 |
MINUTES |
 |
|
MINUTES |
|
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
MINUTES OF A MEETING
March 21-22, 2002
Table of Contents
STUDY SESSION: INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY
*Appointment to UMCC Board of Directors
*Appointment of Executive Vice President (NAU)
*Appointment of Vice President for Undergraduate Education (UA)
*Authorization to Sell a Portion of the Cowden Property to the Sara Lee Corporation
Recommendations From the Governor’s Task Force on Higher Education and the 76th Arizona Town Hall
Highland Commons: Project Approval (UA)
Mediated Classroom and Social Sciences Building: Project Approval (ASU)
Update on Third Special Session and Second Regular Session of the 45th Arizona Legislature
STUDY SESSION: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL (AFC)
Overview of ASU West’s Mission
Business Advisory Team Status Report
REPORT FROM THE BOARD’S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, REPORTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held March 21 and 22, 2002, in Classroom 282 of the Academic Complex at NAU Yuma, Yuma, Arizona. President Kay McKay called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m.
| PRESENT: | Regent Fred Boice |
| ABSENT: | Regent Robert Bulla |
Also present were: President John Haeger, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Dr. Susanna Maxwell, Dr. Sarah Bickell (Thursday only), and Dr. M. J. McMahon, Northern Arizona University; President Lattie Coor, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Charles Backus, Mr. Paul Ward (Thursday morning only), Mr. Steve Miller, Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Dr. Elaine Maimon (Friday only), Dr. Mernoy Harrison, and Dr. Gary Krahenbuhl, Arizona State University; President Peter Likins, Dr. George Davis, Mr. Joel Valdez, and Ms. Judith Leonard (Thursday morning only), University of Arizona; Executive Director Linda Blessing, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, Mr. Matt Ortega, Ms. Tonya Drake, Ms. Norma Salas, Ms. Louise Houseworth (Thursday only), Mr. Dave Harris, Ms. Stephanie Jacobson, and Ms. Kathy Bedard (Thursday only), Central Office Staff; and Dr. Wanda Howell (Thursday) and Dr. Andrew Jackson (Friday), Arizona Faculties Council.
President McKay introduced Dr. Wanda Howell from the University of Arizona Nutritional Sciences Department. She was representing the Arizona Faculties Council on Thursday in place of Dr. Andrew Jackson. President McKay led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting. He opened the study session by saying that the Board has been studying the issue of intercollegiate athletics more closely after the release of the Knight Commission report last summer, but this topic has been reviewed by the Board over the years. The Association of Governing Boards has placed Intercollegiate Athletics on its top ten public policy issues list for the year 2001/2002, demonstrating this is one of the most important issues that higher education governing boards will address. Last fall, President McKay formed a subcommittee consisting of Regent Don Ulrich, Chris Herstam and himself, and they have been meeting on several occasions with university presidents, faculty representatives, athletic directors and the key leaders within the athletic departments at the three universities. The initial goals established last fall by the subcommittee included both academic and fiscal reform. The subcommittee will continue to work on these goals in the upcoming months and in April will convene the workgroup to look at how academic progress is measured.
Regent Jewett explained that today’s study session would cover three topics: academic services provided to student-athletes, the role of the faculty athletic representative, and reforms that are occurring on the national level at the NCAA.
Athletic Director Steve Holton, Assistant Athletic Director Kelly Lloyd, and Associate Provost Ron Pitt, presented an overview of the student-athlete academic services for NAU. Mr. Holton explained that all three universities have recently completed their NCAA certification and this required the athletic departments to compare their mission statements with those of the universities. Mr. Holton presented a background of typical programs within the Big Sky Conference and an overview of the requirements of the Conference. He presented statistics that compared the average NAU student-athlete to the student body, showing student-athletes graduate at a higher rate than the rest of the student body. Dr. Pitt described the university services provided to all students as student athletes receive the same services as the rest of the student body. The admission of student-athletes is conducted in the same mannerr; however, student-athletes do self-identify themselves on their application.
Ms. Lloyd explained the cooperative services offered to students. Specialized groupings are offered in EPS 101 (Career and Personal Development) and for student-athletes including regulations that pertain to them, such as academic eligibility requirements set by the NCAA. ProActive Mentoring is a program that has been going on for six years, where all first year student athletes are matched with an academic mentor. This focuses on academic transition. Action plans are created for students receiving a ‘D’ or ‘F’ in a class. She explained that all three universities have the CHAMPS LifeSkills Program because it is required by the NCAA. The purpose of the program is to develop a well-rounded student and it focuses on academic, athletic and personal goals. There were areas of the ICA program that they would like to improve and these include the enhancement of career planning which is done through the university. They would also like to continue to improve the requirement of 15-hour enrollment per semester for student-athletes to keep them on track for graduating.
For ASU, Athletic Director Gene Smith and Assistant Director Sandy Hatfield-Clubb presented an over-view of student-athlete academic services. Mr. Smith said the mission of the Athletic Department was aligned with that of the university. Ms. Hatfield-Clubb explained academic advising, which is done within the individual colleges, and the complexity of the eligibility requirements established by the NCAA. She told Board members there are very positive trends occurring within student-athlete academic performance. The largest transition is for the average freshman football player who is learning what it means to be a college student. For the previous three years, the average incoming GPA for those football players was 1.66, finishing an average of 11 hours. For Fall 2001, they had a GPA of 2.54, finishing 14 hours, so there has been a large improvement. She presented four recommendations for improvement including the Academic Coaching Model, increasing the use of university tutorial services, completing development and implementation of structured study hall and FYE tutorial program, and installing an on-line tracking system for monitoring study hall.
UofA Vice President of Undergraduate Education Dr. Randall Richardson and Associate Director of Athletics Rocky LaRose gave an overview of the UA services. They explained the various academic services available to all students and those specific to student-athletes. The persistence graduation rate, when taking out the student-athletes who left in good standing, leaves an overall graduation rate of 90%. This measure shows that four students had left the university for academic reasons during that year. Recommendations for improvement included increasing the integration of student-athletes into the University’s orientation for all students, exploring and implementing integration of ICA’s and the University’s tutorial services, strengthening the ICA’s Learning Strategies Program and enlarging the remodeling of the CATS Academic Services area.
President Coor said the information presented today was important in understanding how the student-athletes were persisting, rather than relying on a single measure. This is part of the larger discussion taking place nationally. Regent Ulrich noted there might be opportunities to integrate with other programs, such as learner-centered education as a component of the tutorials, and said athletics might be an opportunity to use electronic portfolios. Regents noted that student-athletes graduate and persist at better rates than the general student body.
Regent Palacios asked whether the universities have put a dollar value on what is spent on athletes versus non-athletes and the response was that this has not yet been done. She asked if there were other special groups that get services like the athletes and was told disabled students. She said she would like to see the athletes more integrated into the general student population. President Likins expressed his hope that the Board would receive a more regular update from the athletic departments, similar to what they had seen today, on how student-athletes are performing academically and how the athletic departments are progressing towards their goals so Regents would have a continuing awareness of how the student-athletes are doing.
President Likins emphasized that the athletic department generates its own resources to provide the additional services described today. He said disabled students also pay a premium to be involved with the SALT program. Regent Stewart commented that student-athletes have less time to devote to their studies and he is more optimistic about their success after hearing the presentations from the universities today.
The role of the Faculty Athletic Representative (FAR) was described by Dr. Jerry Kingston (ASU). Dr. Doug Woodard (UA), and Dr. Wayne Sjoberg (NAU) were present to answer questions. Dr. Kingston explained the major role of the FAR is to be aware of the NCAA rules on academic eligibility and be responsible for understanding the eligibility rules and overseeing the academic eligibility certification. They facilitate the academic experience of the student-athletes on campus and provide oversight to the athletic program. Regent Jewett asked whether proposed changes to NCAA compliance rules would significantly increase the workload of the FAR and Mr. Woodard said it would not.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Holton joined Dr. Woodard for the presentation on the NCAA reforms currently taking place. Dr. Woodard described the recommendations that were developed by the Academic Consultants of the NCAA which were brought to the Academic Eligibility Compliance Cabinet in February and will go to the Management Council in April. The NCAA Board of Directors will vote on the recommendations next October. The recommendations include establishing continuing-eligibility requirements to insure student-athletes complete at least 120 credit hours after five academic years with a corresponding grade-point average that satisfies institutional graduation requirements, requiring student-athletes to complete a minimum of 24 semester hours before the start of their second year with a minimum cumulative GPA that is at least 90% of the institution’s overall grade-point average required to graduate, and renaming continuing-eligibility requirements to “progress-toward-graduation” requirements to reflect the emphasis on graduation.
Regent Ulrich said he was concerned about learning outcomes as he doesn’t want athletes who don’t achieve. He asked the universities to look internally for ways to measure how student athletes meet learning outcomes. Regent Jewett asked whether it would be helpful for the Board to send a letter to the NCAA in support of these reforms. Board members agreed that this would be an appropriate action and staff was asked to draft a letter.
The meeting recessed at 11:45 a.m. and reconvened at 1:25 p.m.
Michael Johnson - NAU Student Body President, said he appreciated the work the Regents had done on behalf of the universities in the budget process. He said the student government was trying to raise awareness among the students about the budget problems the state is suffering. He told the Regents about the events held on the NAU Mountain Campus.
President Haeger welcomed the Regents to NAU Yuma. He said the partnership with Arizona Western College and NAU Yuma represents a working model that is an efficient use of taxpayer money. The University of Arizona also has a partnership with Arizona Western College.
Dr. Haeger introduced Dr. Nick Lund, Executive Director of NAU Yuma, who told the Board about the partnerships in the area that extend beyond higher education. He said the campus is composed of 640 acres that include Arizona Western College, NAU Yuma, a middle school, two elementary schools, and land set aside for a high school. Dr. Lund explained the sharing of resources on the campus and described the diversity of the student body. He explained the centralization of transportation services, including the maintenance and purchasing. He told about community collaboration, such as the nursing program.
President McKay announced that Item 12, Authority to Form the Southern Arizona Capital Facilities Finance Corporation, had been withdrawn from the Agenda at the request of the University of Arizona and will not be considered at this meeting.
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 Robinson. There was no individual discussion of these items.
The Board approved the November 12, 2001, Special Executive Session, November 29, 2001, Executive Session, and the January 31 and February 1, 2002, Regular Meeting minutes.
The Board authorized Northern Arizona University to promote Dr. Paul Keim, Cowden Professor of Biological Sciences, to the rank of Regents’ Professor, effective July 1, 2002, and to award the $5,000 salary increase that customarily accompanies these appointments.
The Board approved the proposed revisions to Board Policy 6-901, “Performance Based Incentives,” relating to performance based salary incentive programs to incorporate recent changes in statute and to provide additional flexibility for the universities in developing such programs.
In accordance with A.R.S. § 15-1637 (K), appointments to the University Medical Center Corporation (UMCC) Board and changes in the UMCC Bylaws must be approved by ABOR. The UMCC Board of Directors is asking for Dr. Raymond L. Woosley, Vice President for Health Sciences, to be appointed to the UMCC Board of Directors as an ex-officio member to replace Dr. James E. Dalen. The UMCC Board of Directors reappointed to membership, pending ABOR approval, the following people: Ms. Katie N. Dusenberry, Ms. Judy Gignac, and Dr. Jamie Matanovich.
Historically, ABOR has appointed a sitting Regent to serve on the UMCC Board of Directors. Most recently, Regent Gignac served as a member of the UMCC Board as a Regents’ representative, but she is no longer a member of ABOR. Regent Boice accepted President McKay’s invitation to become the ABOR representative.
The Board appointed Dr. Raymond l. Woosley as ex-officio (for the term of his appointment as Vice President for Health Sciences), Ms. Katie N. Dusenberry, Ms. Judy Gignac, and Dr. Jamie Matanovich (for terms expiring October 2005), and Mr. Fred Boice (for term expiring March 31, 2006) to the Board of Directors for UMCC.
The Board approved the appointment of Dr. M. J. McMahon as Executive Vice President in the Office of the President at Northern Arizona University and Professor of Educational Leadership with tenure, effective on or about March 11, 2002.
The Board approved the appointment of Dr. Randall M. Richardson as Vice President for Undergraduate Education at the University of Arizona, effective March 18, 2002.
The Board approved the sale to Sara Lee Corporation, in substantial accordance with the terms and conditions described below, of approximately 38.5 acres in the southwest section of the former Cowden Estate Property located in Tolleson, Arizona, at a purchase price of approximately $1.8M ($1.65 per square foot for the usable portion of the property). The property consists of 25.01 net usable acres and a drainage area of 13.5 acres. The Board also authorized the execution of all legal documents by the Board’s President, Secretary, or Executive Director, subject to review of all documents by Board Counsel.
An appraisal of the subject property has been ordered, but the proposed price of the parcel is expected to exceed the appraised value. The sale will only be finalized if the appraisal reflects a value consistent with the sales price and if Sara Lee Corporation is the highest responsive bidder.
The basic terms are summarized as a cash transaction with a purchase price of $1,797,856, with $50,000 as earnest money to be deposited in escrow upon opening of the escrow and $50,000 as an addition to the earnest money to be deposited in escrow upon expiration of a 60-day Feasibility Period. ABOR shall complete and pay for improvements to 107th Avenue as required by the City of Tolleson. The Board’s share of the net proceeds will be approximately $692,174. The proposed sale has been approved by the co-beneficiaries, who await board action in order to consummate the transaction.
In 1996 a Regents Award for Outstanding Service to Higher Education was established by the Arizona Board of Regents to provide special recognition for Arizona citizens and/or organizations that provide exceptional services to higher education in Arizona. Current and former Regents were asked to contribute to a fund to cover the cost of designing, sculpting, and casting a suitable art object to present to recipients. Any current or former Regent may nominate an individual or organization to receive an Award.
The Board approved the recommendation of the 2002 Regents Award Selection Committee that Bennett and Jacquie Dorrance and Jerry Colangelo be presented with the 2002 Regents Awards. A dinner event will be scheduled in conjunction with the April 2002 Board meeting in Flagstaff.
Regent Stuart chaired this portion of the meeting.
Provosts Milt Glick from ASU, Susanna Maxwell from NAU, and George Davis from the UA, and Dr. Tom Wickenden joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart reminded the Regents there was a study session on financial aid at the January meeting during which the Board discussed the need to increase management flexibility for the universities and oversight and accountability for the Board. The proposed changes are intended to accomplish these goals.
Dr. Wickenden highlighted the proposed changes in terms of the objectives they are intended to implement. The first objective is to broaden the Board’s policy guidelines for awarding aid to resident undergraduates for demonstrated need and merit. The proposed change is to add new guidelines to the preamble of the policy on financial aid, Section 4-300, so at least 50% of the gift aid awarded would be awarded for demonstrated need, and at least 30% would be awarded for merit. The new guidelines would apply to all four of the major institutional aid programs, two of which are waiver programs and two of which are cash grant programs.
To strengthen Board oversight of the amounts and distribution of financial aid resources, the proposed change is to add to the preamble new requirements for annual budget plans in the expenditure reports which would describe the total value of institutional gift aid, the total and net value of tuition revenues, and the distribution of those financial aid resources.
Another proposed change specifies that the Board would review and approve the total value of waivers and cash awards while allowing the universities flexibility in determining the specific number of awards. This allows the universities to award partial waivers as well as full waivers as long as they do not exceed the total value approved by the Board as part of the budget process.
Management flexibility would be further enhanced by eliminating the old policy guidelines and the enrollment driven formulas which determined the allocation of aid in separate waiver programs. This is done through the merger of the two policies on resident and non-resident waivers into one policy headed, “Tuition Waivers.”
The last substantive recommendation in the policy changes is to redefine the tuition obligation of graduate assistants and associates. This can be done by adding graduate assistants to the categories of students in the policy on residency status, 4-203. These are students who are classified as residents. The proposed recommendations include repealing the old waiver policy for graduate assistants which is 4-407.
The proposed recommendations include repealing the sections on the Arizona Teacher Loan Forgiveness Incentive Program, the Arizona Student Incentive Grant Program, and the Paul Douglas Teacher Scholarship Program as they were delegated to the Arizona Commission on Post Secondary Education.
Regent Ulrich thanked everyone for their work on this issue and stated he believed these policies would greatly help both the universities and the Regents.
Dr. Wickenden and Provosts Glick, Davis, and Maxwell joined the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Wickenden said the proposed revision describes the new two-step process through which the Board can approve requests for tuition ranges for selective graduate professional programs. If the Board allows the first reading to go forward, a second reading will be brought to the Board for adoption at the April meeting and the policy will be implemented for the first time at the meeting. The Board will receive requests to set a range of possible tuition rates for certain professional graduate programs. These requests will include information about the market for these programs, for example: students’ ability to pay, program costs, and the prices being charged by peers for competing programs.
On the basis of this information and the feedback the Board may receive at the public tuition hearing, the Board will be asked to approve a tuition range with an upper limit. If the Board approves the requested ranges, at the April meeting and at any time during the next three years, the Board may be asked to approve specific tuition rates for these programs. It is believed this process will allow the Board to continue to exercise its responsibility to set tuition, it will allow the universities to be more responsive to the market for these particular programs, and it will allow compliance to the statutory requirements for prior disclosure and public hearings for proposed tuition rate increases.
Regent Molera asked the universities to take into consideration the earning power of a graduate degree when they are considering setting higher tuition or fees. For example, a business graduate probably has higher earning expectations than a teacher would.
Dr. Wickenden and Provosts Maxwell, Glick, and Davis joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart reminded the Regents the Auditor General conducted a routine sunset review of the Board last year. One of the findings was there should be a systematic review of all the recommendations from the Governor’s Task Force on Higher Education and the 76th Arizona Town Hall, which also focused on Higher Education.
Dr. Wickenden led the Board through the tables which summarized the recommendations of the Year 2000 Governor’s Task Force on Higher Education and the 76th Arizona Town Hall. Regent Boice asked that this come back to the Board next year so the Regents can continue to monitor what is happening with these recommendations. Regent Ulrich suggested the information be categorized in headings such as economic development issues, required legislative action issues, work force development issues, with a description of the funding source for each. He would also like to know what items need funding and what items already have funding.
Regent Stuart moved the Board accept the status report with a request a new status report be brought back in one year with additional categorization. The motion was seconded by Regent Boice and passed by voice vote. Regent Ulrich requested this status report be sent to members of the Governor’s Task Force on Higher Education.
Provosts Charles Backus and George Davis joined the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Backus explained the B.A./B.S. degree programs in Human Health Studies and said the it is an academic program rather than a practitioner program. Dr. Davis explained the B. S. in Engineering Management. Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Molera, the Board authorized the implementation of two new degree programs, the B.A./B.S. in Human Health Studies at ASU East and the B.S. in Engineering Management at the University of Arizona, as requested.
Regent Stuart chaired this portion of the meeting as Regent Herstam was not able to attend this meeting.
Mr. Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. He said the proposed revisions would add the following requirements and definitions to Board Policy: Any capital project proposed to be funded with debt may not increase the university’s Debt Ratio to more than ten per cent for any year for the upcoming five years; The final maturity of any capital financing undertaken by a university will not exceed the estimated useful life of the capital asset being acquired or constructed; In requesting authority for capital debt, each university shall provide written justification for the requested debt instrument that will include the assumptions made for the source of resources for the repayment of the debt, and the fiscal impact. The definition of Debt Ratio: The numerator of the Debt Ratio shall include all capital debt payments for a fiscal year and the denominator shall be compris-ed of all unrestricted current expenditures and mandatory transfers.
Regent Ulrich asked for information concerning debt ratios and remaining bonding authorization. He was told the debt ratios are presented three times a year and whenever there is a request for debt authorization. The remaining bonding authorization is presented whenever there is a request for capital projects.
Mr. Valdez and Mr. Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said this 6/10 of an acre is a remnant parcel owned by ADOT which was used for freeway construction. The parcel is adjacent to the Cotton Center property and is proposed to be sold along with the balance of the Cotton Center land presently available for sale with the proceeds to be deposited in the Agriculture Endowment. The State of Arizona initiated the sales request. The source of funds is the Agriculture Endowment.
Upon motion of Regent Ulrich, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to purchase property outside the official University Planning Area located adjacent to the former Cotton Research Center property, in Phoenix, Arizona, from the Arizona Department of Transportation at the sales price of $207,500, subject to approval of legal documents by University and Board Counsel.
Mr. Valdez and Mr. Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said the University of Arizona was requesting Project Approval for the 85,500 square foot Highland Commons Project at an estimated cost of $19.1M. The project was proposed to be financed with Certificates of Participation ($17.6M), with debt service being provided from tuition and auxiliary revenues and from Campus Health Fund balances ($1.5M).
Regent Ulrich asked if this was a replacement project and was told this would consolidate services that were scattered all over the campus. Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board granted Project Approval to the University of Arizona for the Highland Commons Project.
Mr. Harris and Mr. Valdez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said the University of Arizona was requesting Project Approval for the 750 bed Highland District Housing Project at an estimated cost of $39.7M. The project is proposed to be financed with Certificates of Participation with debt service being provided form auxiliary housing revenues. Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board granted Project Approval to the University of Arizona for the Highland District Housing Project.
Mr. Harris and Mr. Valdez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said the University of Arizona was requesting authority to sell $62.7M in COPs in order to finance the construction of the Highland District Housing Project, the Highland Commons Project, and the UA North Project, and an additional amount necessary to pay the costs of issuance. The sources of funds to retire this debt include Residence Life Auxiliary Funds, Campus Health Auxiliary Funds, Tuition Revenues, and State Appropriations.
There was a discussion concerning paperwork reminding the Regents why a project is being brought forward. Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to (1) Sell one or more series of Certificates of Participation to produce sufficient proceeds to finance not exceeding $62.7M for the acquisition, construction, and improvement budgets for the Highland District Housing Project, the Highland Commons Project, and the UA North Project; and (2) To pay costs of issuance of the COPs, and to take related actions and to enter into all necessary agreements, as provided in a resolution approved by Board Counsel and staff.
Dr. Harrison and Mr. Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said Arizona State University was requesting Project Approval for the 269,150 square foot Mediated Classroom and Social Sciences Building at an estimated cost of $58.7M. At the March 2001 meeting, the Board granted this project Revised Project Approval with an increase in square footage and budget in order to accommodate the relocation of all Social Sciences programs from the existing Social Sciences building which has developed structural defects and is slated for demolition. Regent Ulrich asked if demolition costs were included in this request and was told the university hopes to fund the demolition from insurance proceeds. Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board granted Project Approval for the Mediated Classroom and Social Sciences Building.
Dr. Harrison and Mr. Harris joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart said Arizona State University was requesting approval to sell System Revenue Bonds in the amount of $85M to finance the construction of the Mediated Classroom and Social Sciences Building, various Infrastructure Improvements, and a new Parking Structure and in an additional amount necessary to pay the costs of issuance. The source of funds necessary to pay the estimated $6.3M debt service on these Bonds include tuition ($5.5M) and $800,000 in annual auxiliary parking revenues.
Regent Ulrich asked if this project had been approved by the City of Tempe and was told it was going to the City for approval the following Thursday. Upon motion of Regent Ulrich, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board authorized Arizona State University to (1) Sell one or more series of bonds, not exceeding $85M principal amount, for the purpose of financing the projects previously described; (2) Pay the costs of issuance of the bonds; and (3) Take all actions, and enter into all necessary agreements, related to the bonds, as provided in a resolution approved by Board Counsel and staff.
The meeting recessed at 3:04 p.m. and reconvened at 3:29 p.m. President McKay introduced Dr. Randall Richardson, the new Vice President for Undergraduate Education at the University of Arizona, and Dr. M. J. McMahon, the new Executive Vice President at Northern Arizona University.
Regent Palacios chaired this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Ortega and Ms. Houseworth joined the meeting for this discussion. Mr. Ortega explained the special session budget bill that had been signed by the Governor. He said the universities would lose an additional quarter point which would amount to a little under $2M. There will be an across-the-board compensation package of approximately $1450 per FTE, effective June 8. The portion of the bill that would have eliminated 50% of vacancy savings was line-item vetoed by the Governor.
Because the Board had directed the universities and the Central Office to distribute salary increases based on earlier recommendations, it is now necessary to amend the direction to align with the budget passed by the legislature. Regent Palacios moved that the Board authorize the universities and the Central Office to distribute the June 8, 2002 salary adjustments in the amount of $1,450 per year for each full time employee, prorated for less than full time employees. The motion was seconded by Regent Stuart and passed by voice vote.
Mr. Ortega reported there are two bills with possible negative impacts on the university system because they are unfunded mandates–two nursing expansion bills.
Mr. Ortega joined the meeting for this discussion. He said two new sections had been added to the Web Site, For the Parents and For the Faculty. He thanked Ms. Norma Salas, Ms. Carolyn Bennett, and Ms. Jennifer Hirman for their assistance.
The meeting recessed at 3:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:47 a.m. on Friday, March 22. President McKay led the Pledge of Allegiance. She noted Dr. Andrew Jackson was now representing the Arizona Faculties Council.
Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting. Regent Jewett said a team had been established, called the Arizona Regents Information Technology Team (ARITT), to address the issue of strengthening the Board’s oversight of information technology projects as suggested in the Auditor General Sunset Review Report.
Regent Jewett introduced ASU Head of Media Development Jeremy Rowe, UA Senior Vice President and Provost George Davis, UA Vice Provost Sally Jackson, UA Executive Director of Central Computing and Information Technology Pete Perona, NAU Interim
Provost Susanna Maxwell, NAU Chief Information Technical Officer Fred Estrella, ASU Senior Vice President and Provost Milt Glick, and ASU Vice Provost Bill Lewis.
Dr. Rowe gave a presentation intended to help provide the Board with some insight and understanding about the role information technology (IT) plays within the universities. Each university offers and supports a significant range and scope of services, much broader and more complex than in business systems or state government. Systems are extremely distributed, requiring significant planning and coordination to develop and implement central information technology programs and services to address specialized needs of students, instructors, researchers, and business units as well as community users. IT related resources and services evolve differently at different institutions and range from a core service provided by the central IT unit to customized services offered by an academic department or business unit. Training and support are universal needs and at successful institutions are both offered at central and distributed levels.
In the days of the single large mainframe computer, IT investments were easy to analyze. Now the IT expenditures are widely distributed throughout the university and are very difficult to determine accurately. Based on current estimates, IT expenses at the three Arizona universities range from 6% to just under 9% of the overall university budgets. The Central IT portion of the university budgets accounts for only about ⅓ to ½ of the overall university IT expenditures. The universities are currently working on models to better identify IT expenditures throughout the universities.
All of the university IT services rely on a reliable, secure, telecommunication and network infrastructure that consists of telephone, local area computer networks, wide area computer/data networks, internet access (commodity and internet 2), video conferencing, and instructional television fixed services.
The key issues related to planning and maintaining the critical network infrastructure include maintaining reliable services to support instruction, research, business services, and outreach, accommodating exponential growth in demand, balancing access with privacy and security, planning for convergence of voice, data, and video, managing distributed services and resources, and accommodating increasing costs such as for software licenses and network connectivity.
As a conceptual model to better help the Regents understand IT at the three universities, Dr. Rowe described Academic and Administrative computing services. IT resources that are maintained in individual colleges and departments vary considerably and cannot be completely standardized, other than at the level of common architecture for network connectivity and desktop equipment.
Reliable communication between university resources and student computers is essential for academic computing. Also critically important is communication support, tools for instructional management, and tools for collaboration.
Each of the three universities has central IT organizations with substantial shared resources including hardware, software, technical support, user support, and other IT infrastructure. Although the central organizations do not directly control the resources of the colleges and departments, they provide direct and indirect support such as bulk purchase, standards, technical consulting, and expert leadership in technology budgeting.
All universities today have some centralized instructional support tools, including “Course Management Systems,” which function both as utilities for classroom teachers and as virtual classrooms for distance or online instruction, and portals to university related programs and services. These tools support online resources for thousands of classes yearly, but the actual content of the courses is often developed in the academic departments, making instructional computing a joint responsibility of the central IT organizations and the academic units. In addition, students and faculty typically need IT contributions from other organizations on campus, such as the bookstore, the library, and academic advising.
Administrative computing systems are developed in response to the needs of university business units. The goal is to make these services efficient and effective, secure and resilient, and recoverable. The three primary categories of academic computing services offered at each university are financial system (FR), human resources system (HR), and student information systems (SIS). Each administrative system is extremely long lived and complex. Many departments and business units also operate their own specialized administrative systems. Increasingly, the central and distributed systems interact with a common, shared data warehouse over university networks.
Differences in hardware, which exist not just from school to school, but from system to system at the same school, were presented. The life cycle of administrative systems averages fifteen years for systems currently in service. Differences between the systems are influenced by a number of factors which include changes in technology, vendors, product offerings, resources available, leadership, and opportunities such as ARU.
The three universities work together to plan and implement administrative systems and services and coordinate efforts through sharing software, data, challenges and opportunities such as identifiers and security, vendors and contracts, ideas such as strategic planning and disaster planning, and resources such as disaster recovery.
Universities compete for students and the quality and ease of use of IT services are important factors for students and parents who are comparing colleges. The challenge is how to fit the pieces together in an efficient and effective way for each service at each campus and how to coordinate services among the three institutions. Vendors, ever-changing technology standards, reliable round-the-clock access, and the increasingly distributed technology environment make meeting these challenges increasingly more complex.
Dr. Rowe said IT activities must be coordinated at the highest levels of the university to make IT function properly on each campus. University administration and the campus IT leadership must establish priorities which balance user needs with budget and resource realities to effectively plan, coordinate, manage, and support IT resources and services. The goal is to provide seamless, reliable, secure but accessible IT services to current and prospective students, staff, faculty, and the community. Regent Stuart said he believed at least e-mail should be compatible among the universities.
There was a discussion of how having different systems would impact the Arizona Regents’ University (ARU) and how it will work with different systems. There was a discussion of wireless transmissions and how it may change in the future. Regent Ulrich asked for the Regents to be kept up-to-date on the progress of wireless transmission.
Regent Palacios asked for a matrix characterizing the approval process. She understood it would not be the same for every piece of software and equipment and probably varies among administration, faculty, and type of user. She also asked if the dollars spent were being captured and was told the universities are trying to improve the property tracking system. They are also trying to develop something that would be similar to what state agencies are doing. It is not hard to track dollars spent in the central IT area; it is hard to track dollars that are used throughout the university as many times they are shared among projects and people.
Regent Jewett thanked everyone for the presentation and said the Regents would look forward to hearing recommendations from the group on the fall.
The meeting recessed at 11:00 a.m. and reconvened at 12:03 p.m.
Dr. Andrew Jackson thanked the Board of Regents for its support of learner-centered education through the Proposition 301 Innovation Fund grants. He especially thanked Ms. Stephanie Jacobson from the Central Office and Dr. Doug Johnson, former president of the ASU Academic Senate, for their help in identifying and training the evaluation teams. He also thanked Dr. Tom Wickenden and the Chief Academic Officers for establishing a presence for the AFC on the Chief Academic Officers conference call which occurs monthly. It is anticipated the AFC President Elect will be the representative to that group.
Dr. Jackson reported the AFC stands ready to support the Board in working with the legislature and other groups to identify and implement sustainable long-term funding solutions for higher education in Arizona.
Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting.
Dr. Elaine Maimon, Dr. Gary Krahenbuhl, and Dr. Art Ashton joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said the Board, in January, approved an ASU West request to proceed with an RFP to identify a private developer and to enter into negotiations to design, finance, construct, and manage a 300 bed residential facility. At that meeting, questions were raised about how this facility would be consistent with ASU West’s mission. This agenda item addresses those and other questions asked by Board members. In addition, he said he understood ASU West would be revising its master plan in 2003 to reflect projected enrollment growth and changes needed as a result of adding lower division programs.
President Coor reported on the enrollment growth at ASU and how ASU hopes to encourage some students to attend ASU West. Dr. Krahenbuhl told the Regents about the principle involved, the perception involved, and the practical aspects of the current direction of ASU West. President McKay congratulated Provost Maimon on being named Outstanding Community Woman by the YWCA. Dr. Maimon talked about changes at ASU West during the past six years.
Regent Jewett asked if some of the expansion reserve listed on the map was for additional residential facilities and was told the reserved section is still in the planning stage. Regent Boice said he favored planning as opposed to evolution. Regent Palacios said she, too, favored planning. She also said she believed the rationale given when the Regents authorized the four-year program at ASU West was that people wanted their children to be able to go to ASU West and remain at home. Now it appears those same people are saying they would like residence halls and she believes that is a bit of a disconnect. Regent Palacios also asked if the costs listed would come from the state and was told they would come from auxiliary revenues; it is expected the residence halls will pay for themselves. Regent Stuart said there would be questions raised as to whether there is a need for two residential campuses in the Maricopa area and that ASU West should be complimentary to ASU Main, not competitive.
Regent Ulrich said he believed there were more issues involved than just adding a residence hall to ASU West and he did not believe enough time had evolved since ASU West had become a four-year institution to understand all the ramifications. He said he was not opposed to the project, but suggested it might be premature.
Art Ashton joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said one of the items on the Board’s Action Plan is to organize what is being called a Business Advisory Team (BAT) to address the evaluation of Proposition 301 Initiatives and several other items. A meeting was held, consisting of himself and Regent Ulrich as Co-chairs, along with Regent Boice, Executive Director Blessing, and staff to examine the possible tasks for the Team.
The initial tasks could include reviewing plans and providing recommendations to the Regents on a process for independent evaluation of the Proposition 301-funded programs supported through the Regents’ Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF); reviewing plans and providing advice to the Regents’ Learner-Centered Education Team on its review of the universities’ general education programs, especially with respect to the contribution of these programs to workforce preparation; and reviewing plans and providing advice to the Regents on the development of a regular survey to assess employer satisfaction with the preparation of university graduates for the Arizona Workforce. He said a meeting with the BAT would be scheduled, perhaps as early as May.
The presidents explained the long-term importance of the proposed Arizona Bioscience and Biomedicine Institute (ABBI) to Arizona and the universities; the circumstances that make the securing of ABBI a possibility; and what should be done to bring ABBI to Arizona. Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board stated it strongly supports the effort being led by Governor Hull to bring Dr. Jeffrey Trent and the International Genomics Consortium to Arizona and in so doing, pledges the collective support of the three Arizona public universities to the creation of the Arizona Bioscience and Biomedical Institutes as presently envisioned.
Dr. Art Ashton joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said this item was a status report on the Action Plan objectives for FY2002 that the Board adopted at its August 2001 retreat. He suggested the ABBI initiative be added to this plan. Regent Ulrich said he did not want to leave the impression the universities do not do planning. There is a lot of planning; there is not always money to implement the planning. The 301 money has allowed some planning to be implemented.
Regent Stuart reported the Arizona Learning System was disestablished at the last meeting of the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges (SBDCC). There were a variety of reasons, including technical problems, but one of the issues was the lack of cooperation among the community colleges concerning a distance learning model. Ways of involving community colleges with ARU were discussed.
President McKay introduced Ted Christensen, the new Associate Executive Director for Arizona Regents University in the Central Office.
Regents and members of the Council of Presidents thanked President Haeger, Dr. Lund, and Ms. Patty Vandenheuvel for their work in hosting the meeting. Regent Palacios thanked the Provosts for meeting with her to explain some issues she had raised.
The meeting adjourned at 1:40 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
____________________________
Judy E. Garza
Secretary to the BoardAPPROVED BY:
______________________________
Kay J. McKay
President
ATTEST:
_______________________
Gary Stuart
Secretary