 |
MINUTES |
 |
|
MINUTES |
|
MINUTES OF A MEETING
May 20 and 21, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT FROM THE HOST PRESIDENT, DR. LIKINS
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
PUBLIC AWARENESS COMMITTEE (Continued)
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, REPORTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
MINUTES OF A MEETING
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
May 20 and 21, 1999
A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was
held May 20 and 21, 1999, in the Public Meeting Room at The University of
Arizona South, Sierra Vista, Arizona. President Gignac called the meeting
to order at 1:05 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENT: Regent George H. Amos, III
Regent Rudy Campbell
Regent Judy Gignac
Regent Jack Jewett
Regent Kay McKay
Regent John Munger
Regent Jennifer Reichelt
ABSENT: Regent Chris Herstam
Regent Donald Ulrich
Governor Jane Dee Hull
Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham
Keegan
Also present were: President Peter Likins, Ms. Judith Leonard, Dr. Janet Bingham, Dr. Richard Powell, Dr. Michael Gottfredson, Mr. Greg Fahey, Mr. Dick Roberts, and Dr. Randy Groth, University of Arizona; President Lattie Coor, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Mr. Steve Miller, and Dr. Elaine Maimon, Arizona State University; President Clara Lovett, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Dr. Marie Zeglen, and Ms. Anne Barton, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director Frank Besnette, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, Ms. Louise Houseworth, and Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda, Central Office; and Dr. William Davey, Chair of the Arizona Faculties Council.
President Gignac called the Regents’ attention to the commemorative coin for UofASouth that was given to each of them as a memento. She introduced Sierra Vista Mayor Richard Archer and thanked him for his support of the campus over the past years. Mayor Archer welcomed the Board and stated the community’s support for UofASouth. He said many people who would not have been able to leave the area to attend college now are able to obtain a degree, and he thanked the Regents for their support of the campus.
President Gignac introduced Dr. Linda Blessing, who will assume her new position as Executive Director of the Board on July 1.
Dr. G. Robert Pettit, Director of the ASU Cancer Research Institute, spoke on the proposed revision to the Board’s Patent Policy. He said the current policy allows the inventor to participate in the agreement for licensing in concert with the university administrator. He believes development of anti-cancer drugs is a very complex area and requires the maximum amount of information to prevent the suppression of new drugs by pharmaceutical companies. In many other areas, as well, he believes the knowledge of the inventor is of prime importance in negotiating agreements with developers in order to secure the best terms for the public who support the universities.
Dr. Pettit asked the Board to change the wording in two areas of the proposed policy. He believes the inventor should have stronger rights than being considered as only a consultant when agreements are signed and he took exception to the 15% administrative fee.
Dr. John Knight, Associate Research Professor at the ASU Cancer Research Institute, spoke on behalf of many university scientists who are concerned about the proposed changes to the Patent Policy that would eliminate inventor approval rights. He did not believe the university had taken sufficient action to notify concerned faculty of the new wording. He also believes it is unreasonable to expect the university representatives to be totally familiar with all the details of the inventions that may come from various departments or to understand all the nuances of the science involved. He believes including the inventor in the licensing agreement is the best protection for the university.
Dr. Cherry L. Herald, Associate Director of the ASU Cancer Research Institute, said she had been following the proposed revisions through February 1998 when the notifications concerning the changes ceased. When she asked how the process was proceeding, she was told she would be notified when the next revisions were done; but she was not. She found out about the policy being submitted to the Board through a casual remark during negotiations with a potential licensee in April. She found the latest revisions had been posted on the WEB for a long time, but the faculty had inadvertently not been notified of the posting. She asked that the approval of the policy be held until next fall when the faculty returns to campus.
Dr. Fiona Hogan, member of the ASU Cancer Research Institute, said she believed the failure to notify the faculty is a major reason the proposed Patent Policy should be continued for further discussion. She does not believe the role of the inventor should be diminished as it might affect the cooperation among faculty.
Dr. Zbigniew Cichacz, a member of the ASU Cancer Center Institute for over ten years who has five patents on drugs, believes the inventors should not be excluded from negotiations of agreements. He believes the faculty should have been notified earlier of the proposed changes to the Patent Policy.
Dr. Brian Orr, representing the Professional Advisory Board of the International Foundation for Anti-Cancer Drug Discovery (IFADD), a charitable foundation based in Phoenix, said the Foundation was primarily responsible for spearheading the legislative initiative last year for a $10M appropriation which will benefit the UofA and ASU Cancer Research Institutes. IFADD opposes the proposed Patent Policy changes because it believes there will be no check and balance or safety valve to prevent licensing agreements which contravene the public interest.
President Gignac announced the issue of the proposed revisions to the Patent Policy is being moved from the last item on the agenda to the first item tomorrow morning. She said Regent Jewett had agreed there would be a brief time allowed for people to speak to the Board on this issue if they had not been able to appear today.
REPORT FROM THE HOST PRESIDENT, DR. LIKINS
President Likins said he wanted the Regents to know the diversity of the faculty at the University of Arizona South and understand they are trying to build a university, helped by a community that has been extremely receptive. He introduced Dr. W. Jake Jacobs, Associate Professor of Psychology and the senior faculty member of the South Campus. Dr. Joni Adamson, Assistant Professor of English, is expecting to complete a manuscript this summer. Assistant Professor Phillip Callahan is a specialist in educational technology and is developing a graduate curriculum funded by U.S. Army Intelligence. Clinical Assistant Ruth Kartchner is responsible for coordinating the bilingual program in Douglas and has done some interesting work in developing a Spanish acquisition program for K-12 students. She is also completing a pilot teaching program in Atlanta, Georgia. Assistant Professor Patrick Homer is a member of a statewide computer science articulation task force.
Dr. Randy Groth, Dean of the University of Arizona South, introduced Dr. Todd Lutes, Assistant Professor of Political Science. Dr. Lutes told the Regents the University of Arizona South is centered on students and they have the advantage of smaller classes, a cooperative atmosphere and the seriousness that having an unusually large percentage of non-traditional students brings to the classroom. Some of the students presenting today have engaged in the Internet-based and video-campus distance learning courses and many have experienced on-the-job learning. He thanked Dr. Ruth Kartchner, Dr. Phillip Callahan, and Ms. Shelley Narmi for their assistance in the presentation.
The Regents viewed a presentation that told the history of the University of Arizona South and demonstrated what is currently happening on the campus.
The 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 McKay, seconded by Regent Campbell. There was no individual discussion of these items. President Gignac abstained from voting on Item 13, Reappointment of Dr. James Woolfenden to University Medical Center Corporation Board of Directors and Approval of Amendment to UMCC Bylaws, as she is a member of that Board.
*Annual Space Management and Utilization Report
The Board received a written summary of the universities’ annual space management and utilization reports. These reports compared the actual Fall 1998 space inventory figures and utilization rates to the Board-approved space and utilization guidelines which become effective Fall 1999. Because the universities were comparing Fall 1998 inventory and utilization data to the more stringent guidelines approved for Fall 1999, it is not expected the universities would meet these guidelines at this time as the guidelines increased the number of hours classrooms and other space were to be utilized per week.
*Internal Audit Reports: Fall 1998 Enrollment Audit for the Three Universities, Information Technology Audits (NAU), and Cashiering and Collections (NAU)
The Board received a written summary of four audit reports. An audit of Fall 1998 Enrollment at Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and the University of Arizona resulted in two common internal recommendations applicable to the central office and all three universities, and one internal recommendation specific to the University of Arizona. Audits of the Information Technology Services Project Management and Budget Process at NAU resulted in two internal recommendations. An audit of the Student Business Services Cashiering and Collections department at NAU resulted in one internal recommendation.
*Authority for President of Arizona State University to Appoint ASU Representative to the Southwest Regional Laboratory/WestEd Board of Directors
On December 1, 1995, Southwest Regional Laboratory (SRLW) entered into a Joint Powers Agreement with the Far West Laboratory for Education Research and Development (FQWL) for the purpose of joining activities and creating a new Joint Powers Agency--WestEd. The Boards of Directors joined to serve as the Board of WestEd. ASU Professor Harold Hunnicutt was a founding member of the SWRL and served on the Board of Directors from the agency’s establishment in 1966 until his death in January 1999. WestEd is now requesting an appointment from the Board of Regents to replace Dr. Hunnicutt with a representative from Arizona State University. WestEd will accept written authorization from the Board to permanently transfer the authority to make this appointment to the President of Arizona State University.
The Board authorized WestEd to permanently transfer to the President of Arizona State University the authority to appoint its representative on the WestEd Board of Directors.
*Reappointment of Dr. James Woolfenden to University Medical Center Corporation (UMCC) Board of Directors and Approval of Amendment to UMCC Bylaws
At the request of the UMCC Board of Directors, the Board reappointed James M. Woolfenden, M.D., to the UMCC Board of Directors for a term beginning February 1, 1999, and ending January 31, 2001. The Board also approved the requested addition of Article XVI to the Amended and Restated Bylaws of University Medical Center Corporation. This addition describes the treatment all persons will receive who come to University Medical Center, or one of the University Medical Center’s physician offices seeking emergency medical treatment, or who are in labor, within the capabilities of University Medical Center’s staff and facilities.
*Approval of a Pool of Firms to Provide Underwriting Services (UofA)
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to obtain the services of the following pool of firms to provide underwriting services for three years, with two one-year options: Lehman Brothers; Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.; Paine Webber, Inc.; A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.; Peacock, Hislop, Staley & Given, Inc.; and J.P. Morgan.
*Subcontract with the Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles (UofA)
The Board authorized the UofA to enter into a subcontract with the Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles, to provide mission operations and data analysis of images returned from the Surface Stereo Imager and Robotic Arm Camera aboard the Mars Polar Lander. Primary funding of $336,369 for the first six months and $1,168,639 for the last year of the project is from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The contract period is from March 1, 1999, through September 30, 2000.
*Enrollment for Spring Semester 1999
The Board received a written spring enrollment report. Systemwide, headcount increased by 0.2 %, or 188 students, over the previous spring semester. FTE increased by 0.3 %, or 292. ASU East, NAU, UofA, and UofA South reported increases in total headcount enrollment over the previous spring semester. The ASUW, ASUE, UofA (total), UofAS, and AIC campuses reported an increase in FTE. NAU reported no change in FTE. Undergraduate headcount increased by 0.1 %, while graduate headcount increased by 0.6 %. Undergraduate FTE decreased by 0.1 %, while graduate FTE increased by 2.3 %.
*Proposed Department of Orthopedic Surgery (UofA)
The University of Arizona proposed to reorganize the Section of Orthopedic Surgery in the Department of Surgery as a Department of Orthopedic Surgery in the College of Medicine. The Board authorized the establishment of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Arizona, effective July 1, 1999.
Due to the absence of Regent Ulrich, President Gignac chaired the Resources portion of the meeting.
Campus Space Committees: Status Reports
President Gignac reminded the Board the campus space committees were formed because of a recommendation of the DeMichele Committee. The universities are continuing to collect space utilization data consistent with and to move toward compliance with the Fall 1999 Guidelines. Director of Space Management for the University of Arizona, Mercy Valencia, made a presentation on the activities of the University of Arizona Space Committee.
Ms. Valencia said the three objectives of the Space Committee are to implement the recommendations of the DeMichele Committee, to improve the utilization of the university’s physical assets, and to manage the allocated financial resources in order to optimize the utilization of space. This mainly deals with state provided building renewal dollars plus what the university is able to provide to meet growth issues on campus. The five classifications of space the Guidelines deal with are libraries, class laboratories, offices, classrooms and research laboratory space.
Ms Valencia reported, under the new Guidelines, the University of Arizona’s current inventory is approximately 307,000 square feet for classrooms, whereas, the Guidelines call for approxi-mately 303,000 square feet. A central scheduling system has been developed that seems to be allowing for the more efficient use of classroom space.
She also reported the 70-30 rule, which restricts 70% of the class offerings of a particular department to the primary hours of use which are 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. with the other 30% scheduled during off-peak hours. The starting time of morning classes has been changed from 8:00 a.m. to 7:40 a.m. This allows for greater utilization of classrooms, and it also aids traffic flow in the morning throughout the city. The University of Arizona is in the fifth year of a program to upgrade classrooms at the rate of $2M per year.
The current inventory of classroom laboratory space at the UofA is 330,000 square feet whereas the Guidelines call for 553,000 square feet. The laboratories are maximally scheduled and this limits the amount of time students can go back to the labs to complete assignments. To mitigate the problem, the labs are open later at night.
The current inventory of office space at the UofA is 1,200,000 square feet and the Guidelines call for 1,266,000, so the deficit is not great. The deficit is mitigated by leasing space around the outside of the campus. Office space standards have been lowered in new construction. The current inventory of library space at the UofA is 353,000 square feet for the catalogue collections which are used by any student. The Guidelines call for 630,000 square feet. To mitigate this problem, the use of inter-library loans has been increased and the university has invested in compact shelving units, even though they are very expensive. The increased use of technology has also been helpful.
Research laboratory space is space that is used only for externally funded research activities. The inventory at the UofA is currently 727,000 square feet and the Guidelines call for 1,200,000 square feet. This is the largest deficit area and causes equipment to be stored in the hallways and under tables, which cuts down on productivity. To mitigate the problem, the Capital Improvement Plan has been revised to include building approximately 100,000 square feet of research space. This will address about 20% of the current deficient, but does not address the growth in research.
Ms. Valencia said the UofA has put colleges on a three-year review cycle. As the review of four colleges was finished this year, it was found the space shortages echo the over-all space shortages of the entire campus.
A new central scheduling system has been ordered. It is hoped this system can be linked with the scheduling system. This system will also allow for the tracking of non-credit activities.
President Gignac asked if there was experimentation with the scheduling of classes on other than the fifty-minute track. Ms. Valencia said the Monday, Wednesday, Friday UofA classes are on the fifty-minute track, but the Tuesday-Thursday classes are on the 1 hour and 15 minute track. President Gignac asked if the guidelines for lecture hall usage should be reviewed over the next few years given the changing state of how classes are being taught. She was told the universities have been considering this as the use of lecture halls has decreased as students are taught in smaller groups in a more interactive manner.
Regent McKay asked if the University of Arizona South had been considered in the same manner as the main campus and was told it had not been in the past as it had shared usage with Cochise Community College. When the new building comes on line, that will change. President Gignac thanked Ms. Valencia for her presentation.
President Gignac introduced Christine Thompson, the new Student Regent Designee.
Processes and Issues Related to the Development of Supplemental State Operating Budget Requests for the FY2000-2001 Biennium
Ms. Louise Houseworth joined the meeting for this discussion. President Gignac reminded the Board the Legislature appropriated funds for the Arizona University System for the FY2000-2001 biennium. The Board is now faced for the first time with issues related to the development of supplemental State Operating Budget Requests for the second year of the biennium.
Ms. Houseworth said it is anticipated the Governor’s supplemental budget guidelines for the biennium will be issued in early June. Through initial correspondence from the Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting, it is envisioned these guidelines will limit the request for supplemental funds to revised forecasts of tuition revenue due to changes in enrollment, revisions to the 22-1 enrollment formula, and new, unfunded mandates. The universities and the central office will develop a process to implement the OSPB guidelines.
Planning Guidance for the Second Year of the Biennial FY2000-2003 Capital Improvement Plan
Ms. Louise Houseworth joined the meeting for this discussion. Even though state statute only requires the universities to submit Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) every two years, President Gignac informed the Regents the universities are proposing to present updated CIPs to the Board in September 1999. The updated CIPs will highlight changes to the FY 2000-2003 CIPs since they were approved by the Board in September 1998, thereby keeping the Board informed of the universities’ major capital planning activities. The presidents are also asking the Board to review the status of the universities’ building renewal request and the options we may have.
Ms. Houseworth said historically the universities’ capital request has been in two components. One is for capital projects; the other for building renewal. The building renewal requests made to the legislature are based on a formula adopted by the Legislative Joint Committee on Capital Review (JCCR). The formula is based on the age of the facility and the replacement value. The universities’ ability to maintain the useful life of facilities is based on the full funding of the building renewal request. During the last five years, the building renewal funding appropriated by the legislature averaged 68%. It ranged from a low of 42% in FY97 to a high of 100% in the current fiscal year. For the 2000-2001 biennium, the legislative appropriation represented 23% of the formula.
The presidents said Building Renewal, even when funded at full formula, does not allow for the maintenance of existing capital assets in a way that maintains the buildings and allows for renovation that will keep pace with evolving teaching and research needs. President Lovett believes this state of affairs has been compounded in recent years by the Board’s decision to not seek capital funding from the legislature except when it entailed new construction in branch or emerging campuses. The presidents said a way needs to be found to underscore with the Governor and the legislature the significance of this item. It is necessary to invest the money to protect the physical assets and prevent the need for even greater funds in the future to restore damaged buildings.
President Gignac asked if the legislature had funded all state building systems at 23% of the building renewal formula, not just the universities, and was told yes. She wondered if that would provide allies in the fight for full funding. She asked if there would be a chance in June to discuss the current Board policy to see if there is a better way to approach capital needs. President Lovett said this has been a Board practice, not a Board policy. President Lovett said she believes this has communicated to legislative officials the Board can take care of existing assets through bonding or private funds and the universities are discovering this is not the case, particularly since the building renewal formula is not fully funded.
President Gignac said it does bring up the point
made frequently by Regent Amos, how can new buildings be built when the old ones
are not being properly maintained? Regent Munger said it
seemed to him, since all state agencies were
treated alike, the legislature made a policy decision to support building
renewal at a certain amount; it did not assume the universities could maintain
their needs by other methods.
Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Munger, the Board adopted the CIP Guidelines as presented by the Central Office and the universities.
FY2000-2001 Legislatively Funded Decision Packages
Ms. Louise Houseworth joined the meeting for this discussion. President Gignac said the Executive Summary for this item was prepared in response to a request from the Board that information on the decision packages funded by the Legislature be presented at the May Board meeting. Additional decision package information will be included as part of the initial All Funds Operating Budget Summary presented to the Board in June 1999.
President Gignac asked how much more detail on these decision packages would be included in the All Funds report in June. She was told the problem the universities now face is deciding how to spend the money that was appropriated since it was only a small portion of what was requested. It is anticipated this information will be presented in June. President Coor said, for example, ASU does welcome the $350,000 appropriated for the Arizona Software Institute, but the request had been for $1,375,000 and it was presented as one of the statewide proposals. The entire approach will now need to be changed.
The meeting recessed at 2:30 p.m. and reconvened at 2:47 p.m.
Psychology Research Laboratory Renovation: Project Budget Increase (UofA)
Mr. Robert Smith joined the meeting for this discussion. President Gignac said this is a budget increase of $143,400 for the renovation of the first floor of the Psychology Building to accommodate required research laboratories. The Board granted Conceptual and Project Approval for the project with a $1.49M budget in February 1999. Based on the bids received, the project is now estimated to cost $1.6M. It will be funded through Building Renewal Funds.
President Gignac asked why there seemed to be a
need for so many budget increases. Mr. Smith said there is currently a
tight labor market which is driving construction costs higher and making it hard
to find qualified contractors. Regent Campbell asked if it would be
possible to delay
some of the construction projects for six months to
a year until expected higher interest rates cause the building rate to fall and
therefore lower the amount of construction. Mr. Smith said the space is
desperately needed now for current research projects as are the HVAC
Modifications for the next item on the Agenda. Regent Munger asked if this
problem was the result of low architects’ estimates and what could be done in
the future to anticipate increased costs. He was told the estimates are
based on current market prices and it is hard to predict what will happen by the
time bids are let.
Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board granted a budget increase of $143,000 to the University of Arizona for the Psychology Research Laboratory Renovation project.
President Gignac introduced Senator Randall Gnant, who was visiting the University of Arizona South campus. She thanked him for his support in the past legislative session.
University Animal Care HVAC Modifications: Project Budget Increase (UofA)
Mr. Robert Smith joined the meeting for this discussion. President Gignac said the University of Arizona was requesting a budget increase of $205,000 for the University Animal Care Facilities HVAC Modifications. The Board granted Conceptual and Project Approval for the project with a $1.5M budget in January 1998. Based on the bids received, the project is now estimated to cost $1.7M.
Mr. Smith said, due to the use of the laboratories on this project, the National Institute of Health (NIH), as part of its careful monitoring of the project plans, has required some adjustments to the air controls, the duct work, as well as a number of mechanical improvements they believe are necessary. The changes requested by NIH are not adding to the cost of the project; however, as it is contributing $600,000 toward the funding. In addition, some problems have arisen that were not foreseen, such as an abandoned underground storage tank that required the rerouting of a utility tunnel.
Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board granted a budget increase of $205,000 to the University of Arizona for the University Animal Care HVAC Modifications Project.
McKale Athletic Performance Center and Heritage Hall: Revised Conceptual Approval and Budget Increase (UofA)
Mr. Robert Smith and Dr. Jim Livengood joined
the meeting for this discussion. President Gignac said this is a request
for Revised Conceptual Approval and budget increase of $3.5M for
the proposed addition to McKale Memorial Center.
The Board granted Conceptual Approval for the project with a $10M budget in
August 1997. This request is made because there has been an inclusion of a
treatment area to enhance the competitive excellence of University
student-athletes; there has been a modification of existing space to connect
with the addition; there is now a plan to construct and install exhibit casework
and exhibits in Heritage Hall; and there is a need for additional site
development/utility work for steam line relocations. The project name has
been changed from Strength and Conditioning Facility to the McKale Athletic
Performance Center and Heritage Hall to more accurately capture the elements of
the project.
Regent Munger commended the Athletic Department for its willingness to help the university with its donation of money toward the financing of the Student Union. He also wanted to call attention to the fact this project is being funded through gifts and donations, not state money.
Regent Campbell also expressed his appreciation for the Athletic Department’s participation in the funding of the Student Union. Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent Amos, the Board granted Revised Conceptual Approval and a budget increase of $3,500,000 to the University of Arizona for the McKale Athletic Performance Center and Heritage Hall.
Sun Devil Club Softball and Soccer Fields: Project Budget Increase (ASU)
Dr. Mernoy Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. President Gignac said this is a request for a budget increase of $1.5M for the Sun Devil Club Softball and Soccer Fields project. The Board granted Project Approval for the project with a $4.2M budget in November 1998. Although the lowest bid when the project was bid in March was $2M over the estimated cost, the university’s review of the bid packages indicates that a re-bid of the project will result in a total capital cost increase of $1.5M.
Dr. Harrison said ASU is experiencing the same difficulty with the Phoenix market that the UofA is experiencing in Tucson. In addition, ASU has had some difficulty with nonperformance of contractors in the past; so they entered into a prequalification effort which unfortunately limited the number of bidders to two. Also, there were only two contractors available to bid for concrete. Therefore, ASU decided to rebid the project. The Department of Athletics has had a successful fund-raising campaign and they would like to complete the project for the next soccer and softball season.
Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent Campbell, the Board granted a budget increase of $1.5M to Arizona State University for the Sun Devil Club Softball and Soccer Fields Project.
Acquisition of Building and Property Located at 1501 South Rural Road, Tempe (ASU)
Dr. Mernoy Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. President Gignac said this request is for approval to purchase the real property located at 1501 South Rural Road, Tempe, from the ASU Foundation. The Board granted approval for the purchase at its May 1998 meeting. ASU assigned its right to the Foundation, and the Foundation purchased the property. ASU desires to purchase the property for a purchase price of $2.45M plus $260,000 to reimburse the Foundation for costs and expenses associated with the property.
President Gignac asked what program and funding changes had caused revisions in the original plan. Dr. Harrision said the original purchase proposal was for library-storage space. A federally funded project arose that needed space on the main campus quickly, so ASU decided to renovate this space to move some campus units here to allow room for the federal project. In the meantime, the funding for the federal project was delayed, so the need for space on campus was not so pressing. Also, ASU had planned to use funds from its plant fund for the project, but as the building renewal funds were reduced for the coming year there is a need to rethink the financing plan. All these things have delayed the project and the Foundation asked the university to repurchase the property and undertake the renovations on its own under the revised time line. Dr. Harrison said he believes the financing issue is settled and the university is prepared to move forward. The source of funds for the purchase is Auxiliary reserve funds.
President Coor said this remains a good project for ASU as it has allowed the university to acquire six acres immediately adjacent to the campus, one-third of which has the structures the university wishes to renovate. It will be economical space for the university. Regent Amos asked if an environmental study was done and was told it was and the property received a clean bill of health.
Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board authorized the Vice Provost for Administrative Services or a person designated by the President of ASU to purchase the real property at 1501 South Rural Road, Tempe, from the ASU Foundation for a purchase price of $2,450,000 and to pay or reimburse the ASU Foundation for costs and expenses relating to the property incurred by the ASU Foundation of $260,000.
Regent Amos chaired this portion of the meeting.
Progress Report on Enrollment Growth Planning
Dr. Art Ashton joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Amos said planning to meet future enrollment growth demand is one of the most important activities the Board performs. Last fall, after the Economics and Demographics focus area discussion, the Board agreed to revise its Enrollment Growth Plan. This revision will also incorporate the Auditor General’s Enrollment Management Audit recommendations. A work group of university and central office planners has started the process that will lead to the revision of the Enrollment Growth Plan.
Dr. Ashton said the first step in developing a new enrollment growth plan is to develop enrollment demand projections. The work group plans to have a steady-state projection, a low end of the range projection, and a high end of the range projection. These enrollment demand projections will include categories to identify ethnic minorities. They will also be presenting a number of possible future scenarios that are not predictions, but represent a way of putting a lot of ideas and possibilities together. It is expected that, after a discussion of the projections and scenarios, various implications for planning and policy directions will be identified. These will set the stage for Phase II of the planning process--the drafting of a revised enrollment growth plan.
Regent Amos asked if anyone outside the State of Arizona was involved with the work group and was told it was composed of people from the universities and the central staff. Regent Amos said he was concerned about the credibility of the final report and thought it might carry more weight if there were individuals involved that were not from the university system. He was told the last plan was developed with the help of an outside expert in planning and there were complaints the person did not know Arizona conditions. Regent Munger suggested using a planning expert from Arizona but outside the university system.
Regent Amos suggested legislators be involved in the process so they would better understand the resulting plan. Dr. Ashton pointed out Phase II would involve the Board and Phase III would involve other stakeholders such as business people and legislators. President Lovett said it would be possible to ask nationally recognized experts to look at the draft report and offer an opinion, if desired.
President Gignac asked if the Plan will be systemwide or by campus. Dr. Ashton said the projections will be systemwide. She said there is a possibility the Governor’s signing letter that accompanies the Academic Technology Building for UofAS may request there be a master plan developed for satellite campuses. She suggested this seems like a good opportunity to look at each campus. Regent Jewett said he agreed this should be a quality product which would answer the concerns of the Governor and the legislature.
President Lovett said she believed the Board staff should put together systemwide data based on market conditions, demographics, high school graduation rates, etc.; but at the same time there is a need for campus-based or institution-by-institution based planning because some of the current growth has been program driven. Regent Amos agreed and asked the work group to take that into consideration. He also asked the group to take into consideration the comments made about the last report so the same mistakes won’t be repeated.
Regent Jewett reminded everyone that Item 25, Amendment to Board Policy 6-908, Patent Policy, would be discussed first in the morning rather than where it is currently scheduled on the Agenda. If there are members of the public present who were unable to attend the meeting today and wish to comment on the item, they will be allowed to do so tomorrow.
President Gignac reminded the Regents there would be a tour of the campus available in the morning at 8:15 a.m. The meeting recessed at 3:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:16 a.m. on Friday, May 21.
Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting.
Amendment to Board Policy 6-908, Patent Policy (Second Reading)
Dr. Jonathan Fink, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Michael Gottfredson, Mr. Nicholas Goodman, and Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda joined the meeting for this discussion.
There was no one present for an additional Call to the Audience on this topic. Regent Jewett announced his attention to propose that the Board postpone final action on this item until the June Board meeting to insure the pursuit of input from all members of the university community. However, he would like to discuss the substantive and procedural issues first.
He expressed his belief that the universities and many of Arizona’s key industries had put considerable time and effort in to the development of the proposed policy. It was forged through an open, extended process of give and take covering more than two years. He believes the policy is balanced, thoughtful, and reflects good collaboration and compromise. Those who developed the policy deserve thanks and appreciation.
Regent Jewett addressed several amendments that were suggested following the first reading of the policy in April. He asked Mr. Seese-Bieda to present the amendments for Board consideration.
Mr. Seese-Bieda said the question regarding the
overall ability of an appropriate mechanism to release a discovery to a creator
when the university lacks the resources or technical interest to maintain
ownership is addressed in Section 6-908 (D)(2)(a). The new language
appears in the shaded area on Page 22 of the Executive Summary. Upon
motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Amos, the Board adopted the new
language.
Mr. Seese-Bieda said Section 6-908 (C)(1) addresses the suggestion that university legal counsel should be involved in reviewing all proposed agreements. The new language reads, “The agreement will be executed by the designated university officials, subject to review by university counsel.” Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Amos, the Board adopted the new language.
Mr. Seese-Bieda said Section 6-908(C)(1) addresses the concern expressed by faculty that consultation should take place with the creator(s) who may in some cases be different than the principal investigator(s). The new language would read, “The IP official will use his or her best efforts to consult with the creator(s) and the principal investigator(s) during the negotiation process.” Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board adopted the new language.
Regent Jewett said the Board heard yesterday from faculty at the ASU Cancer Research Institute that they were not provided adequate notice of the proposed policy changes and he asked President Coor to comment on what could be done to ensure that all faculty at ASU are fully apprised of the policy. President Coor said this process had been underway for over three years and there had been substantial efforts to make sure all interested parties were well acquainted with the provisions and had opportunity to make comments. Within the ASU family, a Committee on Intellectual Property (IP), chaired by the Chair of the Chemistry Department, was the instrument of consultation and review; and the IP endorsed the document submitted to the Board. However, Dr. Coor said he had heard there was a reasonable question as to how extensively the provisions of this document were know by all interested parties. Therefore, he had indicated to Regent Jewett additional consultation was warranted and he would like to see the adoption of the policy postponed until the June meeting. Between now and then, ASU will turn the policy back to the IP Committee and every faculty member will be E-mailed a copy of the policy and an invitation to comment. The IP Committee will receive the comments and make certain they are known by others. Internal procedures for consultation will also be examined.
Regent Jewett asked the panel to comment on the reason for the application of a 15% administrative fee (which can be up to 15%, 15% is not required) to any revenue stream that results from licensing or assignment of title and explain how this differs from current practice. Dr. Fink said the current policy has the fee in place to cover the expenses associated with running the technology transfer operations at the three campuses. This keeps the burden off the taxpayer during the early stages of the development of the technologies and tries to minimize the charges that go to the inventor. It is believed this policy is quite generous when compared to policies at other universities. Dr. Glick said he believes this policy protects institutional integrity while at the same time being very generous to the inventor and the inventor’s laboratory. President Likins said the amount which can be up to 15% is intended to cover costs, while the balance of the net royalties the institution retains goes into the research fund.
Regent Jewett said there had been a suggestion some firms might be interested in licensing a discovery, such as a new drug, in order to prevent the invention from coming to market in a timely fashion. Dr. Fink said the Federal government has regulations that prevent companies dealing with universities in research agreements from putting these inventions on the shelf. The new policy has strict diligence requirements requiring the inventions to be made available to the public as quickly as possible that will be spelled out in each license agreement.
Regent Jewett said the Board had heard yesterday concerns that the university’s interests might be compromised if the creator/investor is not given approval authority over the licensing agreement. He asked how the participation of the researcher had been preserved in the new policy and why was there a change proposed from the current practice. Dr. Fink distributed a paper illustrating IP policies of peer institutions with respect to inventor involvement in license negotiations. All the universities require consultation with the inventor, but none allow the inventor to have a veto. The paper also listed ten reasons why the “inventor’s veto” is not appropriate in university technology transfer.
President Gignac read a letter she had received from Dr. Peter Williams, Professor of Chemistry at ASU. Dr. Williams does not advocate an inventor veto. However, he believes the only way to guard against exposing the universities to exploitation and legal peril is full consultation with the inventor before any final agreement is signed, together with a provision for appeal by the inventor and for speedy review of that appeal prior to finalizing any agreement.
Regent Jewett said he believed it was time to move the policy forward. He also wants to be clear, considering this discussions and other discussions that have taken place in the last week, that the primary request for the creator/inventor veto is not one he believes the Board ought to grant. These discoveries and inventions are produced at the public institutions, with the support of tax dollars and tax-funded buildings and equipment. In principle, they belong to the people of Arizona, with the Board of Regents as custodians. He believes the appropriate university officials should retain the authority to enter into licensing agreements on behalf of the universities.
Regent Jewett said he also believes it is important the faculty, particularly at ASU, be fully consulted and informed on the new patent policy. Therefore, he moved the item be postponed for final consideration until the June Board meeting, at which time the presidents will bring back to the Board a report on how the consultative role of their faculty is being preserved. Regent McKay seconded the motion.
Regent Munger said he supported the proposal and
believes it is important to get faculty input before the next meeting. He
would like to see an attempt to work out something that would be satisfactory to
both the concerned faculty and the university. The motion passed
unanimously.
President Coor left the meeting at this point and Dr. Milton Glick joined the meeting in his place.
Regent McKay chaired this portion of the meeting.
Discussion on Higher Education Transformation Through Learner Centered Change
Regent McKay said this is a continuation of the discussion begun at the April meeting. She asked President Gignac to facilitate the discussion as she had begun the process in April. Dr. Jerry Hogle, Dr. Michael Gottfredson, Dr. Inéz Chisholm, Dr. Elaine Maimon, Dr. Judith Sellers, and Dr. Marie Zeglen joined the meeting for this discussion. President Gignac said the Board, in April, asked the universities to submit examples of learner centered activities on their campuses and asked the Arizona Faculties Council to begin working with the members of the Council of Presidents on a plan for how to move ahead with the exploration of higher education transformation through learner centered change. The Executive Summary contains examples of current learner centered activities. The University of Arizona was asked to highlight one or two of these examples today.
Dr. Michael Gottfredson introduced Professor of Communications Sally Jackson, leader of the faculty development and distributed learning project at the UofA. She is also the creator of a project for on-line instructional support for of a system that is nationally regarded and is widely used throughout the UofA. She is a national figure in learner centered activities. Dr. Jackson introduced Lynn Fleischman and Eric Olson, who operated the computer technology for the presentation.
Dr. Jackson said technology is key to learner centered education. Interaction is at the very heart of learner centeredness. This has involved the redesign of interaction processes. In order for students to learn, they must engage in significant interaction--interaction that leads them to reexamine their own current understanding of a subject and move forward toward deeper and more independent thinking. Most of the faculty development has been oriented to trying to get certain kinds of design elements worked into teaching and learning. Several factors can be counted on to improve learning outcomes for students, such as meaningful real world problems, direct access to data, independent conclusion writing, and disagreement and contrast.
Different formats for teaching and learning were displayed. Debate brings disagreement to the mix and forces students to examine their own position. Highest on the graphics shown in the presentation was independent inquiry by the student where the student actively engages in exploration to build his/her knowledge.
Many classes are structured for interaction, such as small seminars. All across the campus, techniques are being advanced that promote peer interaction and interactive learning within large lectures. A puzzle is posed to students and they are given a minute or two for silent reflection.
They are then asked to argue with their neighbor about which of several possible answers is correct; the correct answer is shown; and the teacher and students talk through all the different kinds of reasoning that might lead to one answer or another.
Professor Jackson introduced Dr. Stuart Glogoff, Assistant Dean of Library Information Systems, a central figure in the Southwest Project, a cross-campus project that involves faculty, students, and other community people. Dr. Glogoff said the Southwest Project embodies all the principles and practices Dr. Jackson had described. The objectives are to make data useable and accessible, to build tools for non-specialists, and to create effective instructional settings. Three of the Southwest Project ventures were presented to the Regents.
The meeting recessed at 10:37 a.m. and
reconvened at 10:52 a.m. President Gignac asked the faculty to share their
thoughts as to how to move forward on each campus with learner centered
transformation and how to develop an appropriate set of accountability measures.
Dr. William Davey said the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) developed the
conclusion listed at the bottom of Page 3 of the Executive Summary. The
Arizona Universities need to explore institutional change to increase adaptation
to student needs by establishing a dialogue on the nature of the Bachelor’s
degree and discussing the ways to incorporate student centered learning into the
curriculum. Specific focus should be on the university to work transition,
the use of technology in student centered learning, the role of the faculty, and
the infusion of student-centered modules in courses.
The universities also need to identify
methodologies for the evaluation of student centered learning and to study the
cost/benefit issues of learner centered methodologies. The AFC would like
to establish a work group to look at the issue. There is a need to codify
the definitions about what student-centered learning is and there may be a
desire to do a systemwide survey to access what is going on at the individual
institutions. The composition of the work group should include
administrative personnel, diverse faculty positions, and information technology
experts. Curriculum issues should be cojoined with resource allocations.
Dr. Hogle said one of the first things the work group should do is collate all the things that are being done on the campuses to find out how these efforts can be coordinated and expanded. As the work group develops, it could lead to two processes of accountability--for awhile, a series of tables on what is happening and how increases are happening in this kind of activity; later, based on those tables, assessment measures could be developed. He believes it will take longer than a year to find effective ways to measure these techniques as they are so new.
President Likins said the phrases learner centered education and student centered education have the same meaning. He said there has been a struggle to define the phrases so the activities could be inventoried, but it is difficult to get sharp boundaries on what would be included. Some of this kind of work has been going on for centuries, such as dance instruction. One fundamentally different characteristic of this mode of instruction is that it involves doing research on how people learn.
President Lovett says she agrees there is the challenge of recognition, of assessing the effectiveness of what is done, and of assessing how much can be afforded. NAU will provide examples of its activities at the June meeting. She said reviewing the common characteristics of the examples of student-centered learning from across the university showed two clusters with common themes which can be a guide to understand the importance of the activities. One cluster is undergraduate research. Another cluster is professional practice where a group of students undertake a real-world type of experience. The third cluster is a learning, living community where the students take certain courses in common, but they manage the learning environment. However, the impact of these experiences compared to the more traditional instruction is not known.
Provost Glick said he would invite the faculty from the UofA to come to ASU and make the presentation they made today as he believes the universities should share examples among each other. He agreed with the AFC desire to begin with the discussion of the meaning of the baccalaureate degree, especially in the light of the new providers on the horizon. He said whatever is done, it will comprise a portfolio of techniques as not everything will become learner centered. The financing model in place does not work well with new technology as it is currently pay-as-you-go. When a major corporation is trying to start something new, it makes a large venture capital investment out front and then recovers those costs in the out years. The up front costs are not only in technology; there is a need for faculty time, also.
President Gignac said she believes the Board needs to have a better understanding of what learner centered change is as she sees it as a replacement or substitution or innovation, but not as an add on. She believes adding technology will make funding requests more vulnerable than in the past and believes the faculty has to take the lead in making these changes. She believes there needs to be some way to have incentives for faculty to move into these areas. For the June meeting, in addition to the NAU presentation, she would like the AFC to have a beginning of a draft document with a work plan containing some time lines for the continuing discussion both with the Board and on campus.
Dr. Hogle clarified that the AFC was being asked for a proposed time line and some proposed activities connected with that time line. President Gignac said it was a time line for a discussion; not a time line on implementation. She is only looking for a draft. President Likins said perhaps the AFC could address how the faculty feels about this issue and whether they feel resource inhibited. President Lovett said she would like to have the resources to at least do some pilot programs as she has faculty that would like to begin some programs. It would also mean taking the time to develop some valid assessments for these types of programs.
Proposed Addition to Undergraduate Accountability Measures
Dr. Michael Gottfredson and Dr. Marie Zeglen joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay reminded the Board it had requested, at its November 1998 meeting, that the universities continue working on a measure to describe student access to professors. Dr. Gottfredson said the presentation of this measure culminates months of collaborative work between members of the Board and work groups at the universities. The Board asked the universities to restrict this measure to tenure and tenure-track faculty. The proposed measure is the percentage of full-time, lower-division students enrolled in two or more primary courses per semester with tenured/tenure-track professors. The definitions of lower-division students, tenure/tenure track professors, primary courses, and full-time students are also presented.
Dr. Gottfredson said there is some caution in adopting this measure; and it is hoped this will be a transition whereby this measure can be used to begin to develop additional accountability measures that focus on learner-centered measures.
Regent Amos said the Board had received complaints about the measure of student access to ranked faculty and this measure will tighten the definition of ranked faculty to lend credibility to the measure. He does believe the Board should move forward with its discussion of learner-centered education, but the presidents have made it clear it will be a while before that will be in place. Regent Munger said he supported the proposed measure as it is more indicative of what the Regents had in mind when the original measures were adopted. This does not preclude the use of other ranked faculty in the classroom; it just provides information to the public on student contact with tenure/tenure track faculty.
President Likins said the difference in ranked faculty and this category of tenure/tenure eligible faculty includes a very important category of teacher or professor called the lecturer who typically is a full-time, career long teacher who many times is very effective. He believes the existing measure 4.1, which includes the lecturer, also has value as the universities try to improve the experience of lower division students. He would like for the 4.1 measure to continue.
Provost Glick agreed with President Likins. He also hoped a way could be found to meet the needs of different students with different kinds of classes. He hopes a way can be found to measure faculty interaction and faculty work load in ways that do reflect the kind of student centered learning that was discussed today.
Regent Amos agreed the universities should move forward with learner-centered education, but it may be years before this transformation is ready. In the meantime, he believes the new measure should be in place. Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Munger, the Board adopted the proposed measure as recommended by the universities and incorporated it into the Undergraduate Consolidated Accountability Report.
Request to Change the Name of the Department of Communication to the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication (ASU)
Provost Glick said Arizona State University
wishes to change the name of its Department of Communications, a department
which has risen in rankings in the last decade, to the Hugh Downs School of
Human Communication. The term human clearly differentiates the School from
the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Before
Mr. Downs agreed to allow his name to be placed on this school, he had numerous
meetings with the faculty.
Upon motion of Regent Campbell, seconded by Regent
Munger, the Board authorized ASU to change the name of the Department of
Communication in the College of Public Programs to the Hugh Downs School of
Human Communication.
University Plan for Improving Teacher Preparation: Status Report
Dr. Elaine Maimon, Dr. Michael Gottfredson, and Dr. Patty Horn joined the meeting for this discussion. President Lovett formally introduced Dr. Horn, the Associate Dean in the Center for Excellence in Education at NAU. Regent McKay said the Board is asked to review a status report on the universities’ plans to align teacher preparation programs with the new Arizona K-12 Academic Standards. In addition, NAU has provided a status report on plans for creating the K-12 Teacher Improvement Center. The Board is also asked to comment on a collaborative application for a federal teacher quality improvement partnership grant and on a recommendation from a recent joint Board of Regents/Board of Education discussion.
President Gignac said she was pleased with the progress report. She asked for the next update to have an estimated completion date. Dr. Maimon, Dr. Glick, Dr. Horn, and Dr. Gottfredson explained how their Colleges of Education were cooperating among themselves and how they were each cooperating with their Colleges of Liberal Arts and Sciences. They also described how they are implementing programs to meet the new standards and some of the programs that are already in place.
Regent Campbell said he believed this is one of the most important things the universities will ever do as it will impact teachers and students across the state. This will raise the quality of students entering the universities and eventually the entire state will benefit. President Gignac called the Board’s attention to all the areas listed in the Executive Summary. She asked the universities to work together to support the induction period of all teachers throughout the state of Arizona, regardless of where they went to school or where they are working.
President Gignac reported the Joint Conference Committee (JCC) heard a report on the funding appropriated for the Arizona Transfer Articulation Support System and the computer systems that insure the smooth operation of the transfer programs. Unfortunately, the state appropriation is only 75% of the base budget; so the universities have been asked and have agreed to fund their share of the difference, approximately $40,000 each for FY2000. The JCC also supported three improvements, including moving to an on-line course equivalency guide called CEG 2000, a change in the reporting structure of the CEG Steering Committee, and a new position.
There was a discussion of Arizona community colleges partnering with out-of-state baccalaureate institutions instead of in-state institutions. There was no agreement reached at this meeting. There was a report from the Articulation Steering Committee that the controversy stemming from the recent change in the University of Arizona’s general education curriculum had been successfully resolved.
Legal counsels are looking into the matter of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act which is currently preventing the universities and community colleges from collecting their data on transfer students into a common data base.
President Gignac reported the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges heard the Community College Presidents’ Council and the Arizona Association of District Governing Boards report they had developed a joint resolution in response to the concern raised at the statewide level about the Arizona Community Colleges partnering with out-of-state universities. The entire Board expressed its appreciation for the joint meeting with the Board of Regents in April. The community college presidents look forward to meeting with the university presidents at a summit in September.
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
Dr. William Davey reported the Arizona Faculties Council has been discussing the role of the faculty in learner centered change to assist the Board in achieving its agenda. They will be meeting prior to the June meeting to see how they can proceed in those areas. He expressed the gratitude of the faculty for the Board’s action in deferring the discussion of the Patent Policy to deal with the issue of faculty collaboration.
Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting.
Review of State Legislation with Potentially Direct Impact on the Arizona University System
Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett called the Board’s attention to the updated summary that had been distributed. Mr. Seese-Bieda noted the resource bills that were signed by the Governor. Senate Bill 1083 has a broad impact on many members of the university system that participate in the retirement system by changing the formula for calculating retirement income. President Gignac thanked all the university and central office people who worked during the legislative session on behalf of the system.
New Policy Framework for Naming of Facilities and Programmatic Units, (New ABOR 1-117, Repeal of ABOR 7-401, and Guidelines for Assigning the Names of Individuals, Families or Organizations to Campus Facilities or Programmatic Units) (First Reading)
Regent Jewett said the Board is asked to
consider a new policy framework to govern the naming of facilities and
programmatic units, including a set of guidelines that establish criteria when
naming facilities or programmatic units for
individuals, families, or organizations. This issue came before the Board
last month for discussion, and out of that discussion there were a number of
improvements that were included in this policy. This revised policy
framework was submitted for first reading.
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, REPORTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
President Gignac read a Resolution in Memory of John J. Lee, Deputy Director of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, who passed away on April 27, 1991, at the age of 51. Upon the motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Munger, the Board unanimously passed the Resolution and asked that it be placed in a format suitable for presentation to the family.
The Regents thanked the staff of the University of Arizona South and the community of Sierra Vista for their hospitality.
The meeting adjourned at 12:29 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
______________________________
Judy E. Garza
Secretary to the Board
APPROVED BY:
_____________________________
Judith A. Gignac
President
ATTEST:
__________________________
Kay J. McKay
Secretary