November 2003 Minutes - Arizona Board of Regents

A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held November 20 and 21, 2003, in the Catalina Room of the Student Union Memorial Center at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. President Herstam called the meeting to order at 1:22 p.m.

PRESENT:	Regent Fred Boice Regent Robert Bulla Regent Chris Herstam Regent Jack Jewett Regent Danelle Kelling Regent Wes McCalley Regent Kay McKay Regent Christina Palacios Regent Gary Stuart
ABSENT:	Regent Donald Ulrich Governor Janet Napolitano Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne

Also present were: President Peter Likins, Dr. George Davis, Mr. Joel Valdez, Ms. Edith Auslander, Dr. Randy Groth, Dr. Richard Powell, Dr. Saundra Taylor, Dr. Patti Ota, Ms. Janet Bingham, Ms. Judith Leonard, Dr. Ray Woosley and Mr. Dick Roberts, University of Arizona; President Michael Crow, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, and Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Arizona State University; President John Haeger, Dr. M. J. McMahon, Mr. Dave Harris, Mr. Bryan Short, and Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director Linda Blessing, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Tom Wickenden, Dr. Art Ashton, Ms. Cathy McGonigle, Ms. Kathy Bedard, Ms. Gale Tebeau, and Ms. Norma Salas, Central Office Staff; and Dr. David Camacho, Arizona Faculties Council. Regent Designees Lorraine Frank and Regent Designee Ernest Calderón were also present.

All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the November 20 and 21, 2003, Documents File.

The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance. President Herstam welcomed Regent Designees Lorraine Frank and Ernie Calderón.

Barb Lancaster, President of the UA Staff Advisory Council and member of the Tri-University Staff Advisory Council Executive Board, expressed appreciation to the Board for increasing allowable credit hours for university employees tuition and fee waivers. She also stated the concerns of the Executive Board with salary problems. The Council stands ready to help the Board address this issue in any way it can.

Kathleen Dunbar, Tucson City Council Member and former state legislator, spoke in support of the UA School of Planning. She said this department illustrates how academics and the university interface with the community. She talked about how the Planning Department students developed a plan for the use of grant money in one of the Tucson neighborhoods that had many problems.

Brent L. Davis, representing the American Institute of Architects, suggested (with a smile) that the UA football team be eliminated as it costs more and does not produce as many graduates who go on to practice in their field as the School of Planning does. The American Institute of Architects stands firmly behind the School of Planning.

David Williams, UA School of Planning Alumnus who owns a planning firm in Tucson, said this program creates trained professionals who work in a broad array of disciplines, such as public works, architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and planning. The graduates contribute to the quality of life in Arizona.

Sarah Moore, American Planning Association, said she believes the proposed elimination of the UA planning program ranks as one of the top five threats to the planning profession nationally as this is one of the top programs in the nation. She said the Phoenix market uses all the ASU planning graduates and Southern Arizona needs the graduates from the UA.

Dr. William O’Brien, representing the Desert Southwest Cooperative Ecosystems Study Units, said the UA program is excellent and should not be eliminated.

Michael Grassinger, President and owner of the largest planning and design firm in Southern Arizona, said he relied heavily on the UA School of Planning for employees. The students come both professionally prepared and with local knowledge that minimizes the amount of on-the-job training time.

Amy Dayton, graduate teaching assistant in the English Department, urged the Board to continue supporting graduate student teaching assistants and research assistants with fair salaries, to resist increasing their tuition and fees, and to continue to work toward 100% tuition waivers.

Sung Ohm, English Graduate Union, explained how many hours English graduate teachers spend in the classroom and the percentage of teaching load they bear for the department. He asked for a waiver of tuition and fees for graduate students.

Jani Radebaugh, President of the UA Graduate and Professional Student Council, asked the Regents to work with the university administration to grant a 100% tuition waiver for resident and nonresident graduate assistants as twelve of the fifteen UA peers already grant these waivers. The fees are often a big surprise to incoming students. She said it is also important to protect the needy graduate students, such as those in English, Fine Arts, and Anthropology.

Sami Sansevere, English Graduate Union, told the Regents about her monthly finances and asked for a 100% tuition and fee waiver.

Thomas Kinney, Graduate and Professional Student Council/English Graduate Union, said the graduate teaching and research assistants are an integral part of the UA teaching system. He listed ways in which he believes graduate students are not supported as well as they are in other universities. He asked for a full tuition and fee waiver for graduate teaching and research assistants.

Amy Hamilton, Co-Chair of the English Graduate Students, told about the teaching load of graduate students and explained how giving tuition and fee waivers would benefit the university as well as the graduate students.

Jennifer Jacovitch, graduate teaching assistant in the English Department, told about the teaching responsibilities of graduate teaching assistants across the university. She asked for 100% tuition and fee waivers for graduate teaching and research assistants as many other universities already do.

President Likins introduced Dr. Peter Smith, Senior Research Scientist, Department of Planetary Sciences, at the Lunar and Planetary Lab (LPL) at the University of Arizona. Dr. Smith has been employed at the LPL since 1978 and NASA has accepted his IMP camera for the Pathfinder Mission to Mars in 1993. He is currently heading the Phoenix project, the first scout mission to Mars, which will launch in August 2007 and land in the northern polar region of Mars in June 2008. The University of Arizona will be the only university in the world with its own mission to Mars. For several months after the mission lands, the UA will be the world’s eyes to Mars.

Dr. Smith described a number of the activities and the tremendous resources that will be necessary to undertake the oversight and management of the Phoenix Project. He also explained the economic impact this project would have on the Tucson community.

Dr. Smith introduced Dr. William Boynton, from the LPL, who discovered “dirty ice” on Mars. This means water is or was present and allows for the possibility of life forms. Therefore, the mission is targeted for this area of Mars. Dr. Smith described the various parts of the mission and the equipment that will be used. He also told about the center that will be developed where the public can come to learn about the mission and about Mars.

Items on the Consent Agenda, which are marked in these minutes with an *, were considered as consent matters and were adopted upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Boice. There was no individual discussion of these items. President Herstam announced that Item 15, Approval of Regents’ Professors (ASU), had been removed from the Consent Agenda to be discussed under the Programs Committee Agenda.

The Board approved the August 15, 2003, Executive Session, and the September 25 and 26, 2003, Regular Meeting minutes.

The Board approved the 2003 Progress Report on Articulation and Transfer for Arizona Public Postsecondary Education for transmittal to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. The report includes highlights, background information on the groups involved, and a detailed report on two processes: (1) articulating postsecondary academic programs and courses, and (2) jointly identifying and meeting the state’s postsecondary needs.

The model for articulating postsecondary academic programs and courses has been developed over a seven-year period and is now fully implemented. The cooperative process for identifying and meeting postsecondary needs has been successful, resulting in an absence of issues regarding unmet needs.

The Joint Conference Committee approved the draft of this report at their November meeting.

The Board adopted the proposed academic year calendars for each university for academic years 2005-2010.

Arizona State University Northern Arizona University of Arizona
University

2005-2006
Fall 8/22/05-12/15/05 Fall 8/29/05-12/16/05 Fall 8/22/05-12/16/05
Spring 1/17/06-5/11/06 Spring 1/17/06-5/12/06 Spring 1/11/06-5/12/06
South 1/11/06-5/10/06

2006-2007
Fall 8/21/06-12/14/06 Fall 8/28/06-12/15/06 Fall 8/21/06-12/15/06
Spring 1/16/07-5/10/07 Spring 1/16/07-5/11/07 Spring 1/10/07-5/11/07
South 1/10/07-5/09/07

2007-2008
Fall 8/20/07-12/13/07 Fall 8/27/07-12/14/07 Fall 8/20/07-12/14/07
Spring 1/14/08-5/8/08 Spring 1/14/08-5/9/08 Spring 1/16/08-5/16/08
South 1/16/08-5/14/08

2008-2009
Fall 8/25/08-12/18/08 Fall 8/25/08-12/12/08 Fall 8/25/08-12/19/08
Spring 1/20/09-5/15/09 Spring 1/12/09-5/8/09 Spring 1/14/09-5/15/09
South 1/14/09-5/13/09

2009-2010
Fall 8/24/09-12/17/09 Fall 8/24/09-12/11/09 Fall 8/24/09-12/18/09
Spring 1/19/10-5/13/10 Spring 1/11/10-5/7/10 Spring 1/13/10-5/14/10
South 1/13/10-5/12/10

The Board, pursuant to A.R.S. §15-1635.01, authorized the University of Arizona to permit Drs. James T. Schwiegerling, Joseph M. Miller, and Robert W. Snyder to establish and maintain a substantial interest in Optica Technologies, while continuing their employment at the University of Arizona. Optica Technologies is a Tucson-based development company that is developing a line of more affordable, portable eye disorder screening equipment.

The Board received a written report on the universities’ Eminent Scholar Program that summarizes funds allocated from the Universities Land Fund for use as matching funds for interest earned on private endowments for the Eminent Scholars Program.

The purpose of the Eminent Scholars Program is to attract and retain certain individual faculty members who have achieved national eminence in their chosen and acknowledged field of endeavor. The program is not intended to augment the salary dollars for general faculty nor replace other sources of funds used for compensation or support services.

In 2002-2003, ASU received $1,374,074; NAU received $504,589; and UA received $972,116. To date, ASU has received $6,336,066; NAU has received $2,550,067; and UA has received $4,689,900. ASU has received five endowments totaling $4.7M for their Eminent Scholars Program and they benefit engineering, business, life sciences, public programs, and some university-wide programs. The UA has received 12 endowments totaling $11.5M for their Eminent Scholars Program and they benefit pharmacy, law, engineering, agriculture, science, fine arts, and education. NAU has not used their Eminent Scholars Program as it has only recently grown to be a viable source for attracting endowment opportunities.

The Board authorized the University of Arizona to accept a grant from the National Science Foundation to support the project: “Sustainable Development of Drylands in Asia and the Middle East.” The amount is $1,325,000 for the first year of the project–October 1, 2003, through September 30, 2004. Future proposed funding amendments, through September 30, 2007, would bring the total amount of this award to $10,992,294.

The Board approved the new Board Policy 6-915, “Executive Compensation,” as requested. This policy will require each university president to submit annually a report of current compensation for all vice presidents and all senior executives reporting directly to the president. Appropriate comparison data will be included in the report for Board-approved peer institutions (ASU and UA) and public doctoral institutions within its budget range (NAU).

University presidents will retain discretion to adjust executive compensation so long as the adjusted compensation falls within a prescribed range of the average salary for a comparable position. If the compensation does not fall within the prescribed range, the president will seek prior review from the Board’s Assessment and Compensation Committee.

The Board authorized the university of Arizona to settle the claim in the matter of Arcadia v. ABOR for the amount of $45,000. This settlement is subject to there being a written settlement agreement in a form acceptable to the Board and University Counsel. The University will pay $33,750 and Arizona State Risk Management has agreed to pay $11,250. To avoid similar situations in the future, the university is working to educate appropriate individuals about potential liability related to assignment to duty posts outside the United States.

In accordance with A.R.S. §15-1637 (K), appointments to the UMCC Board and changes in the UMCC Bylaws must be approved by ABOR. At its October 24, 2003, meeting, the UMCC Board of Directors reappointed to membership, pending ABOR approval, Laura T. Almquist, Gary E. Munk, and Donald N. Soldwedel.

As a matter of information (this does not require ABOR approval), the following officers were elected at the UMCC Board of Directors’ October meeting: N. Philip Strause, III, M.C., Chair; Douglas J. Wall, Vice Chair; Gregory A. Pivirotto, President and Chief Executive Officer; Kevin Burns, Treasurer; Donald N. Soldwedel, Secretary; and Adaline Klemmedson, Assistant Secretary.

The Board appointed Laura T. Almquist, Gary E. Munk, and Donald N. Soldwedel to the Board of Directors for UMCC for terms expiring in October 2007.

Mr. Joe Matt, ASU Executive Director of Institutional Analysis, and ASU Provost Glick joined the meeting for this discussion. President Herstam said this would be a presentation by the presidents and a discussion by the Board of academic program rankings and the ways in which they might be used to measure excellence and achievement at the universities.

President Likins presented the history of the ranking system. He explained the current methodology is skewed towards private institutions. He illustrated how various rankings list the university at different levels, depending on what criteria is used, but said the U.S. News and World Report is important as it is the one most prospective students and their parents use.

President Crow said ASU wanted the Regents to be aware of critical variables that need to be enhanced and remedied and systemic issues in the structure and financing of higher education in Arizona that need to be addressed. He said the universities do follow the various rankings closely.

Mr. Matt illustrated where Arizona schools ranked in the various U.S. News and World Reports rankings. Dr. Milt Glick showed the Regents how ASU had improved in many measures, but how it is still behind in the rankings. He illustrated how ASU’s rankings could possibly be improved, but at the detriment to access. He explained how the rankings are affected by various funding decisions.

President Haeger explained how the Arizona universities could improve their rankings and described the problems it would raise as the universities tried to accomplish their mission to educate as many Arizonians as possible. Dr. Haeger told how NAU uses the NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) data to help improve NAU’s educational mission.

Regent Jewett asked Dr. Crow to elaborate on his point about financing and state support as he believes the State of Arizona has a duty to support higher education. President
Crow said he was hopeful the people of Arizona would continue to invest in higher education at levels sufficient to maintain quality and to advance the institutions. He was comparing the fact that at ASU the investment from the State is at 75% of what ASU would wish they were; while the corporate support is at the 1/% percentile. For example, corporations in Michigan and Illinois have made dramatic investments in advancing their higher education institutions over decades, but in Arizona that has not been the case. Alumni support in Arizona has also not been as large as in some states.

President Crow said Regents could help by educating the public that it will take support by alumni, private donors, foundations, and corporations as well as support from the state to make the universities successful. President Likins said the Regents have enormous power to influence the rankings, but he urged them not to exercise that power. He said increasing the standards for admission for the freshman class would elevate the retention and graduation rates, but would inhibit the growth which improves the dollars available per student.

Regent Stuart said he believes the Regents can spread the word and make the public more aware of these issues. Regent Kelling said she believed the issue of larger classes because of lower funding should be considered a policy decision, especially if the universities know that larger classes in math lead to the failure of more students.

President Herstam asked how much of this year’s $1,000 tuition increase had gone toward reducing the average class size at the institutions. President Likins said he could not quantify the answer in those terms, but the UA had committed $4.4M incremental expenditures to expand the number of class offerings and that has the consequence of reducing class sizes. However, the UA has been focusing on freshmen and some of the large classes are in other areas. President Likins and President Haeger said class size is not relevant to all courses in the same manner; it is more important in math than in social studies. President Haeger said it is important for retention for the best faculty to be in contact with freshman and sophomore students and NAU has been committing tenure and tenure-track faculty to lower division courses.

President Herstam said he could understand how the national rankings could be helpful for the aspirations of ASU; but, at the same time, not be helpful for NAU as they are different types of universities. Regent Stuart said the U.S. News and World Report also has a section on programs to look for at all the schools and one is first-year experience. This is an area where Regents can make policy decisions that will make a difference.

Regent Jewett said he would like to state again how important he believes legislative funding is, especially in areas like capital expenditures, building renewal money, and salaries. He believes citizens should work to make sure their legislators understand how important it is to invest in the universities. Dr. Crow agreed.

President Herstam said the study session in January would focus on funding formulas. He hoped something new could be presented that could be brought forward in another year to more fairly fund the universities.

Regent Stuart stated that the Higher Education Act, last reauthorized in 1998, is up again for reauthorization by Congress. Reauthorization of the Act is necessary to preserve the availability of federal funding for student financial aid programs, including Pell grants and student loans. As part of the consideration of the reauthorization, a bill has been introduced in Congress (called the Affordability in Higher Education Act of 2003) that could prevent universities from participating in some federal student aid programs if their tuition increases go above a defined threshold. Regents need to look at this proposal with a critical eye, as it would greatly limit the Regents authority to set tuition and fees based on their own appropriate standards and criteria. The Regents also have an interest in maintaining academic freedom and in keeping or increasing financial aid. Regent Stuart plans to be in Washington, D. C., on another matter, but will make courtesy calls on the Arizona congressional delegation. He asked any Regents who had comments to let him know and he would convey their thoughts.

Dr. Art Ashton joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Bulla said the annual capital and IT operating expenses for the three universities total approximately $177M. About half of the dollars are in the central IT area; the rest are scattered throughout the universities in a decentralized fashion. This generates some issues of security and continuity that the Subcommittee is addressing.

The ARU/IT Subcommittee reviewed and approved the Information Technology Implementation Plans at its October 29, 2003, meeting. The plans include future IT projects identified in the current year, the status of current projects, and financial reporting for all IT operations for the past fiscal year.

Regent Bulla recapped some of the recent IT activities of the ARU/IT Subcommittee: 1)The Subcommittee had reviewed the written internal IT project review procedures of each university; 2) Quarterly reports from UA on the status of its COSMOS project have been reviewed and refined–responsibilities for the project have been reassigned, more work is being done in-house, and the financial reporting is improving; 3) The IT security assessment contract, funded from the Regent’s Innovation Fund, has been awarded to the CISCO Corporation with a report expected in early 2004; 4) The business continuity software project, also funded from the Regent’s Innovation Fund, is on schedule with computers and software installed and personnel from all three universities being trained; and 5) The IT architecture project is moving slowly, so measures are being considered to speed it up.

Upon motion of Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board approved the universities’ Information Technology Implementation Plans for FY 2003.

Dr. Art Ashton joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Bulla said the Board approved the Five-Year Strategic Plans in August, at which time it was noted that a new format had been announced by the State Office of Strategic Planning and Budget (OSPB) and that the revised plans would be brought back for Board approval. Regent Bulla said he believed success would be the completion of these plans so the universities can better serve the students and the citizens of Arizona.

Regent Bulla thanked the university presidents and staff for a well-written, integrated and responsive strategic plan. Each year the focus has been sharpened, the process simplified, and materials better integrated. He suggested the plans be refined even further next year with even more focus on increasing faculty and staff compensation, greater focus on the universities’ master plans (the land use plans), increasing the information technology planning that is included, more focus on the extended education planning, plans for financial aid to students, and including items which haven’t shown as much progress as was anticipated.

Regent Palacios thanked everyone for their work and Regent Bulla for his direction. She said she would like to see a better link between the strategic plans and the budget. Upon
motion of Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board approved the revised Five-Year Strategic Plans.

Dr. Mernoy Harrison and Mr. Scott Cole joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Bulla said the Regents had heard at the September meeting that ASU was developing a new “Comprehensive Development Plan” as part of its master planning process. One component, or precinct, of this plan is the Arts and Business District Gateway at University Drive and Mill Avenue in Tempe, currently known as the Tempe Center.

President Crow said the presentation was to update the Regents on this particular element of the comprehensive development plan, The Arts and Business District Gateway Plan. The site was originally developed in the mid 1950's as a shopping center. ASU purchased the 10-acre center in November 1983 for the purpose of future university expansion. During FY 2004, ASU will complete the new Comprehensive Development Plan and the Gateway Project is one component of this Plan.

President Crow said the new plans call for the W. P. Carey School of Business to be moved to this site and expanding the Herberger College of Fine Arts while advancing the project with other revenue streams. ASU would like this to be a multi-use urban facility. New academic and commercial activities as well as housing and parking are planned. It is expected the density of this area will be similar to the project at Camelback and 24th Street and it will include a small academic hotel. ASU plans to issue a “Request for Proposals” asking for a Master Developer to take on the entire project--conceptualizing it, designing it, generating the financial model, looking at what can be contributed by ASU and what can be contributed by the private sector. A committee of ASU people and outside people is being formed to advance this project. Mr. Wayne Doran, Mr. Rusty Lyon, Dr. Lonnie Ostrom, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, and several other community people to be announced will form an Advisory Council to exercise project oversight.

Technical advisors from inside the university will include Duke Reiter, Bob Wills, Phil Regier, Scott Cole, Ray Jensen, and Ron McCoy.

President Crow said the most important part of this project is whether a single developer will form a syndicate with other developers–banks, hotel, financing, residential–to provide a plan for the 13 acres to ASU. The RFP for a Master Developer will be issued in November. Hopefully, a developer can be selected in February with the concept design developed in 4 to 6 months. In that scenario, construction could begin in 18 to 24 months. Once the developer has been selected and the project begins, ASU will return to the Board for approvals as dictated by Board policy.

Regent Stuart asked how the advisory teams fit in the process of selecting the Master Developer. President Crow said the teams would be involved in the selection process, but he would make the final selection. Regent Boice suggested ASU not state a certain amount that it is willing to contribute until it is clear how much a developer is willing to finance.

Regent Bulla said the ARU/IT Subcommittee approved, at its meeting on October 29, 2003, the issuance of an RFP seeking consulting services to provide an external perspective in two areas. A single RFP will be issued that includes two studies: 1) To develop an ARU Road Map for the future–a review of ARU’s history, the present situation, and recommended options for future development over the next 5 and 10 years; and 2) Student Services within the ABOR System–an audit of existing online student services, identification of areas for improvement, and perspective on collaborative opportunities.

Regent Bulla said it is essential that ARU serve those who cannot participate on the traditional campus and those in the corporate or government world who need or want an education. With this in mind, he asked that a proposal review team, of up to 8 members, be established to include university, public, and corporate sector representatives.

Regent Bulla reported the School of Nursing proposal from ASU that was presented at the last Subcommittee meeting had been withdrawn and the staff is addressing issues that arose concerning procedures. He said it was his understanding the Board had, in the past, funded such projects, based on merit of the project, without regard to equal or proportionate shares for the universities.

The meeting recessed at 4:40 p.m. and reconvened at 9:33 a.m. on Friday, November 21.

Ms. Kathy Bedard, ASU Athletic Director Gene Smith, NAU Athletic Director Steve Holton, UA Athletic Director Jim Livengood, ASU Associate Athletic Director Sandy Hatfield Clubb, and UA Associate Athletic Director Rocky LaRose joined the meeting for this discussion.

Regent Jewett informed the Board that faculty athletic representatives, Jerry Kingston (ASU), Wayne Sjoberg (NAU), and Doug Woodard (UA), were attending the National Faculty Athletic Representative Association meetings in New Orleans, so were not able to attend this meeting.

Regent Jewett placed the discussion in context by reviewing the history of the Board study of athletics, beginning with President McKay’s appointment of a Regents’ Intercollegiate Athletics Subcommittee. At the conclusion of the September 2002 study session, the Board asked the university Athletic Directors to report to the Regents, annually, on the status of NCAA reform efforts, student-athlete welfare, and the financial condition of their programs.

President Likins, who is currently serving as the PAC Ten representative to the NCAA Division I Board of Directors, said the NCAA decision processes are complicated as it is a very large organization. The NCAA has a strong history of making data-based decisions; so once things start moving, they take on a momentum. The academic reform initiative is well underway. In October, Phase 1 put in place some regulations, including moving the requirement for academic classes from 13 to 14 in 2005 and to 16 in 2008. Arizona’s standard is already 16; so this change will be helpful to Arizona. Another change will require the testing of student athletes for eligibility after every term rather than once a year. This is also a current Arizona requirement.

Dr. Likins reported the NCAA has also changed the requirements for continuing eligibility and progress toward degree. The NCAA has come to understand eligibility should not be based only on credit hours and grade point average, but athletes should progress toward graduation in a predetermined, approved, academic program.

Current graduation rates are determined by using only the percentage of incoming freshmen from a single institution who graduate from that institution 6 years later. This doesn’t deal with transfer students. The NCAA is adopting a concept of graduate success rate which includes transfers in and transfers out.

President Likins said there is a system being put in place that will permit every student athlete in every sport to earn two points for his team and for his institution each semester. One point would be earned by completing the semester while maintaining academic eligibility and one point would be earned by either graduating or coming back to continue registration at the athlete’s university. For every team in every sport in every school for every term, accomplishments will be compiled by a percentage of achievable points. Each of those team performances, measured in this fashion, will be compared nationally with all other teams in that sport and then in a composite way with all teams in all sports. That will allow a way to measure academic progress.

Dr. Likins said this will also allow for incentives and disincentives. For example, when a player leaves a team from an institution that has not presented itself favorably in terms of academic progress, the coach may not be allowed to replace that player for a year.

Regent Jewett asked President Likins if there was anything the Board could do to help and was told continued monitoring is important. Dr. Likins said the fact that Boards across the country took the Knight Commission Report seriously caused the NCAA to work harder for reforms. Continued monitoring will keep the momentum moving.

Ms. LaRose reported on student-athlete welfare and the progress being made on current NCAA efforts in non-academic areas such as financial aid and time demands on athletes. She said all member institutions have a clear mandate concerning their relationships with student athletes. The NCAA Constitution sets a comprehensive description of what constitutes student-athlete welfare and states that member institutions are to conduct their athletic programs in a manner designed to protect and enhance the physical and educational welfare of student athletes. It is also a major part of the NCAA’s overall strategic plan and one of the four operating principles of the NCAA certification program.

Ms. LaRose said one of the most effective vehicles for student-athlete welfare was the development of the NCAA student-athlete advisory committee and, most recently, the PAC Ten Student Advisory Committee. The NCAA now has a new annual legislative cycle, so the proposals described will be addressed by the management council in January and will be forwarded to the Board of Directors in April for their final approval.

Ms. LaRose said the most dramatic movement in the area of student-athlete welfare was the approval by the Board of Directors of the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund. The new fund may be used for a variety of student-athlete needs with relatively few exclusions or exemptions. The fund will grow with television revenues.

There is a separate fund called the Student-Athlete Assistance Fund for student athletes that can demonstrate financial need. Limits have been taken off how much an athlete can earn from outside employment. Under consideration is a financial aid proposal that will address the gap between permissible athletic aid and the actual cost of attendance. Starting in January, the football student athlete has 8 weeks in the spring semester of discretionary time in which coaches cannot mandate work outs.

Ms. LaRose said the NCAA is considering limiting the amount of time that a multi-sport athlete is able to devote to athletic related activities to the same level as the single sport athlete–20 hours per week in season, 8 hours per week out of season. The current allotment for a multi-sport athlete is 40 hours per week in season with 16 hours out of season. There is also consideration being given to changing the requirement for one day off per week from athletic related activities during the out-of-season period to two days and to not allowing a travel day to or from athletic activities to count as the one required day off per week. New health and safety requirements were adopted in the last year such as pre-season conditioning and practice in the sport of football and allowing payment of medical expenses incurred outside of practice or competition.

Mr. Holton described NAU’s athletic program and listed accomplishments that had been made over the past year. The state budget appropriations for athletics has been reduced, there is now a 50-50 balance in gender participation, and there is a new life skill’s coordinator. NAU was one of 4 schools last year to have both men and women place in the top ten in the national championships.

Mr. Holton described the academic accomplishments of NAU athletes. Within the Big Sky, the NAU 61% graduation rate is the highest. Athletes that complete all their eligibility at NAU graduate at a 91% rate and athletes currently graduate at a 15% higher rate than the general student population.

President Crow said he considered athletics as a central element of ASU’s creative and competitive expression. Mr. Smith distributed the Annual Report for 2002-2003 that provides a summary of the athletic report. ASU’s athletic graduation rate is 65%, the highest it has ever been, and 9% higher than the general student population. Over the last 3 years, ASU ranks 11th nationally in the number of Academic All Americans produced.

Regent Boice asked what assurances the Board had that the athletic deficit would be retired. Mr. Smith said the athletic department had so far held athletic services, such as summer school opportunities, harmless; but if it became necessary, those services would be cut to reduce the deficit. He was hopeful revenues could be raised next year to retire the deficit. The athletic department is not operating in a deficit; it is trying to retire an inherited $2.5M debt.

President Herstam asked for a review of the time schedule of when the Arizona Cardinals would be leaving Sun Devil Stadium and how that would financially impact the ASU program. Mr. Smith said it is anticipated the last Cardinal season will be the Fall of 2006 and ASU is currently working with the Cardinals and the Fiesta Bowl on an exiting strategy that would not leave the stadium management account with any deficits.

Mr. Livengood described the UA athletic program and explained efforts to keep the program fiscally sound. Regent Jewett said he believed the yearly discussions with the Athletic Directors served to educate the public as well as the Regents about the status of the university athletic departments and the difficulties they face. He thanked the Athletic Directors for their time.

President Herstam said he appreciated the presidents keeping him and the Regents informed as athletic decisions are made. Mr. Holton thanked ASU and UA for including NAU in their schedules.

President Herstam said the Board was being asked to review a summary of the proposed Academic Affiliation Agreement with the universities and the Translational Genomics Research Institute, more commonly known as TGen, and to authorize the execution of the proposed agreement as described in the summary which was included in the meeting materials. He reminded the Regents that he and the three university presidents serve on the TGen Board of Directors.

An organizational framework is being developed in which the combined resources of the universities, TGen, and the local hospitals and health care community can work on a common project to use researchers’ expanding knowledge of the human genome to develop medical applications for the improvement of health and health care.

President Herstam said TGen, under the direction of Dr. Jeffrey Trent, has already benefitted tremendously from the contributions of university researchers and is counting on the ongoing partnership with the universities in order to pursue common objectives. Many individuals and organizations contributed to this effort and both Governor Hull and Governor Napolitano deserve recognition for their leadership and vision for supporting the statewide effort that resulted in the decision of the International Genomics Consortium to locate its headquarters in Phoenix. This then led to Dr. Trent’s decision to set up TGen in Phoenix. The Flynn Foundation, the City of Phoenix, and several local healthcare providers have contributed their expertise and their resources to make the vision a reality.

President Herstam said he was especially proud of the way in which faculty members and the Vice Presidents for Research contributed to the cause by contributing their expertise and resources. Under the direction of the presidents, he believes an agreement has been worked out with TGen that permits the flexibility that will be necessary to make the partnership successful, but also maintains the accountability mechanisms that are required of public institutions.

President Likins said he believed the cooperation among government entities involved in paving the way for TGen was unprecedented in Arizona. He said he would like to reassure the faculty of the three universities the agreement works within the existing ABOR policies, without exception. President Haeger said he believed whether TGen is a success will not be known for about ten years, but NAU has benefitted already by being able to keep a professor that was being recruited elsewhere.

Regent Bulla said this is a new, complex enterprise and he was pleased there are a number of provisions for audit-type activities to keep oversight of the enterprise. Upon motion of President Herstam, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board authorized the execution of the Academic Affiliation Agreement with the ABOR and the universities and TGen, as described in the summary agenda materials.

Regent Herstam indicated he had been made aware that some faculty members had raised concerns regarding the TGen Agreement, and requested the Council of Presidents to work with AFC representatives to ensure the concerns are addressed and that communications are ongoing. Dr. Camacho agreed the faculty was confused about some areas of the agreement. However, they look forward to working with the presidents as this is a very exciting enterprise.

Dr. Ray Woosley and Dr. Tom Wickenden joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said the Board approved a charter for the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative, or ABC, last April. The entity is charged to facilitate collaboration between the universities to meet state needs for biomedical education, research, and policy studies. The Board is being asked to approve a modification to the organizational structure of ABC in order to incorporate two groups that have been facilitating collaboration on issues related to the ABC Charter–the plan for expanding the nursing programs and the plan for an ABC building at the new bioscience campus in downtown Phoenix.

Dr. Woosley provided a history of these groups. Regent Jewett said he believed the early meetings between healthcare CEO’s and the university presidents began a process that allowed progress on meeting the communities’ needs in the 21st century for healthcare. President Herstam said Regent Ulrich believes it is important that a Regent’s presence be maintained within the input group. Since Regent Ulrich’s term as a Regent is about to end, President Herstam has asked Regent Designee Calderón to take Regent Ulrich’s place on the group when his term begins. Dr. Woosley said the flow sheets include the designation of the capital facilities component where people from each of the institutions are now designated to help with the planning for the ABC building in downtown Phoenix.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board approved the integration of the Health Sciences Input Group into the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative and the addition of the Capital Facilities Workgroup through the changes that have been proposed in the organizational structure of ABC.

NAU Provost Liz Grobsmith, ASU Provost Milt Glick, UA Provost George Davis, Dr. Tom Wickenden, and Mr. Dan Anderson joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said the item was a proposal to streamline the Board’s accountability measures and update them to reflect the priorities the Board had established through the Changing Directions initiatives.

Dr. Wickenden said the Board had asked for a plan to report on the outcomes of the Changing Directions’ initiatives and had also asked that the Undergraduate Consolidated Accountability Report (UCAR) be streamlined. The new Changing Directions report being presented could also serve as a streamlined accountability report. If this proposal is approved, baseline data and recommended goals for the measures in the new report will be brought to the Board in the Spring.

Dr. Wickenden said the new report will have 4 sections–1 describing common accountability measures for the Arizona university system and the other three describing individual accountability measures for each university. The new report will be limited to 21 key measures that describe the essence of Changing Directions. The system measures will cover 3 topics–access and participation, affordability, and student success.

Provost Glick described the 5 measures that will define the new differentiated mission of ASU. Dr. Glick said the 3 drivers for ASU are student access and quality, resource generation, and community embeddedness. Under Student Access and Quality, ASU will measure the number of degrees granted (undergraduate, masters, doctoral), the percentage of students who begin as freshman and graduate within six years (by racial/ ethnic category) and percentage of undergraduate degree recipients who begin as freshmen and graduate in five years or less, and percentage of graduating seniors who rate their overall university experience as good or excellent. Under Resource Generation, ASU will measure fiscal year awards from gifts, grants, and contracts. Under Community Embeddedness, ASU will measure K-12 education teachers served through ASU educational support programs.

Provost Grobsmith said NAU’s measures are integrated into a three-part mission, revolving around the areas of undergraduate education, graduate education, research, and economic development, and distance learning education. Under Undergraduate Education, NAU will measure percentage of lower division student credit hours taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty, the percentage of graduating seniors who rate their overall university experience as good or excellent, and the percentage of degree recipients participating in a research-related or capstone experience. Under Graduate Education, Research and Economic Development , NAU will measure graduate degrees granted, and under Distance Learning Education, NAU will measure enrollments by Arizona region.

Provost Davis said UA measures are organized into three categories: Student Progress and Engagement, Research and Graduate Education, and Service. Under Student Progress and Engagement, UA will measure undergraduate graduation rates for four, five,
and six years, and student engagement and documented intellectually based and learner centered experience involving application, synthesis, evaluation, and analysis. Under Research and Graduate Education, UA will measure grant and contract expenditures and terminal degrees granted: M.F.S., Ph.D., and First Professional. Under Service, UA will measure people served by the AHSC Telemedicine program.

Mr. Anderson said the Changing Directions initiative had significant impact on all the reporting structures the Board sees over the year. It will be demonstrated in the Fall Enrollment Report where the relaxing of the cap on non-resident enrollment has allowed an increase in non-resident students. The Financial Aid plans in the Spring will illustrate what has happened with the set-aside funds from the tuition increase. The universities, recognizing the need for information both for internal management and for reporting purposes, are proposing to continue to produce and maintain the UCAR data as well as the common data set.

Regent Jewett thanked everyone for their work to make the reporting process more useful. Regent Bulla asked if the UCAR data would still be available to Regents if they asked and was told yes. He asked Provost Davis if the UA would be measuring customer satisfaction in the same manner as the other two universities and was told the UA would be surveying customer satisfaction periodically but not the same as the other two. Regent Palacios asked if the common data set would really be common among all three universities and was told it would be common among the Arizona universities and with all the other universities nationwide. Regent Stuart said he was in favor of the new report, but was concerned because it did not report undergraduates involved in Arizona Regents University. He said the UCAR report might provide the opportunity to start looking at data with respect to graduate teaching and research assistants. He asked the work group to consider which measures might be helpful to the Board as it establishes policy. He also asked for the new report to be more “Regent friendly;” for example, the use of more matrices and fewer long, involved tables.

Regent Boice asked the work group to keep an eye on outcomes. He would like to see outcomes where applicable. Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board approved the system and the university accountability measures as described in the proposed Changing Directions Report, the new reporting schedule, the plan to maintain the UCAR measures, and the nationally comparable common data set as an inventory for meeting information requests.

Dr. M. J. McMahon, Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Ms. Edith Auslander, and Dr. Tom Wickenden joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said the Board had heard from President Haeger at the last meeting about the need to revise the Board’s outdated policies on off-campus courses and programs. The Council of Presidents was asked to have the Changing Directions Workgroup review all the off-campus policies and develop recommendations for review by the Regents.

Dr. Wickenden said the current Board policies were adopted well before the development of the Internet and were outdated. In addition, the dominant concern at that time was that the quality of off-campus courses be as good as the quality of on-campus courses. The policies link on and off campus courses in a way that now prevents the universities from serving the unique needs of off-campus students. Dr. Wickenden said Dr. McMahon would highlight recommendations that were guided by the principles the Board approved as the foundation for Changing Directions. The recommendations focused on 4 principles: Student success by providing off- campus programs and courses when and where students need them, Accessibility by providing access to programs for students who are place bound or time constrained, Differentiation by providing the flexibility for each university to offer the off-campus programs and services that support their particular mission, and Financial viability by allowing each university the freedom to compete with private and out-of-state universities in the various markets for off-campus programs and courses and to charge market-based tuition and fees for what they provide.

Dr. McMahon summarized the recommendations. In recommendation #1, paragraphs 1, 5, and 8 of Policy 2-205A, General Requirements–Credit Course work, should be modified, and the other 5 paragraphs should be deleted to provide more flexibility for the universities in delivering off-campus courses and programs, while also recognizing current requirements and guidelines of the North Central Association. In recommendation #2, ABOR policies 2-205 C, Requirements - Temporary Off-Campus Instructional Sites, and 2-205 D, Requirements - Branch Campuses, and 2-205 F, Requirements - Free-Standing Campuses, should be reviewed and revised to reflect changes in 205 C and D; and specific recommendations should be brought back to the Board at a future date. In recommendation #3, policy 2-205 H, External Graduate Degree Programs, and the six paragraphs it contains are covered by Recommendation #1 and should be deleted.

In recommendation #4, a new section Policy 2-205 H should be added to require a periodic report describing off-campus courses and programs. In recommendation #5, Policy 2-206 A, Academic Credit, Definition of a Unit of Credit, should be modified by adding to it a paragraph to address the assignment of credit to off-campus courses.

Regent Bulla said he did not see dimensions for transferability for electronic courses or among the universities. He also was concerned about the impact of these policy changes and how they will correlate with the study on ARU. Dr. McMahon said she believed these changes would enhance ARU and electronic delivery as they bring the policies more in line with current accrediting practices.

President Haeger agreed transferability was an important issue, but said he did not believe these changes would impact transferability. Dr. Camacho thanked Dr. Wickenden and Dr. McMahon for keeping faculty in the loop on these changes. Within the context of policy needing interpretation, Dr. Camacho proposed adding to 2-205 A 2 (on the bottom of Page 7 and the top of Page 8 of the executive summary) language stating the faculty determination would be made through established faculty governance processes.

Dr. Camacho said the faculty is somewhat confused as to the definition of off-campus centers and branch campuses. The faculty hope that, as is the current practice, standards will be much higher than what the NCA proposes so the integrity and quality of off-campus programs can be maintained. Regent Stuart said he did not want the workgroup to be bound by trying to make the new policies consistent with current policies. He would like them free to recommend bold, new, and innovative policies. He encouraged the workgroup to continue to review policies to see if others need to be updated or changed.

Regent Boice asked the workgroup to consider the comments made and bring this back for second reading in January.

Mr. Dan Anderson joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said the Board approved a plan for expanding undergraduate nursing programs at the universities at its September meeting. This plan is part of a statewide plan that also includes the community colleges. The Governor’s office has awarded the Board a grant to help fund this expansion.

Mr. Anderson said this is one of the initiatives the Health Sciences Input Group has been working on. Senate Bill 1260, passed about 18 months ago, directed the community colleges and the universities to double the number of nursing graduates in the state within 5 years. The grant will be split equally between the community colleges and the universities and the university share will be split equally among the three universities. That will make each university’s share around $83,000.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Palacios, the Board approved the proposed allocation of Workforce Investment Act funds to the universities and the community colleges to pay a portion of the costs of expanding their registered nursing programs.

Mr. Dan Anderson joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said the universities annually prepare and submit a report to the central office of students enrolled on the 21st day of classes. Changes in the student body impact all areas of a university’s operation. This information is also used by the governor’s office and the legislature when they review state funding proposals.

Regent Boice said the Fall Enrollment Report is usually a consent item on the agenda. However, the question of what impact Changing Directions has had on enrollments–increasing both tuition and need-based financial aid–caused this to be brought to the Board’s attention for information and discussion.

Mr. Anderson drew the Board’s attention to the fact that enrollment levels, in spite of the increase in tuition, increased 1.4% to 115,464, a record level. There was an increase at ASU and UA although there was a decline at NAU. In the universities where headcount enrollment rose, full-time equivalent enrollment grew even more than headcount enrollment in percentage terms over the year. At NAU, where headcount enrollment declined, the decline in full-time enrollment was less than the decline in headcount.

Mr. Anderson said Changing Directions eliminated the cap on non-resident enrollment However, data on non-resident enrollments will continue to be reported for oversight purposes.

Dr. Milt Glick, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, Dr. Carl Fox, and Dr. David Schwalm joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said there were three requests, including a new academic program, a new academic division, and a new center. The request for the new degree in Biochemistry is for a B.A., not a B.S. as listed in the executive summary.

Provost Glick said there are students who wish to take biochemistry that do not want to take a course that requires as much math as the professional program. This request is to offer a B.A. in addition to the B.S. and requires no new resources. Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Regents authorized Arizona State University Main to implement the B.A. in Biochemistry, using the expedited, one-step process, and Arizona State University East to establish the Division of Computing Studies in the College of Technology and Applied Sciences.

Dr. Fox said NAU believes the proposed Center for Microbial Genetics and Genomics is critical in addressing local, state and national needs, particularly those that relate to bioterrorism and other infectious disease. The Center will provide increased integration and flexibility and an avenue for recruiting high quality faculty and students. Regent McCalley asked where the Center would be positioned within the university and was told it would report directly to the president.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board authorized Northern Arizona University to establish the Center for Microbial Genetics and Genomics (MGGEN).

President Crow summarized the qualifications of Professor Charles Arntzen, Founding Director of the Arizona Biodesign Institute and Florence Ely Nelson Distinguished Chair, Dr. Ronald Carlson, a leading contemporary writer of fiction, Dr. Philip Christensen, a pioneer in the exploration of Mars, Dr. Gene Glass, who published the first articulation of an innovative statistical tool for evaluating research results across studies, Dr. Luis Gomez-Mejia, one of the leading national scholars in the field of management, Dr. Stephen Pyne, the foremost authority of the cultural history of fire and fire management, Dr. Irwin Sandler, a leader in developing the newly-emerging field of prevention science, and Dr. Mary Lee Smith, a major contributor to the development and refinement of meta-analysis, to be given the title of Regents’ Professor. Dr. Crow said these individuals were being recommended by the faculty, the provost, and himself.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board approved the appointment of Professor Charles Arntzen, Professor Ronald Carlson, Professor Philip Christensen, Professor Gene Glass, Professor Luis Gomez-Mejia, Professor Stephen Pyne, Professor Irwin Sandler, and Professor Mary Lee Smith as Regents’ Professors, to take effect on August 15, 2004, and carrying a salary increment of $5,000.

Mr. Dave Harris, Mr. Scott Cole, Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. David Duffy, and Ms. Kathy Bedard joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Palacios said the Board had authorized the use of Regents Innovation Funds to engage consultants to complete studies relating to the proposed ABC site in downtown Phoenix. Ryden Architects, Inc., and Ayers/Saint/Gross, Inc., have completed their feasibility studies on the renovation of the former Phoenix Union High School buildings and preliminary site planning for the new ABC building.

Mr. Harris described the site for the Regents. He said the first study was to determine the feasibility of rehabilitating three remaining historic structures on the site. Mr. Cole and his staff developed the study.

Mr. Cole showed the design the Ryden Architects had done for the three buildings. He described the proposed uses for the buildings. Mr. Harris said the study had determined it is feasible to renovate the buildings and some cost estimates will be developed. President Likins said UA intended to move all the offices currently housed at 3rd Street and Indian School to one of the renovated buildings, probably Building 1.

Mr. Duffy presented the site plan for the southern third of the site that includes the City of Phoenix part of the site north of Polk Street. It showed TGen, the existing three Phoenix Union school buildings, and the proposed future building sites for ABC. Ms. Bedard said staff was in the final stages of negotiating an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Phoenix to lease the land and hopes that can come to the Board in January for approval.

Ms. Gale Tebeau, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, and Mr. Dick Roberts joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Palacios said the Board was being asked to approve the Fall Update of the FY 2004 All Funds Operating Budget for the universities and the central office. The All Funds Budget combines the state operating budgets and local fund budgets into a comprehensive report that includes projected revenues, expenditures, and year-end balances. This Update reports no significant changes since the Initial All Funds Budget that was approved by the Board in August.

Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board approved the Fall Update of the FY 2004 All Funds Operating Budget.

Ms. Kathy Bedard, Mr. Joel Valdez, and Mr. Bob Smith joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Palacios said the University of Arizona was requesting Project Implementation Approval with a Budget Increase to construct an addition to the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Building. Total estimated project cost is $8.2M. The Board approved this project in August as part of the university’s Amended Capital Development Plan. Mr. Valdez said the budget increase was possible because the Dean was able to obtain $1.2M in gifts. This is an addition that will consolidate many functions that are scattered throughout the campus.

Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board granted Project Implementation Approval and Budget Increase for the Architecture Building Expansion Project to the University of Arizona.

Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. Bob Smith, and Ms. Kathy Bedard joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Palacios said this is the University of Arizona relocation of their greenhouses to the top of the Sixth Street Parking Garage. The last time the Board saw this project was in August in connection with Project Approval for the Chemistry Building Expansion project.

Mr. Valdez said the university already had permission to do half of a floor; however, it is an opportune time to finish the full floor and make room for some additional greenhouses. If they are granted permission, they will start pouring columns during the Christmas break. Mr. Valdez said the greenhouses are in the way of the chemistry addition which should be started in the spring.

Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board granted Project Implementation Approval and Project Approval to the University of Arizona for the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Campus Greenhouse Relocation and Enlargement Project.

Mr. Scott Cole, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, and Ms. Kathy Bedard joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Palacios said Arizona State University was requesting Revised Project Approval for the Packard Stadium renovations with a Scope and Budget Increase of $200,000. The Board last saw the item in June when it granted Revised Project Approval with a budget increase of $850,000.

Ms. Cole said the increase in scope was because the Athletic Department raised $200,000 which can now be included in this item. Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted Revised Project Approval, with a Budget and Scope increase to Arizona State University for the Packard Stadium Clubhouse and Playing Field Renovations.

Mr. Scott Cole, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, and Ms. Kathy Bedard joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Palacios said Arizona State University was requesting Revised Project Approval with a Scope and Budget Increase for construction of Parking Structure 7. The total project cost is $16.3M. The Board granted Project Approval in August of 2003.

Mr. Cole said the design process discovered the budget would allow only 1,399 parking spaces. However, it was found another story could be added at an additional price that is per space lower than the original price. Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board granted Revised Project Approval to Arizona State University-Main for Parking Structure 7.

Ms. Gale Tebeau joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Palacios said Northern Arizona University was requesting Board approval to use a portion of their Eminent Scholars Matching Grant Program funds for a limited number of key faculty. NAU currently had about $2.9M available in the fund.

President Haeger said this money would be used for a limited number of key faculty to supplement salaries and provide sabbatical funds. Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board granted the request of Northern Arizona University to use $63,000 in continuing and $51,450 in one-time Eminent Scholars Matching Grant Program Funds to support four key faculty.

Regent Palacios said Arizona State University was requesting Approval of the appointment of Richard Stanley to the position of Senior Vice President and University Planner at a total annual compensation of $262,000. President Crow said ASU was embarking on its largest and most comprehensive evolutionary step taken to date. They will be evolving four campuses simultaneously, moving schools, building schools, building facilities, and working with multiple funding sources. He believes this position will alleviate the stress all this activity is placing on the university. This is the last senior hire fleshing out his executive team. He believes this is an excellent candidate.

President Crow said Mr. Stanley will be paid $190,000 per year from state resources with additional compensation coming from ASU Foundation resources to alleviate a retirement fund issue relative to his existing package. He will also receive a car allowance and costs of relocation. Regent Boice asked the difference between customary moving expenses and the one time payment related to relocation and was told Mr. Stanley is being asked to move rapidly which involves extra costs.

Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board approved the appointment of Richard Stanley as Senior Vice President and University Planner effective on or about February 17, 2004, at a total annual compensation of $262,000 plus customary moving expenses and a one-time $50,000 payment for related costs of relocation.

Provost George Davis joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Palacios said the Board was being asked to approve a proposal to increase the special program fees for the J.D. (Juris Doctorate) and L.L.M. (Master of Laws) programs at the James E. Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona. Board policy allows for the universities to request Board approval for changes to fees within pre-approved fee ranges. This request is within the range approved by the Board in April 2002.

Provost Davis said the UA was asking to increase the J.D. differential fee by $1500 and the LL.M. fee by $500. Approximately 15% of the differential fee will be invested in student financial aid and students presently in the program will be grandfathererd. This fee will apply only to those students who enroll in the fall of 2004 and thereafter.

Upon motion of Regent Palacios, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board approved, by unanimous roll call vote, the University of Arizona request to increase special program fees for the J.D. and LL.M. programs at the James E. Rogers College of Law to $8,250 per year for students entering after Spring 2004.

Regent Stuart said the Joint Conference Committee had been reorganized completely and met in Phoenix on November 5 with representatives from the community college system (two of the current community college presidents and two trustees) and representatives from the university system (three members of the Board of Regents and one university president). This group will make sure the transfer articulation agreement currently in place continues to be expanded and improved.

Bylaws were passed and a proposed mission statement that will significantly change the relationship between the community college system and the university system was distributed and discussed. The group will meet again to approve the report that has to go to the state legislature on transfer articulation. In the spring, the group will deal with many topics, including how distance learning credits are transferred. President Herstam thanked Regent Stuart for all the time he has spent on this issue.

Dr. David Camacho thanked the Board for including faculty in the Changing Directions workgroup. He thanked Regent Bulla for highlighting faculty salary plans during the reporting of the strategic plans for the universities. That is the number one issue for the AFC and the members will be working with their presidents on those plans. The AFC has decided to conduct a study, through the faculty senates, on faculty compensation packages. It will be a comprehensive study that will look at salary compression, how merit and market raises can be used, faculty work rules, as well as salary plans. The AFC will invite Regents to participate in a workgroup that will look more closely at faculty compensation packages at the universities.

President Herstam thanked the Regent Designees for attending the meeting. He said a tribute luncheon for Regents Ulrich and McKay will be held in conjunction with the January meeting. Everyone thanked President Likins and his staff for their efforts in hosting the meeting and the social function. Regent Bulla thanked everyone for the way they have worked together on Changing Directions issues. Regent Palacios and Regent Stuart thanked everyone for the thoughtful efforts on the accountability measures as they believe that data will be very important. Regent McCalley thanked President Likins for the tour of Sierra Vista the UA staff arranged for himself and Regent Kelling. He also thanked the AFC for inviting him to lunch so he could learn more about faculty issues.

MINUTES