November 2000 Minutes/Arizona Board of Regents

A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held November 16 and 17, 2000, in Tucson, Arizona.

PRESENT:

Regent George H. Amos, III (Friday Only)
Regent Mary Echeverria
Regent Judy Gignac
Regent Chris Herstam
Regent Jack Jewett
Regent Kay McKay
Regent Christina Palacios (Friday Only)
Regent Gary Stuart
Regent Donald Ulrich

ABSENT:

Governor Jane Dee Hull
Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan

Also joining the meeting for this meeting were: President Peter Likins, Dr. George Davis, Dr. Elizabeth Erwin, and Dr. Patti Ota, University of Arizona; President Clara Lovett, Dr. John Haeger, and Ms. Anne Barton, Northern Arizona University; President Lattie Coor, and Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Arizona State University; Executive Director Linda Blessing, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Art Ashton, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, Mr. Matt Ortega, and Ms. Norma Salas, Central Office Staff.

The Regents participated in a joint meeting with the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges of Arizona (SBDCC). The meeting took place in Room A109/112 of the Pima Community College Community Campus, 401 Bonita Avenue in Tucson.

Mr. Patrick Carlin, SBDCC Chairman, called the joint meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. He welcomed the members of the Board of Regents (ABOR) to the Community Campus. Mr. Donald Ulrich, President of the Arizona Board of Regents, thanked Pima County Community College District Chancellor Robert Jensen and President Kooi for hosting the luncheon and the meeting and stated his appreciation for the invitation to the Regents to participate in the joint Agenda.

Those seated at the table introduced themselves. Present in addition to the Regents and the university presidents were: Mr. Theodore Fichtl (Cochise County), Ms. Karen Rizk (Yavapai County), Ms. Lourdes Moreno-Jeong (Santa Cruz County), Mr. J. Peter Hershberger, Jr. (Pima
County), Mr. Bud Anderson (Pinal County), Ms. Lois Claridge (Graham County), Mr. Steve
Johnson (Gila County), Ms. E. Conkie Hoover (La Paz County), Mr. Michael Clifton (Coconino County), Ms. Thava Freedman (Navajo County), Mr. T. O. Beach (Yuma County), Mr. Gherald Hoopes (Community College President Representative), and Dr. Donald Puyear (SBDCC Executive Director).

JOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT ON ARTICULATION AND POST-SECONDARY NEEDS

Dr. Glenn Irvin, Co-Chair of the Academic Program Articulation Steering Committee (APASC) addressed this issue. Since 1996 the ABOR and the SBDCC have reported to the Legislature on progress in implementing a new statewide transfer model. The model was designed by the statewide Transfer Articulation Task Force (TATF) and is now being guided by the Joint Conference Committee (JCC), consisting of members of both boards, with the aid of the Academic Program Articulation Steering Committee (APASC), a group of community college and university academic officers. The TATF designated the JCC and APASC as the groups responsible for overseeing and implementing the new transfer model.

Since 1998 the ABOR and the SBDCC have reported to the Legislature on a collaborative process to identify and meet statewide postsecondary needs. The process was developed by the statewide Higher Education Study Committee and is being continued by the JCC with assistance from the Joint Review committee (JRC), a group of community college and university representatives. The JRC was created to review and recommend resolution of issues related to postsecondary needs.

The progress report presented addressed both postsecondary needs and articulation. It is the second in a series of two annual reports submitted to the Legislature in response to a budgetary footnote included in the community college and university budgets for FY 2000/2001.

The full implementation of the New Transfer Model and its components was completed by January 1, 1999. Approximately 1000 students have completed the Arizona General Education Curriculum since implementation.

One of the emerging issues identified in the TATF 1996 Report was competency-based education. The subcommittee tasked by APASC to develop a literature review appropriate for considering next steps for possible statewide policy implications has reported and the next step is a survey of all institutions to determine the use of competency-based education in current academic programs.

The Arizona Transfer Articulation Support Systems budget appropriation has provided the resources necessary for on-going maintenance and development of the Course Applicability System (CAS) and the Arizona State System for Information on Student Transfer (ASSIST). The original scope of the CAS project has been fully implemented and there have been upgrades in all of the software programs that support CAS. This conversion from a paper document to an on-line application allows for timely processing of changes in equivalency and applicability of courses from the community colleges to the universities.

Implementation is in progress for ASSIST. The Community College District Governing Boards, ABOR, and SBDCC have all approved a joint resolution to have the universities and the community colleges provide student information to form the ASSIST database. The security plan has been implemented to allow for the secure sharing of data.

During 2000, the Arizona public community colleges and universities have acted jointly to meet the postsecondary needs of Arizona citizens. There has been progress in the areas of Community College/University Partnerships, Increasing Access to Baccalaureate Programs, and Implementing the New Joint Review Committee. As of November 2000, the Arizona public community colleges and universities have identified and acted to meet needs without raising any issues for referral to the JRC.

ARIZONA TOWN HALL RECOMMENDATIONS

President Ulrich introduced Regent Gignac, Co-chair of the 76th Arizona Town Hall. Regent Gignac said this year Town Hall had established a follow-up subcommittee to promote the implementation of the recommendations presented in the report, "Higher Education in Arizona for the 21st Century." One of the recommendations which should be of great interest to the ABOR and the SBDCC is the suggestion there be as much collaboration as possible among the education boards in Arizona for the effective use of tax dollars to benefit students and to encourage more students to complete higher education.

GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Mr. Don-Paul Benjamin and Dr. Thomas Wickenden summarized the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education (Task Force) draft report. The Task Force will meet on November 20, 2000, to review and adopt two versions of their final report. There will be a summary report entitled "Arizona at Risk: An Urgent Call to Action." A more detailed report is entitled "A Blueprint for Higher Education 2000-2020: Possible Approaches to Implementing the Recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education." Members of ABOR and SBDCC who also serve on the Task Force include Mr. Nick Balich and Mr. Pat Carlin from the SBDCC and Mr. Chris Herstam and Mr. Don Ulrich, ABOR.

The reports contain initiatives that are similar for the community colleges and the universities and some that are common to both. Common but separate initiatives include workforce development through learner-centered education, faculty salaries, capital needs, electronic technology, and accountability. In the area of capital assets, the call is to catch up, maintain, and keep up. It is believed the legislature should cover the cost of debt service for capital assets. There should be work force development through learner centered initiatives. Improved salaries for hiring and maintaining technical support staff for initiatives such as Arizona Learning System (ALS) and Arizona Regents University (ARU) are also priorities.

Joint initiatives include early outreach, access grants, transfer support, redirection of students, teacher education, and an articulated master planning proposal. Executive Director Blessing commented that the Task Force also includes many representatives from the private sector and they were instrumental in developing the recommendations.

It was noted that implementing the recommendations contained in this report would obligate several million dollars. Current projects such as tuition waivers for community college All Arizona Academic Team students could be combined with suggested initiatives. Arizona students do need to be motivated to stay in school through high school and to seek higher education degrees. There needs to be a way to increase both the quantity and academic preparation of students.

As the number of college-bound students increase, articulation will become even more important and students should know how to use the transfer system. Some students will prosper educationally if redirected to community colleges and the university branch campuses. However, the universities would be penalized monetarily under the current funding system if too many students were redirected to the community colleges as it costs more to fund the higher division classes.

It was suggested that redirecting students by raising admission standards to the universities would not be popular at the legislature. The boards were reminded that one of the Town Hall recommendations was to develop a master plan for education.

One of the Task Force Report recommendations is to have the Governor appoint one member who would vote on both the ABOR and SBDCC boards. It was agreed this could be accomplished by more collaboration between the two boards rather than by appointing a new member.

TEACHER EDUCATION

President Lovett said one of the problems with being at the "bottom of the charts" in education, including salaries, is the high turnover rate for public school teachers of experience at about five years. The universities are working to address the teacher shortage problem by expanding areas of teacher education.

There should be alternative pathways for people who have retired or who already have baccalaureate degrees to become certified more quickly. There should be more areas for the community colleges and the universities to work together. It was suggested K-16 councils might assist in helping to keep students in school and encourage them to consider higher education. The Arizona high school graduation rate needs substantial improvement.

The shortage of teachers will probably get worse as many current teachers are approaching retirement age. It was emphasized that K-12 and higher education can't be completely separate entities; there should be collaboration. However, salaries will continue to play a part in the shortage, especially in math and science. Also, receiving certification is not an easy process. The State Board of Education does realize barriers to certification exist and is trying to streamline the process. Some changes require legislative action and there is some concern about quality if too many requirements are dropped.

HEALTH CARE PROFESSION - COMING SHORTAGE

Mr. Ted Fichtl led a discussion of the shortage of health care professionals. There is a current shortage and it will soon become acute. There should be an intensive level of cooperation with the private sector on this issue. These jobs are high paying and are upwardly mobile, but there are not enough personnel to fill the positions. There should be a study to display exactly which specialties have the greatest need. One need in Arizona is for doctoral-level nursing teachers.

The State Board for Community Colleges is considering an action plan to address the community college role in helping Arizona prepare for an anticipated shortage in health care professionals. It was suggested a group be formed which would include community college, university, and private sector people to see how the need for health care workers in Arizona could be met.

NEXT MEETING DATE

The SBDCC and ABOR staffs were asked to set up the next joint meeting. It was suggested a joint social be included with the next meeting.

President Ulrich thanked everyone for the hard work and planning that went into this meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

REGULAR ABOR MEETING

President Ulrich called the November meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents to order on November 17, 2000, at 9:04 a.m. in the Sabino/Pima Room at the Marriott University Park Hotel, 880 East 2nd Street, in Tucson, Arizona.

Present in addition to the Regents were: President Peter Likins, Dr. George Davis, Dr. Randy Groth, Ms. Judith Leonard, Dr. Richard Powell, Dr. Saundra Taylor, Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Elizabeth Erwin, and Mr. Dick Roberts, University of Arizona; President Clara Lovett, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Ms. Anne Barton, Mr. Kurt Davis, Dr. John Haeger, and Dr. Michael Mullen, Northern Arizona University; President Lattie Coor, Dr. Charles Backus, Dr. Tom Trotter, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Dr. Elaine Maimon, Mr. Steve Miller, Mr. Allan Price, Mr. Paul Ward, and Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Arizona State University; Executive Director Linda Blessing, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Mr. Dave Harris, Ms. Louise Houseworth, Ms. Norma Salas, Mr. Matt Ortega, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, and Dr. Art Ashton, Central Office Staff; and Dr. Andrew Jackson, Arizona Faculties Representative.

Regent Herstam led the Pledge of Allegiance. President Ulrich acknowledged President Lovett's announcement that she would not accept a reappointment as President at Northern Arizona University beyond June 30, 2001. On behalf of the Board, he thanked Dr. Lovett for her outstanding service over the past seven years. He said the Board respected her commitment to improving NAU and the delivery of quality education programs throughout Arizona.

Regent McKay spoke as a Regent and a resident of Flagstaff regarding the tenure of President Lovett at NAU. One of the highlights of Regent McKay's professional career had been working with Dr. Lovett and she appreciated the vision Dr. Lovett brought to her years at NAU.

CALL TO THE AUDIENCE

Benjamin Graff and Samuel Chang, ASUA, spoke in support of the Park Student Union renovations at the University of Arizona. Mr. Graff commended the university for including students from the beginning of the process. He said the Task Force on Advising is underway and hopes to bring forth innovative recommendations on advising for UA. He reported ASUA sent students all over Tucson the Saturday before the election to talk about Proposition 301. The students in Flagstaff and Tempe were also campaigning for the education tax measure and the students were very happy to see it pass. Mr. Chang informed the Regents about the voting shuttle the students ran to the polls on election day.

Leslie Borges, ASNAU, reported the "Voter Palooza event" was a big success; they registered many students to vote. They also rallied support for Proposition 301. Currently, a local legislative luncheon is scheduled in Flagstaff for January 20th and the statewide legislative luncheon will be on February 20th in Phoenix. She expressed the support of NAU students for the Project Initiation for NAU's Public/Private Residence Life Facility scheduled for consideration later in the meeting.

Sara Presler, ASNAU, expressed appreciation on behalf of the students for President Lovett's one-on-one contact and support for student clubs, organizations, and student programming. She presented to Dr. Lovett a framed photograph of the ASA delegation and Dr. Lovett.

Shaun Bainbridge, ASASU, said ASASU had encouraged President Coor to take a strong stand against sweatshops and were pleased that ASU had joined the FLA and the WRC. He spoke in favor of public/private partnerships as a way of financing construction; however, he urged caution in deciding how many capital projects to undertake. He also asked the university to consider parking issues first when planning any construction. He reported ASU is now using Web-based E-mail.

Jenny Lucier, spoke as a representative from the Tempe Planning Area Advisory Board and the Planning and Projects Review Subcommittee of the Transportation Commission of the City of Tempe. Both groups have serious concerns about the proposed plans for the redevelopment of the Tempe Center. She said Tempe is currently tying all land use and development to transit, to design and produce transit- oriented development. They don't see this project embracing this concept. They believe there is too much parking planned and that will encourage people to drive to the area rather than walk. Ms. Lucier said the development of the project as planned will also impact the provision of goods and services for the area residents. She asked the Regents to vote no on the proposed ground lease for the Tempe Center that was scheduled on Friday's Agenda.

Ron Scott, a graduate student teaching assistant (TA) in the English Department at the UA, offered several reasons why the registration fees paid by graduate TA's should be eliminated. He believes the fees affect the attractiveness of the graduate programs in relation to peer universities; corporations do not force their employees to pay for training; graduate students cost much less than professors, so are a bargain for the university; and since graduate students teach so many university students, taking better care of the graduate students would help retain more students.

Judy Kiyama, a Higher Education Masters student at the UA, expressed concerns about the recommendation from the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education concerning raising admission standards or redirecting students to other universities or community colleges. She believes forcing some students to attend community colleges rather than universities will create a tiered system in Arizona. She cited a study that maintains students beginning at a community college are less likely to continue their education and receive a baccalaureate degree than those who began at a four-year institution. She also believes raising admission standards will negatively impact minority students and redirecting students to different campuses will keep some students from attending college because of the expense of the move farther from home.

President Ulrich introduced Dr. Andrew Jackson who is acting as Chair of the Arizona Faculties Council in the absence of Dr. Judith Sellers.

CONSENT AGENDA

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

*Minutes

The Board approved the September 28 and 29, 2000, Executive Session, and the September 28 and 29, 2000, Regular Meeting minutes.

Resources Committee Consent

*Internal Audit Reports

The Board was asked to review and approve six audits completed by the Central Office's internal audit staff including reviews at ASU, NAU, and UA of the status of implementation of DeMichele recommendations concerning deferred maintenance and space implementation, an audit of the Central Office's administration of Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants, an audit of the Human Resource Information System at NAU, and an audit of Building Renewal Expenditures at NAU.

The auditors submitted a Finding Reportable to the Board from the latter audit. Building renewal funds were used for a purpose not permitted under the building renewal definition of A.R.S. §41-790(1) and ABOR Policy 7-101(C). During a building renewal project on the Performing Arts Building, a contractor reported an asbestos condition to OSHA, resulting in a $100,000 fine to the university. Building renewal funds from FY1999 were used to pay the fine.

Although the fine was incurred in connection with a building renewal project, payment of a fine is not a permissible use of these funds. NAU's response to the finding was as follows: "The appropriate personnel at NAU have reviewed the audit report on Building Renewal Expenditures for fiscal year 1999. As a result, we have shifted the expense of the OSHA fine to the university's plant fund."

*Annual Space Management and Utilization Report and Campus Space Committees Status Reports

The Board received the universities' annual Space Management and Utilization Reports and the annual Campus Space Advisory Committee Status Reports. The Fall 1999 Space Management Reports display each university's square footage of space (shortages) or overages in comparison to ABOR Fall 1999 Guidelines. Each of the campuses have adequate classroom space. However, ASU Main and UA report sizeable deficiencies in class laboratories, research laboratories, and libraries. UA also reports a shortage of 79,143 square feet of office space. NAU reports, although their space inventory appears adequate, the quality of that space is, in many cases, substandard. The universities' FY 2003 Capital Improvement Plans approved by the Board in September generally reflect the inventory shortages reported.

Each university annually reports their utilization of classrooms, lecture halls, collaborative seminar rooms, computer instructional rooms, and classroom laboratories. At the University of Arizona, ASU Main, ASU West, and ASU East the utilization numbers have remained relatively constant. Utilization Reports were not comparable due to inaccuracies in the system. A more reliable comparison at NAU will be available next year when a full year of measurement takes place under their revised system.

Each university now has in place a Campus Space Advisory Committee. The UA and ASU established their committees in 1998 and NAU began in 1999. The Central Office is proposing a Tri-University Task Force to revisit the Space Inventory and Utilization System. Items to be considered will include: Development of an office space inventory needs assessment system (not completed by the DeMichele Committee); Review of Research Space Guidelines as they compare to national trends; Analysis of the Space Utilization Reports to determine their benefits to space planning versus the effort involved to gather the data; and Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Campus Space Advisory Committees.

*Amendments to the Multiple-Year Contracts for the University Presidents and Authorization for a Multiple-Year Contract for the Board's Executive Director

The Board approved revisions to the existing multiple-year contracts for the university presidents as follows: (1) To increase President Coor's salary to $224,250 and the contribution to his cash balance defined benefit pension to $40,365, effective July 1, 2000; 2) To increase President Likins' annual salary to $224,250 and the contribution to his cash balance defined benefit pension to $40,365, effective July 1, 2000; 3) To increase President Lovett's annual salary to $159,556 and the contribution to her cash balance defined benefit pension to $28,720, effective July 1, 2000.

The Board also authorized a multiple-year employment contract for Executive Director Blessing for an appointment period from July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2003, at an annual salary of $172,500, retroactive to July 1, 2000. All other employee-related benefits are identical to benefits available to administrators under the Board's Conditions of Administrative Service. The contract will include provisions relating to termination that are identical to the existing multiple-year employment contracts for the presidents.

No additional compensation adjustments for the university presidents or the Executive Director are anticipated for the next 2-3 years. The approved compensation adjustments will be funded from funding sources currently available to the universities and the Central Office.

*Change in Title to Vice President for Two Cabinet Members (UA)

The Board authorized the University of Arizona to change Judith Leonard's current title of General Counsel to "Vice President for Legal Affairs and General counsel" and to change Patti Ota's current title of Senior Associate to the President to "Vice President for Executive Operations and Senior Associate to the President" at their current annual salaries, effective immediately.

*Change in Title to Vice President and General Counsel (ASU).

The Board authorized Arizona State University to change Paul J. Ward's current title of General Counsel to "Vice President and General Counsel," effective immediately. There will be no change in salary.

Programs Committee Consent

*Revision to Board Policies 2-203, 2-205, and 2-404 Regarding Learner-Centered Education (Second Reading)

The Board approved the proposed amendments to ABOR Policy 2-203, Academic Degree Program Planning and Implementation, 2-205, Off-Campus Courses and Programs, and 2-404, Non-Traditional Education. The change to 2-203 will support Learner-Centered Education (LCE) by requiring proposed academic programs to include a description of learning outcomes and an indication of how those outcomes will be assessed. It also modifies the current practice of reviewing planning and implementation requests to allow the universities to be more responsive to program needs. The revised policy eliminates the practice of reviewing requests on a semi-annual basis and provides for an exception to the two-stage process of planning and implementation.

The change to 2-205 requires that off-campus programs and courses demonstrate the same quality and learning outcomes as on-campus programs and courses. The change to 2-404 expresses support for alternative learning processes and emphasizes that when credit is awarded for activities based on alternative learning processes, an assessment of defined learning outcomes must be demonstrated.

The policies will be implemented on the following dates: 2-203 - March 1, 2001; 2-205 and 2-404 - Immediately upon Board approval.

*Report from the Higher Education Study Committee (HESC) and the Transfer Articulation Task Force (TATF)

The Board approved the Report from the Higher Education Study Committee and the Transfer Articulation Task Force for submission to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. This Report was discussed yesterday at the Joint Meeting between ABOR and the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges.

Administrative Business

*Selection of Regents Awards for Outstanding Service to Higher Education

The Board approved the recommendation of the 2000 Regents Award Selection Committee that Ed and Nadine Carson and Dick and Dinky Snell be presented with the 2000 Regents Award. The Award will be presented during a luncheon ceremony at the January Board meeting at ASU.

The Carsons are both graduates of ASU and have been active at all levels in the university. They have also been supporters of education on the national and state level. The Snells are long time supporters of ASU and many other community organizations. The culmination of service for both couples has been their serving as co-chairs of the ASU Campaign for Leadership.

REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

President Likins thanked the students for their help in securing passage of Proposition 301. Dr. Likins reported that Dr. Willis Lamb, a Regents' Professor of Physics and Optics and a former Nobel Prize winner, was awarded the National Medal of Science of this year.

President Likins said faculty from many sectors of the university, from the Colleges of Medicine, Agriculture, and Science, have worked together the past several years in Bioscience and Biotechnology. He reported the UA has established the concept of an Institute for Biomedical Science and Biotechnology and it has become a top priority project. Professor Tom Baldwin, Head of the Department of Biochemistry and Biomolecular Physics, gave an overview of the Institute. He said the science of biology has become technology driven. Dr. Baldwin explained the benefits of a building where faculty of different disciplines could work and consult on their research. President Likins said the building for the Institute would cost $60M and the university plans to raise the funds through its capital campaign, grants, federal and state money. There will also be costs associated with equipping the building and hiring faculty. It will be a very ambitious undertaking.

RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Fall Update of the FY2001 All Funds Operating Budget

Ms. Louise Houseworth, Ms. Gale Tebeau, Mr. Dick Roberts, Ms. Kathy Bedard, and Mr. Ron Smith joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett pointed out an error on Page 9 of 48. For ratio 7, a digit was inadvertently dropped from ASU's ratio; the correct ratio is 14.1%, not 4.1%.

Ms. Houseworth said this update will report any significant revisions to revenue and expenditures in any account with projected year-end deficits of $100,000 or more. The major changes in the Fall Update are the reflection of actual budget allocations instead of initial estimates and the reflection of actual carry-forward balances instead of estimated balances. The Fall Update also includes a comparison of FY 2000 actual revenues and expenditures with the FY 2000 budgeted estimates and the financial ratio analysis.

Regent Gignac congratulated the University of Arizona in the progress it is making in wiping out the deficits for the University Conference and Extension Program and Printing and Publishing. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board approved the Fall Update of the FY 2001 All Funds Operating Budget.

Proposed Revisions to Board Policy 4-309, "Tuition Collections Retained for Need-Based Student Financial Aid (First Reading)

Regent Jewett explained the Board was being requested to review and consider proposed revisions to Board Policy 4-309, "Tuition Collections Retained for Need-Based Student Financial Aid." The revisions allow each university to either maintain the initial set aside calculated in June or make a fall adjustment if the university determines an adjustment is necessary. However, if the revised set aside varies from the initial estimate by more than 3%, the university would be required to adjust the financial aid set aside amount.

College of Business Renovation and Expansion: Conceptual Approval (ASU)

Dr. Mernoy Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett explained ASU was requesting Conceptual Approval for the first phase of the renovation of the College of Business Building located on the Main Campus. The project does not require Project Initiation approval as it is a restoration project with no strategic impact. This phase of the project will involve the renovation of 20,995 square feet and 7,058 square feet of new construction, with an estimated construction cost of $2.5M.

Regent Stuart said he had been concerned about the lack of information concerning how much of the building will be learner-centered focused. Dr. Harrison said this project was planned in small increments, most under $1M. This phase of the project is to renovate and make some additions to the first floor, primarily office and support space. Almost all the classrooms in the College of Business have already been renovated to make them more learner centered.

President Ulrich congratulated ASU on the work that had been done to renovate the classrooms. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Stuart, the Board granted Conceptual Approval to ASU for this phase of facilities improvements estimated at $2.5M to renovate the first floor of the BA 40 North and BA 40 South and to capture new infill space.

Regent Palacios said she noticed there are standards for certain categories of space, but no standards for other categories. She would like to see standards for every category. President Ulrich said there has been a suggestion a space committee be convened to look at the space guidelines.

Disposition and Development Agreement and Options to Ground Lease with ORIX TC21 Tempe Venture: Amendment to Prior Agreement and Revised Conceptual Approval (ASU)

Dr. Mernoy Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett explained ASU was requesting authority to modify the university's Disposition and Development Agreement and Options to Ground Lease with ORIX TC21 Tempe Venture for the redevelopment of the Tempe Center. The Board first approved this agreement in September 1997. At that time, the agreement called for the construction of 1,500 underground parking spaces. At the February 2000 meeting, the Board approved a modification to the agreement which reduced the parking to an 850 space above ground parking structure. ASU is now asking for another modification to the parking facility which would increase it to 1,150 spaces, with the university contributing an estimated $7M of the total estimated $15M cost.

Dr. Harrison told the Board ASU hopes to begin construction sometime in the March/April time frame. Since the beginning, the parking has changed more than any other part of this project. The university has need for parking spaces in that area of the campus for both students and visitors. The university has an agreement with the developer to utilize any spaces not required for commercial use. As additional phases of the project are completed, the developer will purchase from ASU, at the use-fee price ASU paid, whatever spaces they need to meet the needs of the office and commercial development.

President Coor responded to comments made earlier from a neighbor concerning the project. He said ASU is seeking to make the parcel an effective bridge between the university and the community and to have it serve as a pedestrian gateway into the campus. The concept from the beginning has been to have a mixture of commercial and retail on the major thoroughfares of University and Mill with an entry to the campus that permits access to the campus in two ways. One is through the architecture complex and one is through the southern five acres of the site. ASU believes, given the forces that are shaping downtown Tempe, that this is a wise way to make the project compatible. Meeting all the needs of the community is never easy, but ASU remains interested in the issue of a grocery store. The developer and ASU have explored options, but the economics of a grocery store have proven somewhat questionable, both in size and location. ASU is also working with the City of Tempe to consider other sites for a grocery store.

Dr. Coor reminded the Board the Student Body President said earlier there is a need for parking to be in place for the infrastructure currently being built. There was already an established need for university parking spaces when the project began. If anything, ASU will be on the low side of the parking needed for the campus, even though ASU has been a big supporter of the circulating transit system.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Palacios, the Board granted Arizona State University authorization to modify the Development and Disposition Agreement with ORIX TC21 Tempe Venture as described herein. Regent Amos abstained from voting. The Board reaffirmed ASU's authority to enter into an Amended and Restated Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and Options to Ground Lease with ORDC TC21 Tempe Venture for the redevelopment of Tempe Center. The modified plan provides for a parking structure to be built to accommodate up to 1,150 spaces, 700 initially would be available for ASU use and 450 initially would be for commercial use for developer's Phase I use. ASU will pre-pay a use fee estimated to be $7M for the right to use these 700 spaces. The use fee will be funded from parking funds ($3.5M) and bond financing ($3.5M). ASU will receive visitor parking revenue from the ASU spaces.

When developer constructs Phase II, developer may license from ASU the right to use additional spaces as required to satisfy the Phase II development up to 500 spaces. Developer shall have the right to license up to 500 ASU spaces at the use fee per space paid by ASU. ASU shall retain, at a minimum, 200 spaces for ASU visitor use. Developer's commercial spaces shall be available to the public for a fee.

The President or Vice Provost for Administrative Services for ASU or their designee may sign the documents that are necessary or appropriate to carry out the development described.

Regent Gignac asked if this action would in any way diminish the ability of the university to work further with the Tempe community to make the project more palatable to the neighbors. President Coor replied he believes the community has three issues with this project. One of them is the parking structure and the impact on vehicles. With this commitment to build the parking structure, that issue becomes fixed. The second issue is one of design, and substantial progress has been made with the City's concerns; however, it remains flexible as ASU examines its options. The third issue is of services such as a grocery store, and both the developer and the university are working to find ways to see if accommodations can be made.

Regent Gignac said she believed parking on the university campuses was probably one of the most frustrating issues for students, visitors, and staffs; so she supported the parking structure. However, she would greatly appreciate ASU working to see what accommodations could be made to work with the City of Tempe and the community on the further development of this project.

Park Student Union: Conceptual Approval (UA)

Mr. Joel Valdez and Mr. David Duffy joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett explained the University of Arizona was requesting Conceptual Approval to renovate and expand the existing Park Student Union. The project, which will involve the renovation of 28,200 square feet and new construction of 22,000 square feet, was granted Project Initiation approval in November 1999. The estimated construction cost is $4.7M and is proposed to be funded with Certificates of Participation ($3.3M) and Auxiliary Unit funds ($1.4M). Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board granted Conceptual Approval to the UA for the Park Student Union Renovation and Expansion Project.

Highland District Site Preparation: Conceptual Approval (UA)

Mr. Joel Valdez and Mr. David Duffy joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett explained the University of Arizona is requesting Conceptual Approval for the Highland District Planning and Site Preparation project. This project involves the construction of infrastructure and therefore does not require Project Initiation Approval. In order to prepare the Highland District for new improvements, including a residence life facility, the Highland Commons Health Services facility, the Sixth Street Parking Garage, and the Environment and Natural Resources Center, infrastructure improvements are necessary. These improvements will include sanitary sewer, hazardous materials abatement, demolition of Facilities Management buildings, electrical lines, and the telecommunications equipment. The estimated total cost of the project is $7.5M and it will be funded with Local Funds.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board granted Conceptual Approval to the UA for the Highland District Planning and Site Preparation project. President Likins commented that the map on Page 5 of 5 illustrates the land to be cleared and lists the projects the university would like to put on this land in the future.

Authority to Purchase the Tucson Electric Power Property at 220 West 6th Street (UA)

Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. David Duffy, and Mr. David Nix joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett explained the University of Arizona was requesting authorization to purchase the Tucson Electric Power Company property located at 220 West 6th Street, which is outside of the university's planning area, for a cost not to exceed $6.9M plus associated closing costs. This property is being proposed as a relocatoin site for Facilities Management Operations, which must be moved in order to facilitate the development of the Highland District project mentioned in the previous item. The site encompasses 7.53 acres and has buildings containing 98,899 gross square feet.

Regent Gignac asked what acreage is currently being used by Facilities Management and was told about 35,000 square feet, which includes parking for the fleet of vehicles. The space under consideration is larger and could accommodate more than just Facilities Management. Regent Palacios said she would like the university to continue to pay attention to space usage standards. She realized it was harder to do that when taking over already existing space, but the attempt should be made to stay as close as possible to the standards and they should always be considered when renovations are made. Regent Amos said he would like to see an environmental clause in the contract stating TEP will indemnify and hold harmless the university should environmental issues arise.

Regent Jewett moved that the Board authorize the University of Arizona to purchase the Tucson Electric Power property located at 220 West 6th Street, at the sale price of $6.9M to be funded from local funds, and to issue Certificates of Participation in an amount necessary to effect the acquisition subject to approval of documents by Board Counsel. Furthermore, that a variance from policy is granted to purchase the referenced property located outside of the University Planning Area. The motion was seconded by Regent Palacios. Upon motion of Regent Amos, seconded by Regent Gignac, the motion was amended to add the sale be subject to a hold harmless clause on environmental issues. The motion, as amended, passed by unanimous voice vote.

Agricultural Research Complex: Revised Project Approval and Budget Increase (UA)

Mr. David Duffy and Mr. Joel Valdez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett explained the University of Arizona was requesting Revised Project Approval with a budget increase for the Agriculture Research Complex. The project received Revised Project Approval at the January 2000 Board meeting.

A bid package was developed with a base bid and three optional price items. The base bid was within the January approved budget. The university is requesting authority to proceed with the optional items at an additional cost of $1,179,000. Funds for these additions are available from the Agricultural Endowment Fund. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board granted Revised Project Approval and Budget Increase to the University of Arizona for the Agricultural Research Complex project at the Campus Agricultural Center in Tucson.

Amendment to Board Policy 6-804, "Sick Leave" and 6-806, "Bereavement Leave (First Reading)

Mr. Gary Hansen, representing the Tri-University Classified Staff Executive Board, and Ms. Cathy McGonigle joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett explained the Tri-University Classified Staff Executive Board reviewed the current Bereavement Leave policy and proposed the changes presented to the Board for review. Mr. Hansen said the bereavement issue is simply a change to the definition of family to include in-laws. These definitions do currently exist in the Department of Administration policy as well as in the policies of at least ten other universities.

The change in the sick leave policy would allow the taking of sick leave for those family members not covered under the definition for bereavement. Employees would be permitted to use up to three days of sick leave for this purpose and two additional days of sick leave to attend or arrange funeral services out-of-state. The policy revisions will return to the Board for action at its next meeting.

Relocation of Exercise and Wellness Concentration from ASU Main to ASU East

Dr. Chuck Backus joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett explained Arizona State University was requesting Board approval to relocate the Exercise and Wellness concentration and related faculty from the Department of Exercise Science and Physical Education in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at ASU Main to East College at ASU East. The faculty of the Exercise and Wellness concentration voted unanimously for the move. A total of 12 FTE faculty and staff positions will transfer with the program. With Board approval, ASU will present a request to formally transfer the concentration to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee at its November 28, 2000, meeting.

Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board approved the Arizona State's request to transfer the Exercise and Wellness concentration from ASU Main to ASU East.

Discussion of Proposition 301 Monies

Regent Jewett expressed the Board's appreciation to the Governor for her efforts on behalf of Proposition 301, a referendum authorizing proceeds from an incremental statewide sales tax increase to be allocated to improve public education. The referendum was approved at the November 7 general election. As a result, the Board of Regents will receive approximately $45M to $50M in FY 2002 for a Technology and Research Initiative fund.

Regent Jewett said the Board was being asked to review a proposed policy framework and guidelines for the administration and allocation of these funds. He said the policy framework was being presented for discussion only, but could be brought back to the January meeting for a first reading. The proposed guidelines would govern the submission of funding proposals, and if the Board wishes to see funding proposals at the January meeting, it would be helpful for the Regents to reach a consensus at this meeting.

Executive Director Blessing asked the members of the Work Group, including Mr. Kurt Davis, Dr. Patti Ota, Mr. Allan Price, and Mr. Joel Sideman, to join the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Blessing said the suggested policy framework is in response to the legislative requirement for the Board to have rules for administration of the technology and research funds and was being presented for Board suggestions and modifications. The members of the Council of Presidents were also looking for guidance on the funding criteria for the upcoming FY2002 funding cycle so a proposed set of initiatives could be brought to the Board at the January meeting.

Executive Director Blessing summarized the proposed framework for the administration of the fund. President Ulrich said he believed this was a very important time in the life of the universities. He would like to make very sure that the planning process is impeccable. He, therefore, suggested a half day study session at the next Board meeting to make sure the Regents fully understand and agree on what are priorities and how the framework is designed.

President Coor agreed a block of time at the January meeting would be appropriate. He suggested the universities bring forward some ideas or examples or proposals based on the guidelines presented so the Board could have a tangible feel for how this might work. Regent McKay said she would like to have a study session and agreed with President Coor's suggestion that the Board review draft proposals at the January meeting.

President Ulrich said he believed the Board needed to see the final report from the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education before proceeding on the framework and guidelines. President Likins said the presidents would like some guidance as to what material the Regents would like to see at the January study session. Regent Gignac said she would like to have a study session in January as she agreed it is the single most important change in the funding of higher education. Since the Regents will be responsible to the public and the legislature for these funds, she believes the examples brought to the study session need to include a well-defined segment of accountability measures. She would like to have time to more thoroughly review the material.

Mr. Sideman said the listed funding criteria track very closely with the wording of the statute. However, the salary recommendation comes from the Work Group. It is consistent with the intent of the legislation and the recommendations from the Governor's Task Force that this funding source be used for programmatic purposes rather than to supplant general fund support for employee salaries. Regent Gignac said she did not see how the suggested collaboration efforts could be accomplished under the funding guidelines.

President Coor suggested the three universities focus in the early stages primarily on the biosciences and work jointly to see how to present some planning attention to the information sciences. They would start talking about how the three universities would work together and would propose a concentration in one of the areas while beginning in other areas. Nothing would be fleshed out or ruled out before the Regents discuss things in January.

Executive Director Blessing summarized the proposed guidelines for allocation of Proposition 301 Funds. President Ulrich said he had a problem with the suggested approach of dividing the funds into percentage categories. He would like to approach the funding by deciding what are the priorities, what has the most economic impact on the state, and what is the quality plan before deciding what to fund. Regent Herstam said he had no problems with the funding criteria on Page 3 that is tied to the statute. He liked the idea that implementing the ideas from the Task Force was only one of the criteria and it would be necessary to only meet one of the four criteria. However, he was concerned with the introductory paragraph on Page 5 which says the Council of Presidents is charged with developing proposals within the constraints of the legislation and the Task Force. He did not want the members of the Council of Presidents to be constrained by the recommendations of the Task Force as he believes there may be some recommendations the Regents will not agree with.

President Ulrich said this speaks to his point of not becoming constrained until the Regents know exactly what they are dealing with. Regent Echeverria said she partially agreed with the discussion; however, she did not want to end up with no restrictions which resulted in spending $1M here and $1M there. She liked the proposal to review the guidelines annually. She expressed concern with the time frame if the universities were provided with no guidelines at this meeting.

President Likins said the members of the Council of Presidents had asked the Work Group to bring ideas forward to the Board for some preliminary decisions which would guide the universities in the preparation of more substantive materials for the next session. In January the Regents would be expected to make changes and the universities would bring proposals back at the next meeting to make some closure before the legislature makes budget decisions. He said he interpreted the Regents saying the parenthetical entries in Numbers 2, 3, and 4 of the proposed guidelines on Page 5 should be removed. He understood the comment concerning the opening paragraph on Page 5. However, if the guidelines are completely discarded, the members of the Council of Presidents will not know how to proceed for the January meeting. They need some guidance.

President Lovett agreed with what President Likins said. She asked for at least a suggested area to which planning could be directed. Starting steps for developing a plan would be much appreciated and would allow the presidents to begin a meaningful plan.

Regent Amos said he agreed with Regent Echeverria that the money should not be spent in small amount in many places. He would like the money to make an impact. He would like to do some post-election polling to see what the concerns were in Pima County that kept the measure from passing overwhelmingly. President Ulrich suggested the guidelines could be the development of collaborative efforts among the three universities in biomedicine and information science. From those two, he would assume biomedicine would be the biggest priority. But he believed those would be the two collaborative efforts overarching the universities. He believed there would be some money required in the planning process. He would envision the planning beginning in information science as soon as the planning is finished in the biomedicine field. He looked at the three universities in terms of where they might do the best work on an individual basis and believes ASU would be manufacturing and material science, UA would be optics and water, and NAU would be distance learning and environmental sciences. Regent Gignac said she believed this would be a reasonable approach.

Regent Stuart asked what the legislature had to do at this point to implement Proposition 301 and was told the statute becomes law by virtue of its passage by the voters. Regent Jewett said he believed there was a new statute prohibiting the legislature from interfering with or changing a statute passed by the voters. Regent Stuart said he agreed it was too early to apply percentages to the money, but believed the Work Group had identified the correct areas. He said the discussion now was about the 2002 dollars, but the money would continue; and he believed it would not be good to apply percentages now that might carry through for years.

Mr. Davis said the working group's intention when recommending percentages was to try to apply some constructive constraints and identify specific issues to help define the process. President Likins said the faculty had done a great deal of planning, such as for the Institute for Biomedical Science and Biotechnology. But they have not coordinated with the other universities. So the coordination planning is what is needed now more than the core planning as he is sure the other campuses have also done planning. He reminded the Board the universities had submitted a decision package for the Arizona Software Institute which was a coordinated plan in information technology. So some planning has been done in that area.

President Coor concurred with President Likins that each university had biosciences efforts that could be made part of a coordinated plan. He said he was hearing, in regards to research, the three universities should be focusing primarily on the part of the project that involves collaboration, without boundaries. They should focus primarily on one, with planning on the other. Dr. Coor said the universities would also turn to the institutional based proposals and shape those so they can be discussed in January. They will also turn to some work force development items. President Ulrich said the Regents did not want collaboration for collaborations sake. If collaboration wouldn't work in some area, the Regents would like to be told.

President Likins said he was hearing the Regents in the same manner as President Coor. However, he would like everyone to understand the difference between the two sets of disciplines in which the universities have common interests and those disciplines in which the universities have specialized emphasis. He said any university in the United Sates today would tell you they need to be strong in biomedicine and bioinformation technology so the state and the universities need to make those commitments, but it would very foolish for the university strategically to put all its chips in the same competitive arena where everybody else is putting their chips. To be successful strategically, there should be a competitive advantage. This is why the University of Arizona has placed such an emphasis on optics as this is an area of enormous growth potential, an enormous impact on the economy, and where the university is the best in the world. The same could be said for their expertise in water resources. There is a need for money to be placed in both the broad areas and the strategic areas.

President Coor said he believed it would be beneficial for the universities to present the Regents with some options of the kind described by President Likins, however, within the limited boundaries of the money available. Regent Jewett said he believed there was concurrence this issue should return in a study session format at the January meeting. He hoped there had been enough direction from the discussion today to allow the universities to present preliminary proposals in January so timing would not become a problem. He also would like the work group to bring back the guidelines and framework for a first reading in January so proposals could be considered in March. Regent Palacios agreed the timing is important and the issue should proceed.

Regent Jewett said he would like to recognize the leadership of Governor Hull during the legislative session and the ballot referral. He believes this money would not be available at this time without the work of both Governor Hull and Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Keegan.

PUBLIC AWARENESS COMMITTEE

Regent Stuart chaired this portion of the meeting. He introduced Mr. Matt Ortega, the new Assistant Executive Director for Public Affairs in the Central Office.

Update on Legislative Membership and Upcoming Legislative Session

Mr. Matt Ortega and Mr. Greg Fahey joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart reported on the new membership and leadership of the legislature. He said he, Regent Amos, and Mr. Ortega intended to set up meetings with legislators and would welcome any other Regent who would like to participate. He noted specific issues were outlined in the Executive Summary.

Regent Amos said he would like the Regents to set aside an hour or so when they were in Phoenix to go talk to legislators. He suggested Regents consult with Executive Director Blessing to see who she would recommend would be important to meet with on various issues.

STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

University Mission Statements

Regent McKay said President Ulrich had requested additional explanation and detail regarding the differentiated missions of the universities. The presidents have provided comments on their mission statements for the Regents information. Regent Gignac said the information helped provide a sense of what makes each university different. She still believes, however, each of the three universities should be able to be described, uniquely, in a shorter statement.

President Ulrich said he had asked for more of a vision statement---where each university is headed--rather than a mission statement. He believes that is what is provided in the commentary. He would not mind distilling it to a mission statement, but he believes this provides a better sense of direction. He would like for the universities to begin to refine this information in light of the Governor's Task Force recommendations.

Regent McKay asked the presidents to comment, beginning with President Likins. Dr. Likins said strategic planning is a continuous process for everyone and the UA Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Council, involving both faculty and administration, is now in the midst of the process of redefining the university's strategic plan. Their mission statement says, "To discover, educate, serve, and inspire." As part of the process, there is an environmental scan which shows the limits of what can be done. There is also a process of strategically determining how to accomplish those mission objectives that represent the priorities that result from the environmental scan. All of that is a group process on each campus that goes through an enormous testing among the various constituents of the universities.

What is in the Board book is the presidents' commentaries on all of that. President Likins said his commentary was his effort to differentiate, to put the university's aspirations, characteristics and vision for itself in a context. He explained how universities in the nation and in Arizona are alike and how they differ and how they serve the area in which they live. He also listed some areas in which the UA differs from the other two Arizona universities.

President Lovett said there are several hundred mid-sized universities around the country that resemble NAU and have a central role within a service region or regions. NAU has a history of residential undergraduate education in a relatively small, secluded setting with many opportunities for student leadership. NAU is a hub for the northern counties of the state. She explained how NAU differs from the other two universities and how it accomplishes its mission.

President Coor said Page 2 contains a short description of ASU, a major metropolitan research university. Each of the descriptors has very substantial meaning for the nature, aspirations, and institutional definition of ASU. He described the history and evolution of ASU and how it plans to serve its constituencies.

Public/Private Residence Life Facility: Project Initiation (NAU)

Dr. Michael Mullen and Dr. Sarah Bickel joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay explained Northern Arizona University was requesting Project Initiation for a 200-bed apartment style facility to be financed and constructed by a private developer. It may be on or adjacent to the NAU campus. The estimated project cost to the developer would be $12M. The project is in the Capital Improvement Plan Inventory and NAU requested it be moved forward to the first year of the biennium.

Dr. Mullen said this project allows an outside developer to do what they do well and allows the university to do what it does well. It facilitates a change in the inventory of NAU residence halls to more of an apartment style that students prefer today. The proposal allows options for positioning within an outlined area. Regent McKay asked if the university prefers the hall be built on university land and was told the university would make a decision based on proposals submitted. They are willing to look at alternatives a developer might submit.

Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board approved the request by Northern Arizona University to shift the project to the first biennium in the Capital Improvement Plan, the request for planning initiation, and authorized the university to proceed with the issuance of a request for proposals. The Board will review the project again when the RFP process is completed as a Conceptual Approval action.

Status Report on Governor's Task Force on Higher Education (GTFHE)

The Governor's Task Force on Higher Education was discussed yesterday at the joint meeting with the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges.

REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL

Dr. Andrew Jackson made the report for the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC). He said the AFC is working with Board and university staff and to draft a whistle blower policy that incorporates common elements from the three universities' policies to meet the intent and structure of an appropriate ABOR policy.

Dr. Jackson reported the AFC was briefed on the status of the expected change in health care providers for next year. The AFC is concerned because the proposal has been sent out by the state with little input from faculty and with very little oversight by the university and ABOR staff human resources officers.

Dr. Jackson said the AFC continues to support and encourage the development of dialogue regarding learner-centered education. A content paper has been developed with comments from faculty concerning questions submitted to them following the last Board meeting. This will serve as the basis for a presentation at the next Board meeting.

INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, REPORTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS

President Ulrich announced he had asked Regent McKay to chair the search committee to find a new president for Northern Arizona University. Regent McKay said she, with input from Regents, was in the process of selecting members of the search committee. Regents Amos, Gignac, Herstam, Echeverria, Ulrich, and McKay will comprise a committee to select a search consultant. It is planned to announce the members of the search committee by the end of the next week. The meetings of the search committee will be held in Flagstaff.

Regent Gignac said she sits on the K-12 Center Board and she would like to announce an RFP went out October 25 to all Arizona institutions of higher education seeking proposals to design and implement a statewide professional program in science and mathematics for Arizona middle schools. She encouraged the universities to look at this opportunity.

Executive Director Blessing expressed her admiration for Dr. Lovett and her work with distance learning to increase access for students.

Several Regents thanked President Likins for his hospitality during the meeting and the social the previous evening at the Historical Society. President Likins thanked Governor Hull and the people of Arizona for Proposition 301.

	MINUTES

MINUTES

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS

MINUTES OF A MEETING

November 16 and 17, 2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MINUTES OF A MEETING

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS November 16 and 17, 2000

HEALTH CARE PROFESSION - COMING SHORTAGE

Highland District Site Preparation: Conceptual Approval (UA)

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
November 16 and 17, 2000