price said the major change between this and the earlier lease approved by the Board is, rather than paying nonrefundable rent in the first part of the rent term, the entity will be depositing money into an escrow account releaseable to ASU when the entitlements are given by the City of Tempe.

The basic terms of the lease to the BR/Camden Entity are summarized as a lease of the West Parcel with a development period of up to 24 months. Following the Development Period and commencing with execution of the Master Ground Lease (M.L.), there is a lease term of 70 years, consisting of a base term of 40 years and two optional extension terms of 15 years each. The project will be an approximately 500 unit luxury apartment complex.

During the Development Period, the BR/Camden Entity will pay $200,000 into an escrow upon occurrence of certain events. When BR/Camden obtains City of Tempe approval of the final Planned Area Development plan, $175,000 of this money will be paid out of escrow to ASU. The remaining $25,000 will be paid to ASU at execution of the M.L. and will be credited to rent under the M.L. Rent during the Base Term will be $502,692 per annum, adjusted down or up by a daily amount if the Base Term starts early or late. During the first two years of the Base Term, a construction period, the rent will be discounted 50%. At the end of each five years of the Base Term and each Extension Term, the rent will increase by 12.5% and an additional percentage if the increase in the CPI exceeds 12.5%. The BR/Camden Entity will be solely responsible for the cost of development and will pay to ASU an infrastructure payment.

The BR/Camden Entity will make payments equal to the Government Property Lease Excise Tax beginning in year nine and ASU will forward the payments to the appropriate governmental entity that would normally receive the Lease Excise Tax. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Palacios, the Board authorized Arizona State University to finalize negotiations with BR/Camden Entity for the lease of 9.3 acres of university property located within the Rio Salado Project.

Regent Amos said he would like to see the buyers indemnify against any suits that might arise from the power lines that are present.

REPORT FROM THE BOARD'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM COMMUNITY COLLEGES (SBDCC)

Regent Gignac reported the SBDCC discussed the teacher and nursing shortages. The Maricopa Community College District has put together a consortium to look at teacher shortages and is making great strides in that area. She informed the Regents SBDCC approved a resolution to participate in a public education master planning process as reflected by the Arizona Education Conference Committee and distributed a copy of the resolution and background information to Regents. The State Board of Education tabled the resolution at its meeting in February.

REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL

Dr. Sellers reported the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) has continuing concerns about Arizona Regents University (ARU) curriculum quality and the development of programs that meet the needs of students as well as academic requirements. The AFC has put together a group of faculty from the three universities who, with the help of Dr. Sally Jackson from the University of Arizona, will work to develop the makeup of an articulation team. They would also like a Central Staff person to help with this effort. Regent Herstam told the Regents the ARU subcommittee wished to send a clear message the faculty has a definite role in the planning for ARU.

REPORT ON GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS

Provost Davis and UA Dean of the Graduate College Gary Pivo joined the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Davis provided an overview of the reality of the workload/compensation issues for graduate teaching assistants at the University of Arizona. He described the essential and multiple roles of both graduate teaching assistants and graduate research assistants and the range of stipends now offered for their services. He compared the amount UA graduate assistants pay to the amounts required by peer institutions. He explained the financial consequences of offering higher stipends or instate tuition waivers.

There was a discussion of various causes of increased workload for graduate assistants and teaching assistants. UA Acting Vice President for Undergraduate Affairs Randall Richardson participated in the discussion. He believed the main reason for the increased workload was the enrollment growth in lower division courses.

Regent Echeverria commented there are many issues involved in improving conditions for graduate assistants, such as child care, salaries, workload, benefits. These problems cannot be solved immediately, but she believes the Board should continue to work toward developing solutions. She asked how the universities compared with peer institutions in money for graduate assistants and teaching assistants and was told we are behind our peers and the workload is heavier than our peers. Some peers do not waive their resident tuition fee, but more do.

The presidents commented on the different mix and numbers of graduate students on each campus and said they need the flexibility to use waivers differently among the campuses. Regent Stuart asked what percentage of graduate students on the UA campus were employed as teaching assistants and was told 16%. There was a discussion of costs and teaching loads, including faculty teaching loads. This is a complicated issue being discussed on each campus and one that will not be settled overnight. Regent Gignac asked for an update at the next meeting concerning how the issue will proceed. President Elect McKay asked the members of the Council of Presidents to take the issue under consideration and make suggestions, sometime this summer, about how to proceed, including the consideration of a tri-university work group.

PUBLIC AWARENESS COMMITTEE

Review of State Legislation with Potentially Direct Impact on the Arizona University System

Mr. Ortega, Mr. Miller, and Ms. Barton joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart noted the written material included a summary of the bills that had been introduced since the last Board meeting and the status of the bills the Regents considered at the last meeting. He called the Board's attention to SB 1415 that deals with graduate assistant workload programs. Hearings were held on bills dealing with confidentiality of intellectual property. He reported he and Mr. Ortega had met with Representative Huppenthal in relation to a bill regarding performance measures and provided Representative Huppenthal with a copy of the UCAR Report.

Regent Gignac asked if HB 2043, State Web Site Privacy, would impact ARU and was told there were concerns about the bill as it does impact transactions between state agencies or interagency transactions. She suggested it be moved to the "don't support" list. She also reported SB 1280 was the direct result of the meeting the Arizona Education Conference Committee (AECC) held on the master planning process. The AECC stated external funding would be necessary for such a far-reaching process. Regent Gignac explained the process that had taken place in regard to a funding bill, including her request the bill not move forward at this time.

Mr. Ortega reported SB 1096 and HB 2143, Hazing Prohibition, seem to have failed due to opposition from K-12 groups and school boards. The students are now working to put definitions of hazing in the Arizona Revised Statutes. Legislation to change the match for the Arizona Financial Aid Trust Fund is moving positively at this time. He pointed out SB 1527, Universities; Donors, Intellectual Property, Confidentiality, would level the playing field with universities in other states that have these types of laws.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Palacios, the Board accepted the recommended positions with the exception of HB 2043 which was moved to the monitor closely category.

Proposed New Board Policy 6-014, "Protection of Employees from Reprisal for Whistleblowing" (Second Reading)

Mr. Ortega, Ms. Barton, and Dr. Hogle joined the meeting for this discussion. Professor Hogle said the changes from the last meeting had been vetted through the three universities' staff advisory councils, faculty senates, and appointed personnel councils; and there is general agreement with the changes. He said many of the suggestions made by Dr. Bernstein had been incorporated into the policy. Under B, Source, the policy gives the same rights to university employees as given to state employees. Should bills pass that give additional rights to state employees, the committee who worked to prepare this policy would like to make certain the issue could be revisited to add these rights to this policy, also. Also, after hearing Dr. Bernstein's suggestions this morning, the AFC had revisited J.2.c. and realized it did not completely express what was intended; so it is suggested this be revised to say, "The complainant alleges that the prior disclosure was a contributing factor in the adverse personnel action." There was a discussion concerning whether the policy should be adopted "as is" or held to the next meeting for the changes to be reviewed.

Regent Gignac said she had a problem with B. Source, as changes in the statutes cited could make a change in the policy without the Regents being aware of the change. Mr. Sideman said the first two statutes referenced in Chapter 38 are the sections that provide an exemption for the Regents and the universities as long as they have policies in place to protect whistleblowers. The reference to Chapter 41 is the reference to the administrative procedures act and the Supreme Court has said we are subject to these kinds of hearings as listed in the administrative procedures act.

President Likins said he was concerned about delaying approval of this policy. If the Board has concerns about approving the amendments, he suggested it be approved as written with the stipulation it could be brought back to the next meeting for the amendments to be considered.

Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Stuart, the Board approved the policy as written with the stipulation proposed amendments can be brought back to the Board.

PROGRAMS COMMITTEE

Undergraduate Consolidated Accountability Report (UCAR)

Provosts Glick, Haeger, and Davis and Dr. Wickenden joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Herstam said this is the annual report on accountability measures for undergraduate education. This year the Board was asked to approve baseline measures and goals for some of the newer measures. The universities plan to bring recommendations next June on measures that would be supportive of learner-centered education. Dr. Wickenden provided an overview of the recommendations. The Executive Summary describes progress being made toward the goals for each university and contains recommendations for finalizing and continuing to improve the Report. He said the Regents were being asked to approve goals for seven sets of the newer measures based on recently completed surveys and two recommendations concerning items to come to the Board in June 2001.

Dr. Wickenden said he would like to highlight the following recommendations. The first is a plan to insure consistency in the excellence measure having to do with employers rating the excellence of the pool of graduates who apply for jobs. The second, which will come to the Board in June, is a report on a review and recommendations to insure the UCAR measures are supportive of learner-centered education.

He asked if there were any questions on the common goal concerning percentage of graduating seniors reporting discussion of courseware/assignments with faculty a few or more times per semester. Regent Palacios asked how goals were set as in this case she wondered if the goal was high enough. Dr. Glick said ASU believed 85% was a reasonable goal as there is a mix of part-time and full-time students. President Likins suggested there should be a clarification as to whether this means in person or by e-mail.

Dr. Wickenden said the second new proposed goal deals with graduating students reporting discussions with three or more faculty on non courseware topics such as career or graduate school. Regent Amos said he was concerned with NAU, which prides itself on faculty contact with students, was at 59% for the year 2000 when its goal was 70%. Provost Haeger said the campus is looking at its advising system. Regent Gignac said she noticed the universities did not survey the same people and she wondered if this would skew the outcomes. She asked the universities to consider who they were surveying on advising and whether questions should be asked of different kinds of students at different times in their life. Provost Glick said even though the questions are common for common process measures, they might not be common because of who is surveyed, at what time, and how many are sampled.

Regent Palacios asked why there are several places where the goals are for several years in advance and there is no progress report indicated along the way. She asked why there were no interim goals in these cases. Provost Haeger responded that sometimes programmatic changes were made and it was expected they would cause a big change so the goals were set higher. Regent Palacios said it looked like in some cases it would be a big challenge to meet the goals as there had not been much change in three years and she still did not understand why there were no interim goals. President Lovett said in the case of NAU, one of the problems no longer exists and the goal will be dropped in upcoming years. Provost Davis said the intermediate goals are implicit.

Regent Amos stated his belief in the importance of this report. He said he believed any measures falling behind the baseline in the next report should have explanations as to why and what will be done for improvement. He believed ASU had correctly put together process measures, especially number four, for what the Board was trying to accomplish toward lower division courses taught by ranked faculty. He noticed the definitions used by the other two universities were not the same, for instance, NAU talks about full-time faculty instead of ranked faculty. President Lovett said the discussion had begun with ranked faculty being defined as assistant, associate, and full professors, but as a result of a discussion with the other universities, lecturers and instructors were included under ranked faculty. Therefore, she believed the universities were measuring the same thing; they were calling it different names. Regent Amos said the whole discussion on this issue related to having contact with ranked faculty, not full-time faculty; and he believed including full-time faculty would water down the requirement. He would like the survey for number ten to include what we need to do to do a better job. He agreed with Regent Gignac the universities should be consistent with who they survey.

Regent Amos reemphasized why the Board had been so concerned about students being taught by ranked faculty and stated his hope this measure would not be allowed to drop off or be watered down in the future. He said the Board purposely had not set the goal at a higher level to allow flexibility for learner-centered education, but he did not want people to lose sight of the importance of student contact with ranked faculty. He was upset this morning to hear some students can go through their entire education being taught by graduate assistants and he believes keeping an eye on this measure will help eliminate that problem.

Regent Amos left the meeting at 3:25 p.m., during this discussion. Regent Echeverria said the number two measure under process measures concerning advising shows high satisfaction even though students talk about poor advising. She wondered if it should be broken down to very satisfied, satisfied, somewhat satisfied, or not satisfied. Provost Glick said students had a chance to answer five categories ranging from very satisfied to not satisfied. Regarding improving instructional facilities and delivery, Regent Echeverria liked ASU's measure that talks about classrooms with ethernet connections. Provost Davis said the UA measure indicates each of the new residence halls at the UA is completely wired.

With regard to the questions concerning percentage of students who begin as freshmen and return for a second year, Regent Echeverria asked if universities surveyed the people who do not return. Provost Haeger said he believed every campus made an effort to find out why students don't return as retention rates are an important quality index both for students and the universities. At NAU, they called every student who did not reregister. Provost Glick said the universities are very concerned with retention rates. ASU does survey all non-returning students. He said the three main reasons given for leaving, stated in order, are money, personal, and grades. ASU has tracked two different thousand student cohorts for six years, even if they left. Some of the students leaving ASU may go to the other two campuses. President Likins said students working more than thirty hours off campus have a very low survival rate. President Lovett said one of the weaknesses in the report is the natural migration of students among the campuses and to community colleges and back to the universities. Vice President Richardson said Project ASSIST will track the students between the community colleges and the universities and the pilot stage is intended to be finished by June 2001. Funding is a question for the future and he believed it would be a great Innovation Fund project. It will take five or six years of data to know how to work on the problem.

Regent Gignac asked Provost Davis if the goal for 6a of the common measures on Page 10 was not too low for the UA since UA is a student-centered research institution. The UA goal is 80% and the other two institutions are at 90% for research-related or capstone experiences. Provost Davis said this is a case of how the question is asked and what the boundary conditions are is important. However, he agreed the percentage should be higher.

Regent Gignac said measures 9c and 9d on Page 12, look like the UA is going in the wrong direction. She said there should be an explanation of why that is happening. Provost Davis said the UA is maintaining the 120 hours for graduation and there is a higher graduation rate for new entering students. Regent Gignac said she believed ASU's goals on page 13, 10a1 and 10b1 were too low. Provost Glick agreed and said ASU would look at them again.

Upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board approved the proposed goals for Common Measures 5a and b, 6a, and 10a and b, and the proposed goals for Unique Measures 1a at ASU, and 2a and b at ASU and UA. The Board also approved the recommen-dation for the universities to return in June 2001 with a plan for consistent reporting on Outcome Measure 10c and recommendations for ensuring the UCAR measures are supportive of learner-centered education.

Authorization to Implement New Degree Programs and Other Organizational Changes: Women's Studies Program at NAU, Ph.D. in Public Affairs at ASU, Martin-Springer Institute for Teaching the Holocaust, Tolerance, and Humanitarian Values at NAU

Provost Glick and Haeger and Dr. Wickenden joined the meeting for this discussion. Provost Glick and Provost Haeger presented the changes requested at ASU and NAU. Upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board approved the requests to implement B.S. and B.A. degree programs in Women's Studies at NAU, to establish the Martin-Springer Institute for Teaching the Holocaust, Tolerance, and Humanitarian Values at NAU, and to rename the DPA as a Ph.D. in Public Affairs at ASU.

STRATEGIC PLANNING

President Elect McKay chaired this portion of the meeting. President Coor left the meeting.

Proposed Modification to the Northern Arizona University Master Plan (First Reading)

Dr. Mike Mullen, former Vice President for Administration at NAU, and Mr. David Cain joined the meeting for this discussion. President Lovett said a master planner was engaged in 1999 and found out the university did not have enough data to do a good update. Therefore, an inventory of all infrastructure was done. She said there was more time than usual taken with the campus community to discuss the proposed Plan as it had been ten years since the plan had been revised. There was also a lot of discussion with community groups and the community college. She said she may delay the second reading until May or June to allow time to provide the Board with more information about the process.

Dr. Mullen took the Board through the process of developing the proposed Master Plan. He said this plan is intended to integrate the mission statement, the strategic plan, and all the other planning processes on campus and provide a general road map as to where the campus should go to achieve the strategic goals. This Plan is a "quality of space" rather than a "growth" plan. It does not have a specific list of capital projects. Dr. Mullen summarized the proposed Plan.

Regent Palacios asked if solicited input showed people did not want the proposed new configuration of the campus and was told there were mixed reactions, but most people on campus agreed with the proposal. Dr. Mullen said there are parts of the Plan that various groups do not support. For example, the proposal to draw on outside funds to replace residence halls has not been accepted by the residence hall professional staff.

Regent Echeverria agreed some of the issues may be due to miscommunication or misunderstanding. She thanked President Lovett for her willingness to keep conversations going. President Elect McKay said she was involved with groups on and off campus as part of the presidential search, and she heard from many people who support the proposed Plan and do not want it just set aside. There is much ownership of the proposed Plan on campus.

Chemistry Building Expansion: Project Initiation (UA)

Mr. Valdez and Mr. Duffy joined the meeting for this discussion. President Elect McKay said the University of Arizona was requesting Project Initiation approval to construct a $45M, 93,300 sq.ft. building that is adjacent to the old chemistry building. Mr. Valdez said this department is now producing about 10% of all the Ph.D.'s graduating from the UA. Over ninety programs at the UA require chemistry. Regent Palacios asked if the space allocated for addition-al faculty was enough and was told there was an expectation faculty growth will be fairly flat.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board granted the request by the University of Arizona for Project Initiation to construct the Chemistry Building.

ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS

Approval for Leadership Characteristics for NAU Presidential Search

President Elect McKay said the Board was being asked to approve a statement of leadership characteristics to be used in the conduct of the Northern Arizona University presidential search. The NAU presidential search committee developed a set of leadership characteristics to describe the elements of leadership style, experience, and vision that will enable a new president to be successful. The leadership characteristics will be used to assess credentials of the presidential prospects. Faculty, staff, students, and community had the opportunity to review and provide input in a series of forums and meetings.

President Elect McKay said a proposed substitution to bullet number three on page three had been distributed to Regents. The new bullet would read, "An individual who recognizes the importance of external programs, such as the theater, arts, and athletics, to the students, the university, and the community and who will demonstrably support and build support for these types of programs." The revision is presented as the result of a suggestion by the search committee that came forward after the Board material had been distributed. Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Stuart, the Board approved the statement of "Leadership Characteristics" to be used in the conduct of the NAU presidential search process with the suggested change included.

	MINUTES

MINUTES

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS MINUTES OF A MEETING March 2, 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MINUTES OF A MEETING ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS March 2, 2001