 |
MINUTES |
 |
|
MINUTES |
|
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
MINUTES OF A MEETING
March 20 and 21, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT FROM THE HOST
PRESIDENT (NAU)
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
REPORT FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
<<<=>>>
A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held on March 20 and 21, 1997, in
the Havasupai Room in the University Union at Northern Arizona University in
Flagstaff, Arizona. President Munger called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Regent George H. Amos, III
Regent Eddie Basha (Thursday Only)
Regent Rudy Campbell
Regent Kurt Davis
Regent Judy Gignac
Regent John Munger
Regent Jonathan Schmitt
Regent Donald Ulrich (Thursday Only)
ABSENT: Regent Arthur Chapa
Regent Fife Symington
Regent Lisa Graham Keegan
Also present were: President Clara Lovett, Dr. Jeanette
Baker, Dr. Charles Connell, Ms. Sharon Marmaduke, and Mr. Norman Hintz, Northern
Arizona University; President Manuel Pacheco, Mr. Joel Valdez (Thursday
Only), Dr. Saundra Taylor, Mr. Richard Roberts, Dr. Randy Groth, Dr.
Celestino Fernandez (Friday Only), and Dr. Michael Cusanovich, University of
Arizona; President Lattie Coor, Dr. Milton Glick, Mr. Allan Price, Dr. Charles
Bantz, Mr. Jennus Burton (Thursday Only ), and Dr. Elaine Maimon, Arizona State
University; Executive Director Frank Besnette, Board Counsel Joel Sideman,
Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Mary McKeown, Dr. Thomas Wickenden,
Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda, and Ms. Norma Salas, Central Office; and Dr. John
Schwarz, Chair of Arizona Faculties Council.
All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents
referred to in these minutes can be found in the March 20 and 21, 1997,
Documents File.
Regent Schmitt led the pledge of allegiance.
President Munger announced President Pacheco plans to start his new job as
President of the University of Missouri System. He has indicated his willingness
to stay at the University of Arizona through July.
President Munger congratulated Northern Arizona University's mens basketball
team for their outstanding season. He also congratulated the University of
Arizona men's basketball team for its appearance in the "Sweet
Sixteen" of the NCAA basketball tournament. Regent Schmitt congratulated
the UofA women's basketball team for its first ever appearance in the NCAA
basketball tournament. President Lovett announced the NAU women's basketball
team also had its best season ever.
CALL TO THE AUDIENCE
Kathy Farretta, candidate for a Master's degree in history at NAU, spoke
on behalf of the NAU Ph.D. in history program that is currently under review.
Kristin Mann, a doctoral student in the NAU history program, also spoke
in support of the program.
Jennifer Denetdale, an NAU history Ph.D. student working on her
dissertation, also spoke in support of the NAU doctoral program in history.
Dr. Larry Gould, NAU Faculty Senate, gave a faculty response to an
article that appeared in the "Arizona Republic." He complained the
paper is reporting on problems that happened several years ago that have already
been solved.
CONSENT AGENDA
President Munger announced that Items 22, Major in Biomedical Engineering, and
23, Regents Professors, had been removed from the Consent Agenda to be discussed
during the regular agenda. The remaining items on the Consent Agenda, which are
marked in these minutes with an *, were considered as consent matters and were
adopted unanimously upon motion of Regent Basha, seconded by Regent Campbell.
There was no individual discussion of these items.
*Minutes
The Board approved the January 14, 1997, Executive Session and the February 13,
1997, Regular Meeting minutes.
Resources Committee
*Construction Projects Over $1M: Semi-Annual Report
The Board received a written report on construction projects in progress with a
total project cost of $1M or more. Arizona State University reported two
projects in progress: the Cancer Research Institute is in design and the
collection of gifts to fund the construction is ongoing, and the Department of
Public Safety Complex is under construction and has an estimated completion date
of July 1997. Northern Arizona University reports five projects in progress: the
Biology/Biochemistry facility and the Replacement Building have conceptual
approval; Eastburn Renovation and the Liberal Arts/Physical Sciences Mechanical
Upgrade are in construction; and the Yuma Academic facility is now occupied and
in closeout. The University of Arizona reports nine projects in various stages
of development with the Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (AME) and the
Natural Resources (ENRB) buildings substantially completed and occupied.
*Internal Audit Reports - Telecommunications Services (ASU) and Plant Fund (UofA)
The Board received written internal audit reports on Arizona State University
Telecommunications Services and the University of Arizona Plant Fund. There were
no findings reportable to the Board for either report.
*Contract with the Carnegie Institution of Washington (UofA)
The Board approved a contract between the University of Arizona and the Carnegie
Institution of Washington to cast and provide a 6.5 meter primary mirror and
support system for the Magellan II Telescope at the Las Campanas
Observatory in Chile. The amount of the contract is $9,065,000 for the period
ending March 31, 2001.
*Agriculture Research Complex: Notification of Moving Forward to Joint
Committee on Capital Review (JCCR) (UofA)
By written report, the University of Arizona notified the Regents it will seek
project approval from the Joint Committee on Capital Review (JCCR) for the
Agriculture Research Complex. This facility for the Department of Animal
Sciences in the College of Agriculture will be located at the Campus Agriculture
Center (CAC) on North Campbell Avenue in Tucson, and will be funded through a
combination of federal grants, revenue bonds, and gifts. The project received
Board approval for Project Initiation in May 1989, Conceptual Approval in July
1989, and Project Approval in October 1995. In September 1996, as part of the
Board's review of the UofA's Five Year Capital Improvement Plan, the Board
authorized the university to proceed with a request to the JCCR for project
approval, contingent upon a highest and best use land value analysis of the
185-acre property. A report, prepared with the assistance of a local appraiser
and land planning consultants and concluding the current use as an instructional
and research campus is the highest and best use of the CAC property, was
presented to the Regents in January 1997.
Programs Committee
*Report on Academic Program and Organizational Unit Changes
The Board received a written report stating the Executive Director had approved
the following requests: Arizona State University - Changed the name of
the School of Accountancy to the School of Accountancy and Information
Management. University of Arizona - Changed the name of the Department of
Veterinary Science to Veterinary Science and Microbiology.
REPORT FROM THE HOST PRESIDENT
(NAU)
President Lovett announced the university community has been recognized by the
Flagstaff community as a leader in philanthropy. In addition to the volunteer
service the faculty, staff, and students provide for the community, Head
Librarian Jim Collins and Dean of the School of Hotel and Restaurant Management
Dave Williams led the most successful United Way campaign in the history of
northern Arizona.
She reported the Museum of Northern Arizona and NAU have initiated a series of
arts events called Spectrum and that NAU has become engaged in issues of
economic development with the City of Flagstaff and the County of Cochise. The
Greater Flagstaff Economic Council was revitalized and university leadership and
community people worked with the Governor's office to establish an office for
economic development in Northern Arizona.
Dr. Lovett announced that Patricia Myers of Syracuse University had accepted the
position of the Dean of the College of Business. The Oracle Corporation, which
is establishing a new higher education division, wants to contract with NAU
faculty to work together in distance education. President Lovett announced NAU's
annual fund donations have risen from a base of $3M to $9M in three years. The
increased donations have come mainly from alumni in the metropolitan area and
residents of the Flagstaff community.
President Munger expressed the Board's support of Northern Arizona University
and said he hoped the people in the community would continue to support the
university in telling the positive story of the university.
REPORT FROM
THE PRESIDENT OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
President Coor reported on Science, Engineering, and Environment Week at ASU and
the University for the Next Century Celebration Week.
REPORT
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
President Pacheco expressed his appreciation to the Board for its support during
his six-plus years at the University of Arizona. He told the Regents the North
Central Association announced the Arizona International Campus has met all the
initial requirements for accreditation with the exception of the graduation of
its first class.
Dr. Pacheco told the Regents about the Regents Professors whose appointments
will be presented for approval later in the meeting. (See Page 23). Dr. J.
Randolph Jokipii is a leading theoretician in the general area of cosmic rays.
He is a well regarded teacher who co-teaches one of the main graduate courses
for students in astronomy and planetary sciences. In recent years he has
provided the lead in reorganizing the undergraduate program in planetary
sciences. Dr. David Soren has dominated research in classical archeology for the
past 25 years. He is viewed as one of the university's most effective teachers
at all levels, from large undergraduate lecture sessions to small graduate
seminars. He has won five campus teaching awards. Dr. Gordon Tollin's arrival in
1959 has been said to mark the beginning of the modren era of biochemical
research and teaching at the UofA. He is recognized as one of the world's top
five researchers in his field and is a highly effective teacher who regularly
teaches groups of over 250 undergraduates in general biochemistry. He introduced
computer assisted teaching and multimedia presentations to this course. Dr.
Henry Yamamura is an eminent pharmacologist who has been an outstanding
scientific scholar for last 20 years. He is among the 100 most frequently cited
scientists in the country. He teaches largely graduate level courses in medicine
and pharmacy.
REPORT FROM THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
Executive Director Frank Besnette reminded the Regents the annual tuition
hearing is scheduled for Thursday, April 17, from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m., through the
use of interactive television. All Regents were encouraged to attend
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA
FACULTIES COUNCIL
Dr. John Schwarz spoke about the salary proposal before the legislature that
would grant merit increases to faculty members who teach six credit hours or
more per semester. This program will exclude virtually all faculty who have part
or full-time assignments other than teaching, such as program directors, heads
of departments, directors of undergraduate studies in the departments, and many
other such faculty who contribute to instruction at the universities. It will
exclude faculty whose teaching focuses on non-classroom assignments, such as the
design of new courses, the delivery of individualized learning, and the
adaptation of technology to higher education. He believes it is wrong to reach
conclusions before the study on faculty workload is completed.
RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Regent Amos chaired this portion of the meeting.
Review of Responses by the Council of Presidents to the Recommendations from
the Committee on External Review of University Capital Assets
Dr. Brian Gregory presented an overview of the responses to the recommendations
from the Committee on External Review of University Capital Assets, chaired by
Mark DeMichele. The universities concur with the 28 recommendations. Several
recommendations need further study prior to implementation, but a number are
already being implemented. The central office and university staffs have had
discussions with the staffs of the Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (OSPB)
and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC), and it was agreed the
interagency capital council, which includes representatives from all three
building systems, should be the forum for discussions of capital issues facing
all state agencies.
Regent Gignac thanked Regent Ulrich for making this happen. She asked if there
was a timetable for when the items needing further study would come back to the
Board. Dr. Gregory said the work group, composed of himself, Mr. Norm Hintz from
NAU, Dr. Michael Cusanovich from UofA, and Mr. Jennus Burton from ASU, will
create a timetable and give progress reports to the Council of Presidents, who
will periodically give reports to the Board.
Regent Basha questioned the response to Recommendation 20, hiring an outside
consultant for analysis of deferred maintenance, as he believed this is of
critical importance and did not believe it should be deferred for further study.
Dr. Gregory answered the facilities managers have been working at categorizing
the deferred maintenance information and making sure renovation projects have
been pulled off the list when they are done, not just on a scheduled basis. They
believe the new list, which is scheduled to be presented in May, will be more
helpful in focusing on areas in which a consultant would be helpful. Regent
Ulrich asked that the DeMichele Committee be kept in the loop, both formally and
informally, as work on these recommendations progresses. He agreed with Regent
Basha's recommendation on hiring a consultant as he believed a consultant would
deal with the physical structure rather than the mechanics of tracking.
Executive Director Besnette assured the Board that Mr.
DeMichele continues to be actively involved on a regular basis. He also said the
universities are trying to determine what a consultant would be asked to do so
they can send out a Request for Proposals. Regent Ulrich suggested a consultant
be hired to tell the universities what to examine. Regent Basha suggested a
consultant should be hired to deal with Recommendations 18 (ABOR, in
collaboration with OSPB and JLBC and possibly with the help of an outside
engineering firm, review the current building renewal formula ), Recommendation
19 (The Legislature fully fund the ABOR building renewal request each year in
accordance with the agreed upon formula, and hold the universities accountable
for developing life extension plans for the buildings) and Recommendation 20 (ABOR
hire an outside consulting firm to conduct an in-depth analysis of the
universities' building structures and assumptions that are used to estimate the
deferred maintenance backlog and make recommendations for appropriate deferred
maintenance budget requests).
Regent Gignac stated she could see how the recommendations tie together;
however, she understood a consultant would be very expensive and asked that the
universities be given until May to determine exactly what a consultant would be
asked to examine. Regent Ulrich restated his opinion a consultant should be
hired to determine what should be examined. Regent Basha said he believed there
has always been a perception in the community the universities inflate the
deferred maintenance numbers. He believes the legislature and the Governor will
be more positively disposed to a private sector assessment and analysis than
they will be to an in-house assessment. Regent Amos asked the Council of
Presidents to make a recommendation to the Board as to how the request to
proceed with a consultant could be handled.
Regent Basha stated he believed the universities should use temporary classrooms
as demographics are constantly changing. Regent Gignac asked for clarification
on Regent Basha's remark as Recommendation 23 describes the use of portable
classrooms during building renovations. She agreed with Regent Basha's statement
the recommendation should be expanded to include the use of portable classrooms
instead of permanent buildings.
Regent Basha restated his belief the DeMichele Committee had made a significant
contribution to the university system. He also said he hoped there is continued
activity to add classes on weekends and evenings along with the activities in
response to these recommendations as higher classroom utilization is the issue
that began this process. Regent Amos thanked Regent Ulrich for getting this
entire process started.
Revised Multiyear Bonding Plan: Review and Guidance
Regent Amos reminded the Board the DeMichele Committee recommended the Board
review in detail each university's top priority project and the Regents agreed
they should review these projects. Therefore, the universities are presenting
their top capital projects to the Board today.
Biology/Biochemistry Addition: Project Approval, and Replacement Addition:
Project Approval (NAU)
Regent Amos told the Regents NAU intends to move forward to the Joint Committee
on Capital Review (JCCR) if the Board grants Project Approval on these projects
today. President Lovett reminded the Board these projects are at the top of the
list for NAU's Five Year Capital Improvement Plan. She stated these projects
involve new construction, as well as renovation, and
meet very specialized needs. These projects are the centerpiece of NAU's
Centennial effort and it is hoped the projects will be open and in use by the
time the Centennial is celebrated.
Vice President Norm Hintz, Director of Facilities and Development Ron Fields,
and Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Suzanne Shipley joined the meeting
for this discussion. Mr. Hintz summarized NAU's requests. Regent Amos moved that
the Board grant Project Approval to NAU for the Biology/Biochemistry Addition
and Project Approval for the Replacement Building and Campus Entrance project.
Regent Gignac seconded the motion.
Regent Campbell asked if it was normal for the difference between the gross
square footage and the net square footage to be 25% in a building this size and
was told yes due to corridors, mechanical rooms and restrooms. He also asked if
the cost difference between the gross square footage and the net square footage
cost was in line with a building of this nature and was told yes because of
architectural fees and fistures, furniture, and equipment (FFE).
Regent Basha asked that the discussion of the two projects be separated, so
Regents Amos and Gignac withdrew their motion. Regent Amos moved to grant
Project Approval to NAU for the Biology/Biochemistry Addition. The motion was
seconded by Regent Gignac. Regent Gignac asked how many new faculty hires are
expected after this project is completed. She was told two currently, with an
emphasis on the molecular level, but it is contemplated more will be added in
the next few years up to a total of six. Regent Gignac asked if there had been
an increase in applicants for these programs and was told there had been a
tremendous increase in the number of students in these programs because they
impact on the health professions as well as secondary education.
Regent Amos asked for the impact on the general fund and was told it would be
$99,000 for both projects combined. Regent Davis said he believed the Board had
asked for rough estimates as to the potential impact academic bonds would have
on upward trends for tuition whenever a project was brought forward. He said he
would not be comfortable voting on any project without knowing what kind of
tuition increase it might cause in the future. President Lovett answered NAU has
structured its debt so there will be little or no upward impact on tuition from
these projects. This assumes historic increases in tuition and enrollment;
however, even with no increases there is sufficient money to cover the debt.
Regent Davis said he thought the Space Utilization Study was going to be
completed before any building approvals would be brought forward. Regents Munger
and Ulrich agreed. President Lovett informed the Board NAU did have a consultant
look at the existing biological and chemistry space when the increase in majors
and research in these fields became apparent. The consultant determined it would
not be economically advisable to renovate the two existing buildings for high
technology uses. The recommendation was to build new space for the high
technology laboratories and retrofit the existing laboratories for lower
technology space.
Regent Gignac said she believed it was not necessary to stop everything until
the Space Utlization Study is completed as she believed the universities had
done everything they had been asked to do up to this point. Regent Davis asked
if it was contemplated the Space Utilization Study would include laboratories
and was told it would. The Regents discussed the fact that NAU's building
request was related more to obsolete space than it was to space deficit. Regent
Ulrich stated he did not believe the universities always thoroughly investigated
all the alternatives available for capital assets. Regent Ulrich asked how many
hours this building would be utilized and was told 20 hours a day, seven days a
week.
There was a discussion concerning increasing the size of the new building to add
more new laboratories and using the old building for office space versus the
configuration of the project as proposed. President Munger said he believed the
Board, because it was still working its way through the recommendations of the
DeMichele Committee, was giving the university conflicting signals. Board
members should decide which projects need to proceed now and which projects need
to wait until responses to the recommendations, such as the Space Utilization
Study, are completed.
The Board granted Project Approval to Northern Arizona University for the
Biology/Biochem-istry Addition as proposed.
Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Ulrich, the Board granted
Project Approval to Northern Arizona University to complete design and to
construct the Replacement Building and Campus Entrance project.
Several Regents suggested the Space Utilization Study should be given a high
priority and should move forward as quickly as possible. The Regents agreed the
decisions concerning individual capital projects should be consistent with an
overall set of guidelines or principles. They requested the Council of
Presidents return to the Board with a suggested set of guidelines or principles.
The meeting recessed at 4:05 p.m. and reconvened at 4:15 p.m. President Munger
announced the meeting would reconvene at 8:30 a.m. the following day.
Mediated Classroom/Social Sciences Building: Revised
Conceptual Approval (ASU)
Provost Glick, Mr. Jennus Burton, and Mr. Scott Cole joined the meeting for this
discussion. President Coor said this was the first building he had initiated on
the main campus since he joined ASU. Dr. Glick summarized ASU's request for
Revised Conceptual Approval of the Mediated Classroom/Social Sciences Building.
The site has been changed so the bookstore will not need to be relocated. The
part of the building that is office lab space has been downsized to add more
open computer lab stations and the building has been made more flexible. Mr.
Burton provided further information about the project. Several of the proposed
changes in scope resulted from the discussions that were inititaed by the
DeMichele Committee. He explained the increase in cost is a result of inflation
and adding more highly mediated space.
Regent Ulrich asked how much the building would be used and was told the first
two floors would be utilized 24 hours every day. Regent Davis asked if this
building would place an upward pressure on tuition and was told there will be an
increase in debt service, but it will begin to decrease in 2005. This increase
may be covered by increased numbers of students, increased retention of local
funds, increased tuition, or a combination of these factors.
Regent Gignac asked what would replace the parking this building would demolish
and was told those spaces would be replaced, probably by parking built under the
tennis courts. Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Ulrich, the Board
granted revised Conceptual Approval for the Mediated Classroom/Social Sciences
Building to Arizona State University, including the elimination of the need to
replace the Bookstore and the approval of the proposed site (Parking
Lot #26). Regent Davis explained he voted yes because this
project was already underway and had gone through the early approval steps
before the DeMichele Committee began its work. However, he does not intend to
approve other projects until all the studies under discussion have been
finished. President Munger said he believed this project had been improved and
he expressed his thanks to the university for their willingness to rethink the
project.
Finish Shell Space, Life Sciences, North: Project Approval (UofA)
Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Michael Gottfredson, and Mr. Robert Smith joined the
meeting for this discussion. Executive Director Besnette reminded the Board this
was the project the DeMichele Committee believed should proceed with all
possible speed. Upon motion of Regent Basha, seconded by President Munger, the
Board granted Project Approval and authorization to seek approval from the Joint
Committee for Capital Review for Finish Shell Space, Life Sciences North, to the
University of Arizona.
Integrated Instructional Facility: Status Report (UofA)
Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Michael Gottfredson, and Mr. Robert Smith joined the
meeting for this discussion. The university displayed a model to show the
features of the building and how it would blend into the mall. Dr. Gottfredson
explained the project to the Regents. He highlighted some of the features of the
building--highly mediated instructional rooms, technologically equipped
classrooms, a first-year center that will provide most of the freshman needs
(such as advising and tutoring) in one location, an information commons that
will provide opportunity for the students to use the World Wide Web, and a
location in the central area of the campus, adjacent to the Main Library.
President Munger and Regent Gignac agreed this building would be the capstone
for the undergraduate education program. President Munger said he had previously
believed the project would be damaging to the mall, but viewing the model had
convinced him otherwise. He would like to see the project proceed. Regent Gignac
and Regent Amos expressed their support of the project and its location. They
especially believed it will be successful since the Core Curriculum has been
approved. Regent Davis said he had some questions to ask when the project
returned in the approval process.
Several Regents asked the status of the renovation of the Student Union. Mr.
Valdez said he hopes to bring Project Initiation for renovation of the Student
Union to the Board in May as a public-private enterprise.
West Chilled Water Interconnect: Status Report (UofA)
The Board was advised by the University of Arizona the West Chilled Water
Interconnect Project, originally estimated at $750,000, is currently projected
to cost $996,705. The project is under construction and is not expected to
exceed the $1,000,000 threshold for capital projects; however, the university is
notifying the Board the project is approaching the threshold.
Revised Multiyear Bonding Plan and Authorization to Resubmit Plan to Joint
Committee on Capital Review and the Governor
Mr. Norm Hintz, Dr. Michael Cusanovich, Dr. Brian Gregory, and Mr. Jennus Burton
joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Amos informed the Board the
central office and universities' staffs worked closely with OSPB and JLBC to
develop the plan that is submitted today. He commended the staffs for all their
work on this plan. Dr. Gregory presented an overview of the plan. ASU Main
Campus seeks to build 1 new academic facility between now and the year 2001, the
Mediated Classroom/Social Sciences Building. The remainder of their proposed
bond issuance is composed of renovation, restoration, and infrastructure
projects. NAU proposed 13 projects in total, 10 of which are renovation and
repair projects. The UofA proposed to build and renovate a mixture of facilities
based on its broad mission that encompasses education, a stellar research
faculty, and land grant status. Its top 3 projects support freshman recruitment
and retention in the Core Curriculum through the construction of the Integrated
Instructional Facility and education research in the Colleges of Medicine and
Agriculture through the finishing of shell space and the construction of the
Agricultural Research Complex.
Regent Amos asked if it is good policy to ask students to pay for buildings
through tuition and then ask them to pay for renovating these buildings. Should
efforts be concentrated in securing more renovation funding from the state
instead? He believed this issue should be considered before the next Capital
Improvement Plan is adopted in September. Dr. Gregory said this topic had been
discussed at the meeting with OSPB and JLBC. The universities were told building
renewal would probably never be fully funded, so means of dealing with this
problem were discussed. Some of the buildings, however, were actually built with
state money, not local funds.
President Munger said he understood approving this bonding plan does not approve
any particular project; the Board is simply saying this is what the universities
plan to present in the future for capital approvals. The Board will have full
discretion at that time to approve or disapprove any individual project. He also
said this plan could be modified in the future. He expressed his satisfaction
with the detail that was presented in the plan.
Executive Director Besnette told the Regents that OSPB and JLBC had been
involved in the development of this plan, but they had not yet had a chance to
go through the final version and make comments. He also reminded the Board it
had approved the NAU project to go forward to the JCCR. Regent Schmitt said he
believed the Board should decide what percentage of tuition would be used to pay
bonding debt.
Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board approved the
revised multiyear bonding plan and authorized the universities to present the
plan to the Joint Committee on Capital Review (JCCR) and the Governor's Office
for comment.
Differential Tuition for Selected Graduate or Professional Programs
Regent Amos reminded the Board differential tuition currently exists for the ASU
Evening MBA, both law colleges, and UofA's Colleges of Medicine and Pharmacy.
The presidents and the Executive Director suggested the following criteria be
used in the future when a university considers a selected graduate professional
program fee: access, affordability to the students, benefits to the entire
university, cost of the program, increased earnings potential of graduates,
market pricing, and quality. In assessing the appropriateness of a fee, all the
criteria need to be considered; however, not all fees need to satisfy all
criteria.
Regent Gignac disagreed with having increased earning
potential of graduates of one of the criteria. Regent Schmitt questioned why the
criteria were needed as the process has worked in the past without guidelines.
Executive Director Besnette replied the Board has felt uncomfortable authorizing
these types of fees without some kind of guidelines. These would be guidelines,
not requirements. Regent Schmitt asked that a guideline be added stating student
input would be solicited and Regent Amos said he would have no problem with that
addition. Regent Davis agreed with the proposal to consider increased earning
potential of graduates. He also added the discussion should include where the
increased revenue would be used when requested fees of this type are brought to
the Board. Should the program keep all, some, or none or the money or should it
go to the general benefit of the university? There was a consensus a guideline
concerning student input should be added.
The meeting recessed at 5:44 p.m. with a reminder the Board planned to reconvene
the next morning at 8:30 a.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:50 a.m. on Friday, March 21. President Munger
announced Regent Basha had to leave the meeting due to a death in the family.
STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Regent Davis chaired this portion of the meeting in the absence of Regent
Ulrich.
Information Technology Planning (IT): Development of University IT Plans and
IT Project Review Process
Regent Davis introduced the Information Technology (IT) Planning item;
Development of University IT Plans and an IT Project Review Process. Dr. Art
Ashton from the Central Office and Dr. Bill Lewis from ASU joined the meeting
for this discussion. Dr. Ashton told the Board these processes were set in place
to meet a legislative requirement and a requirement of the Board's Action Plan.
The Information Technology (IT) Plans: Strategic, focused, and summarized
IT plans will be developed by each university that will follow the general
strategic planning format of mission, environmental scan, goals, objectives, and
performance measures. The university IT plans will be annually reviewed and
accepted by the Council of Presidents and will be integrated into the annual
university 5-year strategic plans that go to the Board each summer.
The Information Technology Project Approval Process: The Legislation
indicated a centralized information technology review process needs to be
established as the state agencies have a centralized IT project justification
and approval process. A preliminary process for reviewing major university
information technology projects was described. Projects with projected costs of
less than $500,000 would be reviewed within each university; projects between
$500,000 and $1,000,000 would be reviewed by the Chief Academic Officers, and
projects more than $1,000,000 would be reviewed by the Council of Presidents.
Annually, the Council of Presidents would report its actions to the Board of
Regents.
The Board concurred with Regent Gignac's recommendation the annual report to the
Regents include the projects between $500,000 and $1,000,000 as well as those
over $1,000,000.
Technology Delivered Education
Provost Glick and Dr. Art Ashton joined the meeting for this discussion.
Regent Davis reminded the Board it had approved a work plan, including bullets
defining the purpose and rationale for technology delivered education, at its
February meeting. At that time, the Board asked the universities to develop and
bring back a more formal purpose and rationale statement. The Board was also
furnished information about the Western Governors' University (WGU) and a the
description of a new statewide advisory task force named Project EAGLE
(Education and Government Linking Electronically).
President Lovett reminded the Board that Provost Glick, Regent Davis, and
herself are among the members of the Arizona Task Force for the WGU. There are
now 14 states participating in this effort. The design team has worked to
develop the brokering function (a clearing house or electronic catalogue for
courses and programs that are offered by existing institutions in the
participating states) and access centers (places in each of the participating
states where students who have identified a package in the electronic catalogue
can go for testing and advising). She said she believed the Arizona universities
are ready to enter the brokering function. WGU will also be a limited provider
of its own programs. A business plan is in the process of development.
Regent Davis asked about the business plan and advertising for the Arizona
universities' technology delivered education. Provost Glick said three faculty
members from the business schools who are experts in marketing analysis and
three faculty members from the business schools who are experts in writing
business plans have been identified. The marketing people are serving as a
steering committee and are issuing an RFP to bring in a professional consultant
to do a market study. The other group is developing a business plan. It is hoped
both will be ready to present to the Board by the end of summer.
Board of Regents 1996-97 Action Plan: Spring Status
Report
The Board received a written status report on its Action Plan for 1996-97.
Regent Davis stated his support for receiving this report as it refocuses
attention on the progress toward completion of the Board's goals. Regents Munger,
Amos, and Gignac also acknowledged the utility of seeing progress reported in
this format.
PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
Regent Gignac chaired this portion of the meeting.
Duplicative and Low Productivity Academic Programs: Report on Systemwide
Review
Provost Glick, Provost Connell, Vice Provost Charles Banz, Vice President
Michael Gottfredson, and Dr. Thomas Wickenden joined the meeting for this
discussion. Regent Gignac reminded the Regents the universities had been asked
to conduct a pilot, systemwide review of all programs that produce few
graduates, including those that are also duplicative. The reviews have been
completed and recommendations have been developed on these programs and the
review program methodology to be used for future reviews.
Dr. Wickenden summarized the Methodology for Identifying Low Productive and
Duplicative Programs which is composed of 3 Stages. Stage 1 is to Identify Low
Productive Programs and includes Step 1, Identify Programs with Degree
Production Below Thresholds, Step 2, Identify Valid Reasons for Low Degree
Production, and Step 3, Identify Programs Considered "Common
Subjects." Stage 2 is to Provide Expanded Information and Stage 3 is the
Recommendations.
Regent Amos expressed concern that degrees awarded by programs that are offered
by a non-main campus are included with those awarded by the program on the main
camps, except where that program was moved in its entirety to the non-main
campus, was approved separately for the non-main campus, or is offered on a
non-main campus that is now separately accredited. He recommended the
methodology document be revised to include all the programs that are advertised
and offered to students at branch campuses or centers except programs that are
offered completely through technology by faculty located at the main campus. He
concurred with allowing new programs time to develop before examining them for
number of graduates; however, he believed they should be examined to see if they
are duplicative.
Provost Glick responded ASU intends to report the ASU West and ASU East campus
programs. Provost Connell responded NAU extends many of the courses offered on
the main campus to other sites, mainly through interactive television, to extend
access. Vice President Gottfredson said the programs being offered at the branch
campuses are actually the same program and are being offered under the
authorization of the unit on the main campus with respect to the faculty, the
curriculum, etc.
Regent Gignac stated she believed each branch campus had been developed to
respond to a unique niche within its overall institution's plan. The programs
may or may not be duplicative from the main campus. Access has been the main
issue on the campuses such as UofA Sierra Vista and determining there will be no
duplication within any of the campuses will hinder that access. Regent Amos said
he was not concerned with totally eliminating duplication; he was concerned with
reviewing all the programs so a determination could be made as to whether each
program should remain. He agreed that sometimes duplication was necessary.
President Lovett agreed all programs should be examined. She would like to see
the focus on the NAU inventory of degree programs, not where or by what means
they are offered. Regent Amos asked that Executive Director Besnette and the
Chief Academic Officers look at this issue and see how the methodology could be
changed to reflect his concern.
Regent Amos also stated his concern that too many programs for which there is
low student demand were being retained. He understood a few of the programs
should be allowed to develop for a year or two as they currently have students
enrolled; however, he was not sure how to evaluate the reasons given for
retaining the other programs. He suggested an external review process, as
described in Board Policy 2-208, be used to evaluate these programs.
Regent Gignac suggested, instead of hiring a consultant, the Regents determine
which programs appear to be most likely to need elimination and ask for a
re-review of those programs in two years. She was not convinced hiring an
external consultant was the best solution at this time.
President Coor commented this pilot program should be considered in context. ASU
eliminated 18 programs in the last 2 years. He believes ASU Main Campus has far
fewer programs for the number of students enrolled than any of its peers. Dr.
Gottfredson said the UofA had initiated a similar initiative, in conjunction
with its strategic plan, 1 year prior to this pilot program; and several degrees
were eliminated. He called the Board's attention to the programs the UofA
intended to consolidate and noted this consolidation process eliminates degrees
as well.
Regent Amos said he would be comfortable having Board staff review the programs.
Regent Gignac said any outside reviewer should take into account the mission and
strategic directions of the university when considering elimination of programs.
Regent Amos said he would also like to see the specific reason any program is
scheduled for elimination as it was not given in the material for this meeting.
Regent Campbell said this is a pilot program and he
believed the discussion today would be useful to university administrators when
implementing the program. He would like to see the program implemented and then
reexamined in two years to see if an external review is necessary. Dr. Glick
said there are some programs that should be small. For example, ASU has a
distinguished Exercise Science Program with a large bachelors and masters
program and a Ph.D. program awarding only 1 or 2 degrees a year. Society has a
need for a small number of highly trained people in this field. Telling programs
the only way to survive is to get bigger would not be in the best interests of
the state, particularly in Ph.D. programs
Regent Schmitt said he believed each program should be judged on its merits, not
on whether it is taught by peer institutions. He would like the Regents to
review all programs that fall below the threshold, regardless of whether it is
common to peer institutions. He commented it appeared there were different
assessments used to evaluate the programs in Stage 2 and he believed the
assessments should be consistent. Regent Gignac recommended the methodology be
revised to address two issues. The first one is the issue raised by Regent Amos
concerning branch campuses and the second one is to include definitions of the
criteria that are specified in Stage 2.
In regard to Step 3, Identify Programs Considered 'Common Subjects," Regent Gignac suggested it be examined again after all the rest of the steps were in place. The Provosts said only a few programs fell in this category and most of them were also identified for other reasons as well. Regent Amos and Regent Schmitt stated their desire to examine the programs that fall below the threshold, regardless of their status as common academic subjects. Regent Gignac asked for
language to be added to address that issue. It was decided
a re-review of programs that were not reviewed, those that were recommended for
retention because of growth possibilities, and those that were consolidated,
should be held in two years. It is expected the revised methodology will come
back to the next meeting with the addition of a workplan and a time schedule.
Provost Glick stated he agreed with a review of programs in two years whose
basis of retention had been expected growth as contrasted to a program where the
Board has agreed a program should be retained for other reasons, even though it
is small. The Board asked Regent Gignac to meet with the CAO's and Executive
Director Besnette to decide the next phase of the process. Regent Amos raised
the question of programs that were not reviewed because they were new. He agreed
they should be given time to grow unless they were duplicative and he did not
know how to determine if they were duplicative since they are not being
reviewed. Dr. Besnette said these programs would come under review in the next
cycle.
Amendment to Board Policy 2-208, Academic Program Review (First Reading)
Regent Gignac announced there was a typographical error in the material prepared
for this item. Lines were erroneously drawn through words in the policy change,
signifying they would be deleted. The policy will be presented in its correct
form for a second reading at the next meeting. The intention of these
recommended modifications is to provide a general framework for a periodic
systemwide review of low-productive and duplicative academic programs. By
describing the specific details of the review process in a separate
Board-approved methodology statement, the Board is provided with increased
flexibility to refine the review process over time.
Amendment to Board Policy 6-201, Conditions of Faculty Service (First
Reading)
Amendments to Board Policy 6-201 (L), Hearing Procedures for Faculty, and 6-201
(M), Procedure to Review Allegedly Discriminatory or Unconstitutional Action
(Including Violations of Due Process or Academic Freedom) are part of the
Board-approved workplan for modifying the conditions of faculty service and
tenure. The policy changes submitted today incorporate the recommendations made
by Regents at the last meeting with the exception of giving consideration to
including outside representatives on the Committee for Academic Freedom and
Tenure (CAFT).
Arizona Faculties Council members Dr. Daniel Landers, Dr. Thomas Callarman, Dr.
Vianne McLean, and Dr. Larry Gould and Dr. Thomas Wickenden joined the meeting
for this discussion. Regent Gignac suggested the next to the last sentence of
Section M. 3. be modified to read, "A copy of the final determination shall
be mailed to the faculty member and committee members." Regent
Campbell said he still had a problem with having a legal advisor sit in on the
proceedings at this stage. He was told the legal advisors are often law
professors who participate informally to advise the committee as usually both
the university and the grievant have their own lawyers.
Dr. John Schwarz presented the Faculties Council position on community and/or
alumni representatives participating on the CAFT in instances of hearings for
dismissal or suspension. The faculty believes the current self-governing process
works well, is effective, and should not be changed. This is an important issue
symbolically to the faculty on campuses.
Regent Amos agrees the current process works well; however, he believes a
community representative will add one person to the committee who will be at
"arms length" from the university so will be seen as being completely
unbiased. He also believes this will be a chance to demonstrate to a community
leader how well the university and its faculty do their jobs and give this
person a chance to better understand the tenure system. Regent Campbell agreed;
however, he believed it would be valuable to choose a legislator to sit on this
committee for the reasons Regent Amos stated. Regent Munger also agreed.
President Coor suggested it would be more effective to have community leaders
participate in the program review process than in the CAFT process. President
Pacheco and President Lovett agreed. Dr. Lovett also suggested community input
could be added to the promotion and tenure process at the point where currently
input is sought only from scholars from other universities. Regent Munger said
he believed the Regents were not looking for just one way to involve community
leaders. They would like to involve "outsiders" in as many ways as
possible because they believe the more contact citizens have with the
university, the more supportive they will be.
Dr. McLean said faculty have no fear of involving community leaders in the
process. However, the faculty believes this is not the best place to be
soliciting community input as these cases are inherently negative by their
nature. This will present a only a negative side of the university to
participants. Also, there will be very few cases; but each one takes many days
of hearings to resolve.
Regent Gignac said she would like to suggest a compromise. Perhaps the policy
could be worded to say a community member would be appointed to the review
committee at the request of the grievant. President Munger said he was not
prepared to allow this policy to proceed through first reading status without
including the paragraph that adds a community leader to the hearing process, and
he suggested the item be tabled. Regent Campbell asked Board members to take
note of what they hear from the public between now and the next meeting
concerning this discussion as he believes public perception is part of this
issue. Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Munger, the Board tabled
the first reading of the proposed changes to policy 6-201 (L) and (M).
President Munger announced that Regent Basha had provided a birthday cake to
celebrate Regent Gignac's birthday. The meeting recessed at 11:10 a.m. and
reconvened at 11:20 a.m.
Amendment to Board Policy Chapter 6 by Adding Section L, Arizona
International Campus of the University of Arizona - Conditions of Service
Documents for Faculty, Administrators, and Professionals (First Reading)
Provost Celestino Fernandez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent
Gignac asked about the waiver in Section H. 3. a. and was told it might be
necessary for recruiting purposes for a faculty member who taught in a
specialized area or had some major area of expertise. She asked if a community
or alumni person would be involved in the kinds of reviews mentioned in J. 3.
and was told AIC would be happy to have community involvement. She suggested J.
3. a. (6) be changed to read "Final review and decision by the Campus
Administrative Officer." Regent Gignac and Regent Schmitt requested
Section K. 6. be changed to allow an appeal to the President of the University
whose decision would be final. President Munger agreed with this modification.
Regent Gignac asked that 6-1201 A. 2. have "and
review" added to the last sentence. Section B. 4. should have
Chief Executive Officer removed from the definition. Moral turpitude should be
added to H. 1. as a reason for dismissal to keep the policy consistent. Remove
"or if the legislature fails to provide funds for Arizona International
Campus" from H. 3. Add "university" to 6-1202 B. 2. E.
1. (1) should change "inadequate performance" to "unsatisfactory
performance" to remain consistent.
Regent Davis asked the Board to think deeply about this item before it comes for
a second reading next meeting. He believes all the campuses of this system
should be treated the same and this campus should not operate without tenure.
President Munger said the nature of this campus is entirely different from the
other campuses in structure and it should be treated as such.
Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Munger, the Board agreed to the
changes suggested by Regent Gignac. Regent Amos asked that this amendment not be
placed on the Consent Agenda when brought for second reading at the next
meeting.
Proposed Workplan for Examining and Defining Faculty Participation in
Instructional Activities
Arizona Faculties Council members Dr. Daniel Landers, Dr. Thomas Callarman, Dr.
Vianne McLean, and Dr. Larry Gould, Provosts Milton Glick and Charles Connell,
Dr. Michael Gottfredson, and Dr. Thomas Wickenden joined the meeting for this
discussion. In February 1997 the Board charged the universities to develop a
workplan to thoroughly review the participation of faculty in instructional
activities, with an emphasis upon faculty time devoted to undergraduate
instruction.
This proposed workplan calls for an April discussion about what is known about
faculty participation in instructional activities and other faculty work in an
information session, with a summary of existing reports on Arizona's
universities and of comparisons with other universities and states as background
and with a focus upon a presentation (by a recognized expert) on the national
context for faculty work. May would bring the development of consensus goals for
faculty participation in instructional activities and other faculty work, within
the context of the universities' multiple responsibilities and based upon a
discussion of Regent concerns in a study session (with an accomplished
facilitator), and reconfirm the workplan required to achieve these goals.
A review and the approval of a comprehensive definition of faculty participation
in instructional activities and other faculty work, including appropriate
measures, baseline data, specific outcomes and timelines necessary to achieve
the consensus goals, would take place in June-September.
Review and approval of university and Board strategies
necessary to achieve the specific outcomes agreed to earlier would take place in
October-December.
Dr. John Schwarz informed the Board the Faculties Council had contacted an
expert to participate in the initial discussion and the person was unable to
come until May. He asked if the Board would be willing to continue the proposed
April discussion until May and the May discussion until June without changing
the timelines at the end of the process. The Board supported the request.
Regent Amos asked if the current faculty leaders would continue to work on this
process as he believed they were instrumental in the process that lead to the
post-tenure review proposal and would like to see them continue to work on this
issue. Most of the faculty leaders will continue to be involved. Dr. Schwarz
said there is a new Arizona Faculties Council chair and he will tailor his role
according to the wishes of the new chair and the amount of time his own schedule
will allow him to participate.
Establishment of a Major in Biomedical Engineering (M.S. and Ph.D.) (UofA)
Vice President Michael Gottfredson, Dean Thomas Hixon, and Professor Stuart
Williams joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Gignac said she
understood this request was coming to the Board now because of a grant proposal
and a site visit. However, the initial discussion on the planning for this
degree added a request that implementation would include a collaboration
component between UofA and ASU. Dr. Gottfredson said there would be no problem
in discussing this issue with ASU. Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by
Regent Amos, the Board authorized the implementation of M.S. and Ph.D. degrees
with a major in biomedical engineering at the University of Arizona, effective
immediately, with a report to be provided to the Board within 90 days on the
status of collaboration with ASU.
Approval of Appointment of Regents Professors (UofA)
President Pacheco reported the proposed Regents Professors are all involved in
the teaching process. Dr. Yamamura, of the Health Sciences Center, does work
more with graduate students than undergraduates. In the last three semesters,
these four individuals have taught an average of 698 semester credit hours, 674
semester credit hours, and 768 semester credit hours. These professors are
teaching some of the larger classes for undergraduates. Dr. Pacheco also
reminded the Board that several years ago the university initiated a category of
awards called the University Professorships that were specifically designed to
honor teachers.
Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent Campbell,
the Board authorized the University of Arizona to appoint the following four
additional individuals as Regents Professors, effective July 1, 1996, and to
award the salary increases that customarily accompany these appointments: Dr. J.
Randolph Jokipii, Professor of Planetary Sciences and Astronomy, Dr. H. David
Soren, Professor of Classics, Dr. Gordon Tollin, Professor of Biochemistry, and
Dr. Henry Yamamura, Professor of Pharmacology.
PUBLIC AWARENESS COMMITTEE
Regent Davis chaired this portion of the meeting.
1st Session, 43rd Legislature: Update on Legislation
Related to Public Higher Education in Arizona
Mr. Allan Price, Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda, and Dr. Mary McKeown joined the meeting
for this discussion. Dr. McKeown summarized the current status of the operating
budget request for FY 98.
President Coor expressed his gratitude to Regent Davis and the Governor for
their efforts on behalf of the university budget requests. Dr. Coor spoke in
opposition to the footnote contained in a current bill before the legislature
that would mandate teaching hours for merit awards. He also spoke against the
footnote that mandates a tuition increase for law schools. Regent Schmitt also
spoke against the law school tuition footnote as it usurps the Board's mandated
role in tuition setting and adds money to the general fund with a tuition
increase. Regent Gignac concurred. President Pacheco endorsed Dr. Coor's
comments. President Munger concurred as he believed any tuition increases should
be determined by the Board of Regents.
Regent Davis discussed the concept of a letter, to be signed by the Board
President and the university presidents, stating opposition to the law school
tuition footnote. Regent Davis updated the Board on HB 2161, the Honors bill,
which has been assigned to the Senate Education
Committee for hearing. The Board supports the bill if
funding is provided. He reported there were legislative hearings for SB 1109,
the Community College Upper Division bill, HB 2297, the Veterinary School
Feasibility bill, and HB 2533, the Alzheimer's Disease Research bill. Mr.
Seese-Bieda summarized the status of these bills.
President Munger was asked to sign a letter to Senator John Huppenthal in
support of the Board's position on the Honor's Degree bill. Mr. Price reported
funding for ASU East renovation will be spread over a 2-year period, but there
has been agreement ASU can manage the cash-flow to take advantage of the
equipment to be donated by Intel Corporation.
University Support Groups: Update on Outreach Activities
Regent Davis reported the students, parents, and staff have worked hard and
effectively this legislative session to support the universities and communicate
with their elected representatives on behalf of higher education. He expressed
gratitude on behalf of the Board for their efforts.
REPORT
FROM THE BOARD'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR COMMUNITY
COLLEGES OF ARIZONA
Regent Gignac reported the items discussed at the last Community College Board
meeting were items discussed here today, including an update on the Arizona
Learning System, Project Eagle, and the NAU-Yavapai partnership.
UNIVERSITY
OF ARIZONA PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH
Upon motion of Regent Schmitt, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board approved the
guidelines for the conduct of the University of Arizona presidential search.
INQUIRIES,
REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
Regent Campbell reported on the group working on the Construction Management
Program at NAU and thanked former Regent Chanen for his help on this issue.
Regent Davis asked Board members and the presidents to express their gratitude
to the Governor for his help on the university budgets this year. He spoke
against the articles recently published in the Arizona Republic as he
believed they did not reflect responsible journalism.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:35 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
_______________________________
Judy E. Garza, Secretary to the Board
APPROVED BY:
________________________________
John F. Munger, President
ATTEST:
_________________________________
George H. Amos, III, Secretary