April 2000 Minutes/Arizona Board of Regents

A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held April 6 and 7, 2000, in the University Union at Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. President Amos called the Study Session to order at 10:06 a.m. in the Grand Canyon Room

PRESENT:	Regent George H. Amos, III Regent Judy Gignac Regent Jack Jewett Regent Kay McKay Regent Christina Palacios Regent Gary Stuart Regent Christine Thompson Regent Donald Ulrich (Thursday Only)
ABSENT:	Governor Jane Dee Hull Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan Regent Chris Herstam

Also present were: President Peter Likins, University of Arizona; President Lattie Coor, Arizona State University; President Clara Lovett, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director Linda Blessing, Student Regent Designee Mary Echeverria, Arizona Faculties Council Chair Jerry Hogle, staff members, and faculty.

All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the April 6 and 7, 2000, Documents File.

President Amos introduced new Regents Christina Palacios and Gary Stuart. He asked Executive Director Blessing to Chair the Study Session.

Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda described Governor Hull's "Arizona 2000" proposal. There was a discussion of the proposal and the problem in defining the "New Economy." This proposal, which is also supported by Superintendent Keegan, would create a new funding mechanism to support K-12 and higher education. The "Arizona 2000" initiative would ask voter approval of a .6 percent increase in the state sales tax in order to generate more than $440M per year for K-12 and higher education.

Regent McKay said she believed the "Arizona 2000" proposal was bold and courageous and the Board should be unified in its support. Regent Jewett said he believed the Regents should come out early and forcefully in support of the proposal. President Coor expressed his agreement with those statements. President Amos thanked the Governor for her proposal, but said he did not believe it would provide as much funding as is needed. He thought there should be a Plan B in case the proposal doesn't win voter approval. Regent Gignac said she believes the Board should concentrate on this proposal and should put forward the needs of higher education.

Regent Stuart said he believes everything the universities do is part of the new economy, as technology and education are the most important needs of the future. Regent Palacios agreed the Board should take a strong stand in support of the proposal. She said part of Plan B should be electing legislators who support higher education.

Regent McKay said she believes the Board should back the Governor's proposal. She believed having a Plan B would present a defeatist attitude. Staff was asked to draft a resolution of support for the Governor's proposal.

Dr. Blessing told the Regents the purpose statement of the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education is "To help move Arizona into an economic position of national and global prominence by reexamining, refining, and significantly strengthening the evolving role and capacity of the State's higher education institutions as drivers for development of the new, globally-competitive, knowledge-based economy." The planning terminology of the Governor's Task Force is to identify outcomes, strategies, and then initiatives. The Board had previously received materials on the outcomes and strategies; now it was being asked to focus on a few specific initiatives the Task Force is beginning to address. Each university president presented specific research initiatives that can help economic development in the New Economy.

President Likins said all three universities had agreed to focus on bioscience and biotechnology. He described the University of Arizona's proposal for Optical Sciences. President Lovett described NAU's proposal in Environmental Sciences and Engineering. President Coor submitted ASU's proposal for New Economy Science and Technology (NEST).

The Study Session recessed at 11:00 a.m. with an expectation it would reconvene later in the day.

President Amos called the Regular Meeting to order at 1:20 p.m. in the Havasupai Room. In addition to the Regents listed above, those present were President Clara Lovett, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Ms. Anne Barton, Mr. Kurt Davis, Dr. John Haeger, Dr. Michael Mullen, Dr. Mason Somerville, Dr. Sarah Bickel, and Mr. Josh Allen, Northern Arizona University; President PeterLikins, Mr. Greg Fahey, Mr. Dick Roberts, Dr. Saundra Taylor, Dr. Elizabeth Erwin, and Mr. Joel Valdez, University of Arizona; President Lattie Coor, Dr. Charles Bantz (Thursday Only), Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Dr. Elaine Maimon, Mr. Steve Miller, and Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Arizona State University; Executive Director Linda Blessing, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Ms. Louise Houseworth, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda, Ms. Norma Salas, Dr. Art Ashton, and Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Central Office; Dr. Jerry Hogle, Arizona Faculties Council Representative; and Student Regent Designee Mary Echeverria.

Regent Palacios led the Pledge of Allegiance. President Amos welcomed Regents Gary Stuart and Christina Palacios to their first meeting since they were confirmed. He introduced Mary Echeverria, the Student Regent Designee who will join the Board July 1.

President Amos announced he had been asked to remove Items 26 and 27 from the Consent Agenda to be discussed on the Programs Committee 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 Thompson, seconded by Regent McKay. There was no individual discussion of these items.

The Board approved the February 25, 2000, Regular Meeting and Executive Session minutes.

The Board granted approval for construction of the Our Yard Teaching Pavilion by the 4H Foundation on University of Arizona Campus Agricultural Center land and also granted approval to accept the gift of the completed Pavilion from the 4H Foundation. The building will serve as an outdoor classroom facility. The estimated construction cost is $190,000. The mission of Our Yard is to provide Southern Arizona residents with the educational tools needed to create and maintain sustainable landscapes compatible with Arizona's arid environment.

The Board authorized a contract between The Egg Factory, LLC, and the University of Arizona to develop electro-active materials, adaptive lenses, and organic electroluminescent microdisplays. The amount of the contract is $1,011,486 for the first year; $5,357,430 for the term of the project. The contract period is March 1, 2000, through February 28, 2004.

The Board authorized a contract between Composite Optics, Inc., and the University of Arizona to support the design, testing, and delivery of FIRST Assembly Fixtures and a Metrology System utilizing technologies developed at the University of Arizona. The amount of the contract is $2,698,749 for the first year of the project. The contract period is May 1, 2000, through August 31, 2001.

The Board granted permission for the University of Arizona to purchase the property located at 422-430 North Cherry Avenue at the sales price of $295,000, from Pioneer Trust of Arizona, subject to approval of legal documents by University and Board Counsel. The property is located within the University Planning Area and the owners initiated the sales request.

The Board authorized the University of Arizona to lease 320.16 acres located on Tumamoc Hill from Pima County for use by the Desert Research Lab for an initial term of 25 years plus a 25-year renewal term at an annual cost of $1, subject to approval of legal documents by Board and University Counsel.

The Board accepted the summarized Auditor General management letters concerning the financial statement audit of each university for the year ended June 30, 1999. There were no audit findings that were required to be reported by GAS and OMB Circular A-133.

The Board reviewed and accepted the written audit report completed by the Central Office internal audit staff for Fall 1999 Enrollment at the three universities. There were no recommendations or findings reportable to the Board. Headcount and full time equivalent student enrollment as reported in the Fall 1999 Enrollment Report presented to the Board in January 2000 are accurate and conform to Board Policy.

The Board received a written summary of student enrollment for spring semester 2000. ASU Main had a total of 40,689 headcount and 36,191 FTE. ASU West had a total of 5,042 headcount and 3,704 FTE. ASU East had a total of 1,474 headcount and 951 FTE. NAU had a total of 18,853 headcount and 16,382 FTE. UA had a total headcount of 31,919, including 152 at Arizona International and 427 at UA South. UA had a total FTE of 28,507, including 119 at Arizona International and 263 at UA South.

The Board adopted the proposed academic year calendars for the universities for academic years 2002 through 2005, and the changes proposed by ASU for academic years 2000-2001 and 2001- 2002.

Arizona State University: 2000-2001 (Fall 8/21 - 12/14; Spring 1/16 - 5/10); 2001-2002 (Fall 8/20 - 12/19; Spring 1/14 - 5/9); 2002-2003 (Fall 8/26 - 12/19; Spring 1/21 - 5/15); 2003-2004 (Fall 8/25 - 12/18; Spring 1/20 - 5/13); 2004 - 2005 (Fall 8/23 - 12/16; Spring 1/18 - 5/12).

Northern Arizona University: 2002 - 2003 (Fall 8/26 - 12/13; Spring 1/13 - 5/9); 2003 - 2004 (Fall 8/25 - 12/12; Spring 1/12 - 5/7); 2004 - 2005 (Fall 8/30 - 12/17; Spring 1/17 - 513).

University of Arizona: 2002-2003 (Fall 8/26 - 12/20; Spring 1/15 - 5/16); 2003-2004 (Fall 8/25 - 12/19; Spring 1/14 - 5/14); 2004-2005 (Fall 8/23 - 12/17; Spring 1/12 - 5/13).

Ms. Kate Dillion-Hogan, Ms. Gale Tebeau, Ms. Louise Houseworth, Mr. Josh Allen, Ms. Phyllis Bannister, ASASU President Jennifer Holsman, ASNAU President Paul Peterson, and ASUA President Cisco Aguilar joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay reminded the Regents the process used this year was restructured based on the new legislation and there will be roll call votes taken on proposed tuition and fee adjustments.

She asked Student Regent Christine Thompson, who had an active role in the process, for comments. Regent Thompson thanked the staff and everyone for their participation in the tuition setting process this year, which she felt was better than the last several years. She said students speaking at the tuition hearing acknowledged the Board would be unable to keep tuition low without funding help from the legislature, and students volunteered to go to the legislature to lobby for funding.

Regent McKay reminded the Regents the university presidents had advanced a recommendation calling for increases in resident and nonresident tuition ten days prior to the tuition hearing, in accordance with this year's revised tuition setting process. She asked the presidents to share their perspectives on tuition and financial aid for the academic year 2000-2001.

President Lovett said she understands the need to keep tuition affordable for students. However, the need to provide financial aid for students, the need to maintain technology for research and instruction, and the need to pay indebtedness on the bonding for renovation of facilities requires an increase in revenue. Therefore, she has recommended an increase of $100 in tuition for resident students and $400 for nonresident students.

President Coor said he had recommended an increase of $100 for resident students and $350 for nonresident students. He asked that the increase for the two larger universities be kept the same, regardless of the amount of the increase the Regents decide is necessary. (NAU has a somewhat lower nonresident tuition.) He has asked for the increase to improve undergraduate instruction by continuing to expand support for advising and related academic services. ASU will also use some of the increase to continue to invest in technology and to augment salaries. He will try to keep the student's share of support for the university as low as possible, even while not receiving an increase from the legislature.

President Likins said he had taken into consideration all the dollars students are obliged to pay and had recommended a $100 increase in resident tuition. The mandated amount would go to financial aid and the remainder would be divided equally between increased spending on information technology and increased spending for faculty salaries. Dr. Likins said the revenue generated by students is very important to the universities because the funds are unconstrained. Many of the revenue streams coming to the university are limited in the way they can be used.

All three presidents thanked the work group that had prepared the materials for this process. They also stated their appreciation of the way the students had participated in the process this year. Regent McKay asked for comments from the student leaders.

Ms. Holsman said all the students appreciate the chance for an affordable education provided by the universities in Arizona. Because of the real benefits occurring in students' lives while attending college, she, on behalf of the students, urged the Board to keep tuition as nearly as free as possible as mandated by the Arizona Constitution. Financing a college education is now the second most costly thing families face, with only home buying being more expensive. However, she said students were not opposed to a reasonable tuition increase. Using a formula of CPI plus 1% for university growth, the Arizona Students' Association proposed a 3% increase in tuition to allow the universities to continue to expand their technology programs, enhance the undergraduate experience, and provide adequate pay for faculty. She said it was important for students to know which programs are impacted in a positive or negative way by increased or decreased funding. She reminded the Board students do have many other costs beside tuition.

Mr. Peterson said he believed the Board put more weight on the recommendations of the presidents than they do on the recommendations of the students, and he believed the process should change. Students are willing to compromise and to work together with the Board at the legislature to see how the universities can be better funded. He said students believe the presidents' recommendations are too high and students would like a better description of what the increase in funding will provide.

Mr. Aguilar said this was the first year at the tuition hearings that students had acknowledged there should be some tuition increase and they supported a 3% increase. Students realized the legislature has not been sufficiently funding the universities.

Regent Thompson said students have been arguing for the last several years that the fifty state comparison used by the Board is a flawed one as sometimes the schools listed are the highest priced state schools. This year there is included with the summary material a listing of states by average price for the state and she wanted the Board to look at these figures when comparing Arizona with other states.

President Likins said he considers the money students are obliged to pay, which is broken down as the sum of tuition and mandatory fees. That current amount is $2,259 for resident students. Regent Ulrich asked about the component of the average debt of the graduating seniors. Ms. Houseworth said 42% of the students graduate with debt and of that percentage, the average debt is $17,051. Ms. Bannister said most of the money is owed to banks for the Federal Family Educational Loan Program or to the federal government for direct student loans.

Regent Gignac said she looks at the percentage of the state expenditure authority per student (SEAPS) and the resident students are paying in the range of 23% to 25% of SEAPS. The nonresident tuition is currently less than 100% and she wondered where the proposed increases would leave nonresident students. She was told it would be just slightly below the SEAPS. Regent Thompson said the Work Group would like to give some consideration next year as to whether SEAPS is a measurement they should continue to use; and if it continues as a measurement, what should be included.

Regent Ulrich said he believed saying the average debt is $17,000 is not helpful as that includes both needy students and students whose families chose to borrow. He asked for the debt level of the 42% to be indexed. He said he would like to see a breakdown on what the debt is per student of the 42% who graduate with debt as he would be concerned about adding to the debt of the students on the high end.

Regent Stuart said he agreed with Regent Ulrich. He believed the request from the presidents was reasonable and necessary and was not far from what the students were asking. He believed, under the circumstances, that was as nearly free as possible as the framers of the Arizona Constitution could not have foreseen the needs of today's universities, especially for technology. However, he does not want to see students struggling under a heavy debt load.

Regent Gignac said the increase in the general fund appropriation for FY2001 is less than a 2% increase, substantially lower than the Board had requested. She also said consistency, or constancy, in expenses should help students meet their tuition expenses, and she would like to see the Regents find a means wherein the institutions could enter into a contract with students for either a constant tuition or a percentage increase for a certain number of years. She would also like the Regents to consider how tuition waivers could be modified to work with the Hope Scholarships granted by the federal government. She also suggested consideration be given to some modification of tuition waivers that would allow them to be given to students who are not full time as there are so many part time students. Regent Gignac said she did not believe the recommendations from the presidents were too high; she believed the recommendations reflect only a portion of the actual need.

President Likins suggested there might be a collaborative way to work out an increase somewhere between the respective recommendations from the students and the presidents. He said it must be realized this is a political process; because if it was an economic process, the recommendations from the presidents would likely have been for $1,000 rather than for $100.

Regent Thompson moved to increase resident tuition by $85 and Regent Jewett seconded the motion. President Amos said he was sensitive to the needs of the universities as well as to the needs of the students. He believed the recommendations from the presidents were modest and fair. He said he was appalled by the letter from Representative McGrath asking the Regents to keep tuition low when the legislature does not feel any need to fully fund the universities.

Regent McKay said she believed it would be important for the students and the Regents to work together at the legislature as it might make a difference. She spoke in support of the Governor's "Arizona 2000" proposal for a sales tax increase to support education. She also suggested the need for an even number to be set for tuition because the computers do not work well with uneven numbers.

Regent Thompson substituted $84 in her motion and Regent Jewett agreed with the substitution. Regent Thompson stated she, like President Amos, was dismayed by Representative McGrath's letter. She would like to see students, parents, Regents, and the business community all contact legislators to advocate additional funding for our universities.

Regent Jewett said he had been glad to see students more effectively engage in the process this year than in other years. He believed the proposed motion was a good compromise. President Coor said he would like to point out this is an incremental year. He does not believe the Board can continue to make incremental decisions over the long haul as the investment per student is declining. He believes the structure of setting tuition needs to be examined, especially as next year will bring another biennial budget.

President Amos said he appreciated all the work the students had put on this year's tuition process. However, he agrees with President Coor this is not a good process. He believes tuition should be set on the basis of what is needed to run the universities and he does not believe what is being charged is sufficient to keep the universities at a high level.

Regent Palacios said she had thoroughly studied the tuition recommendation and did not believe there was any padding in the request. She appreciated the effort the students had made during this process and would be happy to accept a small decrease in the presidents' recommendations to recognize that effort; but she does not believe she can support the motion as presented. She believes the presidents' recommendations were modest and the number in the motion is not high enough. She appreciates all the efforts President Amos has made at the legislature and in the community and believes everyone involved should continue to lobby for university funding.

Regent McKay said she could support a tuition increase of $90 to demonstrate her appreciation for the work the students have done this year on the tuition process, but she cannot go lower than that because she believes the amount the presidents recommended is really needed.

Regent Gignac said she would reluctantly support the $84 increase, based on putting together, either under the Resources Committee or some other structure, a task force composed Regents, student body presidents, and staff that begins very soon talking about possible changes in tuition-setting and financial aid, including but not limited to the suggestions she had previously raised.

As there were no further questions or comments, a roll call vote on the motion to increase resident tuition by $84 was taken. The motion passed with Regents Gignac, Jewett, Stuart, Thompson, and Ulrich voted yes with Regents McKay, Palacios, and Amos voting no.

Regent Thompson moved to fully fund the Arizona Financial Aid Trust Fund which would go up $1, based on the resident tuition just approved. The motion was seconded by Regent Gignac.

Regent Ulrich said tuition is not the answer for funding for higher education in Arizona. He applauded the Governor's proposal, but said he did not believe it would be enough. As the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education moves forward with the plan that will be presented to the Governor, he said everyone would be asked to get involved. He believes the only way to get funding is through the power of the people. He also thanked the students for their work this year.

Regent Thompson stated her agreement with Regent Ulrich's comments and thanked the presidents for the early disclosure of their tuition recommendations. A roll call vote on the motion to fully fund the Arizona Financial Aid Trust Fund was taken and passed with Regents Gignac, Jewett, McKay, Palacios, Stuart, Thompson, Ulrich, and Amos voting yes. There were no votes against the motion.

President Lovett said NAU is trying to bring its nonresident tuition up to the same level as the other two universities; that is why she is asking for a larger increase in nonresident tuition. NAU provides the same quality of education to its nonresident students as its resident students, so it no longer makes sense to charge significantly lower nonresident tuition than the other two universities. By the Fall of 2001, she intends to have the same nonresident tuition at NAU as at the other two universities. Nonresident students who are currently enrolled or who accept admission in the Fall of 2000 will be grandfathered.

President Likins said the amount he has proposed for nonresident tuition is just a little below the average cost per student. President Coor said he would like to see the nonresident tuition be set the same for the University of Arizona and Arizona State University. Since President Likins had recommended a $389 increase and he had recommended a $350 increase, he suggested the Regents compromise on $370 or $375. Regent Ulrich moved nonresident tuition be increased by $376 for UA and ASU and $400 for NAU. The motion was seconded by Regent Gignac.

Regent Thompson said she was torn between supporting nonresident students and realizing the universities' needs for revenue. She understood there is no mandate for nearly free as possible tuition for nonresidents; but she believes the amounts in the motion are a little high, so she will not be supporting the proposed motion.

President Lovett asked for the motion to be amended to indicate that by Fall 2001, nonresident tuition at NAU will be brought to the same level as the other two public universities, with the provision the current students and students who will enroll in the Fall of 2000 will be grand- fathered and not affected by the increase. President Amos moved a substitute motion to include President Lovett's statement and to increase nonresident tuition at UA and ASU by $388. Regent Ulrich and Regent Gignac agreed to change their motion to the figure of $388 for UA and ASU and include President Lovett's statement.

A roll vote was taken on the motion to increase nonresident tuition by $388 for UA and ASU and $400 for NAU, with NAU current students and with those enrolling in the Fall of 2001 being grandfathered. The motion passed with Regents Gignac, Jewett, McKay, Palacios, Stuart, Ulrich, and Amos voting yes and Regent Thompson voting no.

Regent Thompson moved that resident tuition fees for the College of Medicine for FY 2000-2001 be set in the amount of $9,281 (inclusive of the existing $71 mandatory fees). The motion was seconded by Regent Gignac. A roll call vote on the motion was taken and passed unanimously with Regents Gignac, Jewett, McKay, Palacios, Stuart, Thompson, Ulrich, and Amos voting yes.

Regent Ulrich asked Mr. Sideman to clarify the requirements of the legislation passed last year relative to the setting of tuition and fees by the Board of Regents. Mr. Sideman explained the statute was amended to include a requirement for a public hearing at each of the universities, for any proposed increases to be disclosed ten days in advance of the meeting, and for a roll call vote for final decisions.

Ms. Kate Dillon Hogan, Business College Deans Dr. Mark Zupan (UA) and Dr. Larry Penley (ASU), and NAU Interim Provost Mason Somerville joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay said the Board was being asked to review and approve several special class fees and deposits, program fees, and differential tuition for MBA programs for 2000-2001. She asked for each request to be discussed separately.

Ms. Dillon Hogan said the universities were asking for approval for increases to program fees for the MBA and related programs. A summary table of the requested program fees for academic years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 as well as more detailed information with a description of the programs was provided in the Board materials.

Ms. Dillon Hogan listed the requests. For the daytime programs at ASU Main and UA, a $5,000 program fee was requested, which is a $1,000 increase. For the evening MBA programs at ASU Main and the high tech MBA program, a $6,000 program fee and a $6300 program fee was requested, which is a $2,232 increase. For the day-evening programs at ASU West there is a request for a $750 increase. There is no request for an increase from NAU for its day-evening programs at this time. There may be a request, after a full evaluation, at a later date.

For the technology distributed MBA programs, there are individual requests. These are existing programs with a proposed new delivery process. ASU Main's Web based program will be $25,000 and the UA evening and weekend MBA program is requesting a $12,500 program fee in Tucson and a $20,000 program fee outside of the Tucson and Sierra Vista area as well as an increase in Spring 2001 to $15,000 for Tucson and the Sierra Vista area and $25,000 outside that area. ASU West is requesting an increase of $7875, in addition to resident and nonresident tuition.

Regent Ulrich asked what the costs would be to develop the technology distributed program and was told the costs are uncertain in the development of this kind of program. It will have a CD Rom knowledge based component that provides the foundation knowledge for students; it will have Internet based applications; and it will have an in person intensive short term executive education type experience. It is believed it will cost upwards of $2M to $3M to lay out the course. That is why a high fee is necessary. This will be marketed directly to businesses and they will basically be paying for the development costs of this type of program.

Regent Ulrich said this illustrates the cost of technology and transforming these programs. He believes many people think moving to technology and distance education will save the universities a lot of money since new buildings will not be required, and that is not true. This will, however, provide access for people who do not now have access. The same will hold true for learner centered education.

Regent Thompson said fees give her heartburn, but she understood the necessity of recouping development costs. She thanked the deans for talking to their students about these requests and taking their input. She asked for money to be set aside for students who would not be able to get funding from a company.

Regent Gignac asked if a hearing would be required if NAU decided to implement a fee for its daytime-evening program and was told NAU does not intend to implement a fee until next year's tuition and fee process. She asked if there was a difference between resident and nonresidents for the innovative technology distributed programs, the $20,000 and the $25,000 programs, and was told no because the program is marketed only to business.

President Coor said there is a whole new day dawning and the universities must find a way to embrace market-based activity. He predicts there will be problems keeping current with this fast changing market with the current mechanisms of statewide hearings. He also said these programs are priced to cover their full cost; therefore, there is not a need to differentiate between resident and nonresident students.

President Likins said the Business College at the UA had been forced to reduce the number of faculty in order to meet market prices for current salaries. That means the number of students must be limited and students are being turned away. The Deans have encouraged development of these types of programs as an innovative way to overcome the inadequacy of revenues in the core enterprise.

Regent Stuart said these fees are for programs that do not involve undergraduates and there is no constitutional mandate to subsidize graduate programs. Regent Gignac asked if there were any state dollars in the programs that do not differentiate between residents and nonresidents. President Coor said facilities, overhead and people are commingled; so there can be no guarantee. However, these projects are made to function on their own; not require internal allocations. Also, these programs will have benefits back to other programs. Regent Ulrich asked if other programs like this were in the market now and was told most major business schools were trying to develop programs like those requested. For instance, the State of Florida is receiving state funds to develop an on-line program. President Likins said some state universities were setting up for-profit subsidiaries for these types of programs which would then be isolated financially from the public enterprise. Regent Ulrich asked if the Regents could be shown a model for that approach and was told yes.

Regent McKay moved the Board approve the requests by ASU, NAU, and UA to increase the MBA and professional master's degree program fees and level-total cost for technology-delivered MBA's as specified in the Executive Summary. The motion was seconded by Regent Stuart. A roll call vote on the motion was taken and passed unanimously with Regents Gignac, Jewett, McKay, Palacios, Stuart, Thompson, Ulrich, and Amos voting yes.

Ms. Dillon Hogan explained the one-time matriculation deposit fees requested by ASU Main and the UA. She said this is to keep students from accepting admittance and then failing to notify the universities they have decided not to attend. When this happens, the universities are left with unfilled spaces for the two years the programs run, and this is costly.

Regent Gignac moved to approve a non-refundable $500 program deposit fee for students admitted to the full-time MBA Program and related professional master's degree programs at ASU Main and UA and a non-refundable $300 program deposit fee for students admitted to Programs for Working Professionals at UA's Eller College of Business and Public Administration and to the Evening MBA Program at ASU Main. The fees will become effective for those accepting admission to ASU MBA programs for fall 2001 and for those accepting admission to UA MBA programs for fall 2000. The motion was seconded by Regent Ulrich. A roll call vote on the motion was taken and passed unanimously with Regents Gignac, Jewett, McKay, Palacios, Stuart, Thompson, Ulrich, and Amos voting yes.

Ms. Dillon Hogan said ASU is requesting an expansion of the Extended Education employer-based program fee to other programs as developed. These may include graduate and undergraduate as well as programs offered by each ASU campus. ASU is also requesting approval to increase the per credit charge from $148 to $163. The students in these programs are generally funded by employers; therefore, ASU is not proposing any set aside for financial aid.

Regent Gignac moved to authorize ASU's Extended Education to apply the off-campus, employer-based Bachelor of Interdisciplinary Studies (BIS) program fee to other off-campus, employer-based programs up to a maximum of $163 per credit. The motion was seconded by Regent Jewett.

Regent Ulrich said he had a problem with this request because it was not specific about what programs would be allowed to charge this fee. Dr. Charles Bantz said this program had become so successful ASU was receiving requests for other similar BIS, Bachelor of Applied Science, and Master of Public Administration programs. Regent Ulrich said he wanted to make certain there were requests from employers before the programs were developed and was told that was the case. Regent Thompson said this was an approval of a maximum fee and asked if sometimes the fee was less. Dr. Bantz said sometimes the tuition is reduced if inducements are offered, such as a city offering free space for the class. A roll call vote on the motion was taken and passed unanimously with Regents Gignac, Jewett, McKay, Palacios, Stuart, Thompson, Ulrich, and Amos voting yes.

Ms. Dillon Hogan said NAU has requested two program fees. The first is for the Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) program which is designed for working professionals. The administrative fee, above tuition, of $2600 for full-time students per semester would be prorated based upon the credit hours taken each semester. The revenues generated from the DPT fee would be designated in the same manner as the MBA fee, including a portion being set aside for a scholarship fund to assist students with financial need.

Ms. Dillon Hogan said NAU is also requesting a fee of one and a half times the resident tuition cost for students living outside Arizona who are enrolled in electronically delivered courses and programs at NAU. Regent Ulrich moved that the Board approve a program fee of $2600 per semester for students enrolled full-time in the Doctor of Physical Therapy program and a fee of one and a half times resident tuition for students living outside Arizona and enrolled in electronically delivered courses and programs at NAU. The motion was seconded by Regent McKay. A roll call vote on the motion was taken and passed unanimously with Regents Gignac, Jewett, McKay, Palacios, Stuart, Thompson, Ulrich, and Amos voting yes.

Ms. Dillon Hogan said the UA is requesting authority to access a special class fee in the amount of $510 per student for the summer field camp, "Field Methods in Earth Engineering," The fee would cover the costs of conducting the camp at a geological setting in Northern Arizona. Regent Thompson moved to approve the request which was seconded by Regent McKay. A roll call vote on the motion was taken and passed unanimously with Regents Gignac, Jewett, McKay, Palacios, Stuart, Thompson, Ulrich, and Amos voting yes.

Ms. Houseworth, Dr. Taylor, Dr. Wilkinson, and Dr. Bickel joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay said ASU, NAU, and UA were requesting approval to increase residence hall, family housing, and leased facilities rates for 2000-2001. The proposed rates for each of the universities were supported by student representatives from the residence halls. Regent Thompson asked if the proposed lease rate for the facilities listed on Page 14 of the Executive Summary was an academic year lease or a calendar year lease and was told it was for an academic year lease and there is also a summer rate.

Upon motion of Regent Thompson, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board approved the 2000-2001 rates for residence halls (ASU, NAU, UA), family housing apartments (NAU, UA), and leased facilities (UA) as requested by the universities.

The meeting recessed at 4:15 p.m. and reconvened at 4:30 p.m. in the Grand Canyon Room.

Dr. Art Ashton, Dr. Charles Bantz, Dr. Ed Groenhout, and Ms. Sally Jackson joined the meeting for a discussion of a proposal for the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education concerning an Arizona Regents University (ARU). A summary of the proposal was presented.

A tri-university partnership would be formed and the project would be initiated in three phases. In the first phase, a workgroup would be formed (accomplished), a common website would be developed (accomplished), and a catalogue of courses would be posted (accomplished). A coordinating council would be formed to assess degree potential, name candidate programs, establish procedures and processes, and post a joint degree schedule.

In the second phase, support services would be established, degree sequences would be published, Traveling Scholars authority would be used, and students would be admitted to one of the participating universities. Process weaknesses would be identified and remedied and a need for additional degrees would be determined. Learning outcomes would be evaluated, the catalogue updated, and standards and methods of evaluation of proposed ARU programs would be developed.

In the third phase, centralized support services would be established, an ARU Policy Board would be established, a Business Advisory Board would be established, a catalogue would be published, and students would be admitted to ARU. Process weaknesses would be identified and remedied, and outcomes would be evaluated. Proposed modifications would be made. Established resources would be used to produce, manage, and distribute courses. Joint degree programs would be co-ordinated. This proposal would address the New Economy workforce and would increase access.

Regent Ulrich asked if there had been any conversation on how this proposal would be funded and was told this would be discussed at the Governor's Task Force meeting. He asked how it would be administered and was told by the Central Office and the universities during the first phase. During phase two, it is anticipated there will be a director and an assistant hired.

President Coor said the more the Central Office and the three universities can do, the better. The move from phase two to phase three is a big step. Dr. Hogle said the Arizona Faculties Council supports the proposal. However, there is a need for more curriculum development and the AFC would like to see a faculty curriculum committee from the three universities.

Regent Gignac asked if a person could complete a program on the Internet and was told it might be possible. Executive Director Blessing received a consensus that this proposal should be presented at the Task Force.

Mr. Richard Kroc, from the UA, joined the meeting for a discussion of a proposal to enhance student access to be presented to the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education. The goals are to have a better educated citizenry, to have a better prepared workforce, and to provide broader access to education for all Arizona's students. Regent Ulrich proposed providing Arizona high school graduates with two year's free tuition at a community college. He believed this would establish a stronger student mentoring program and continue the universities' undergraduate mission with an emphasis on upper division and graduate programs. It would increase learner centered educational initiatives, increase the use of instructional technology, and move toward a year-round calendar.

The free tuition proposal would allow Arizona high school graduates who enter an Arizona community college within one year of graduation to pay no tuition at the community college. Tuition would remain free for these students for a maximum of two years. The base cost to the state (with no change in enrollment patterns) would range from about $13M in FY2001 to $18-$22M in FY2010. If 10% of freshmen are redirected from the universities to community colleges, the state costs are reduced from this base cost by $1M in FY2001 and $3-$4M in FY2010.

The advantages would be increased access, a better educated workforce, managed student flow, and reduced student indebtedness. The disadvantages would be the high base cost to the State, university revenue losses for the 10% reduction of university freshmen to community colleges--about $4M in FY2001 rising to $14M-$18M in FY2010, modest impact on university enrollment demand, and the potential for a decrease in ethnic diversity at the lower division.

Various proposals for tuition credits were presented. Arizona high school graduates who enter an Arizona community college within a year of graduation could receive a tuition refund in the form of a tuition credit that can be used only upon transfer into a baccalaureate program at a public four-year institution. This credit would be granted only upon completion of the AGEC or a transfer pathways degree. The ARISE proposal would begin in Grade 7 with each graduate of an Arizona public school, community college, or university earning tuition credit by taking courses that prepare students for postsecondary education and for lifelong learning pursuits after college.

Under an option described as a Workforce Development Voucher, Arizona high school graduates who qualify for Pell Grants could enter an Arizona community college, public university, or private college or university within one year of graduation and receive a workforce development voucher (funded by the State of Arizona), equal to the resident tuition level at Arizona community colleges. The vouchers would be limited to two consecutive years.

The strategy is to develop a tuition policy with potential to change individual decisions, to increase the number of Arizona residents seeking postsecondary education, to redistribute enrollments among providers for improved efficiency and improved adaptation, and to improve students' preparedness for higher education. In general, the broader the benefit, the greater the cost will be relative to behavior change. For example, free community college tuition has a high base cost but offers very broad benefits on both higher education attainment and workforce development. Tuition credit has a lower base cost, but targets only higher education attainment, with minimal impact on workforce development.

The Study Session recessed at 5:20 p.m. The regular meeting reconvened at 9:20 a.m. on Friday, April 7, in the Havasupai Room. Regent Ulrich was not present.

President Lovett introduced Professor William Auberle from the NAU College of Engineering and Technology and Mr. Brad Ryan, Northern Regional Manager for Arizona Public Service. They reported on one of NAU's areas of specialization and concentration, the Center for Sustainable Environments. NAU faculty works with corporate partners in this area. Dr. Auberle said the complex issues of trying to understand the environment and trying to find solutions to environmental issues while at the same time trying to sustain the quality of life and the economy is a very complex undertaking. The principle purpose of the Center is to serve as a catalyst for collaboration so the students are learning in a multi-disciplinary environment. Professor Auberle told the Regents about various programs at the Center.

Ms. Houseworth, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Roberts joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay said the Regents were being asked to review and approve the Spring Update of the FY2000 All Funds Operating Budget. Ms. Houseworth informed the Regents there were no significant revisions since the Fall Update. Upon motion of Regent Thompson, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board approved the Spring Update of the FY 2000 All Funds Operating Budget.

Ms. Houseworth, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Roberts joined the meeting for this discussion. The Board was asked to review the proposed revisions to update and clarify its enrollment policy. These changes will specify the current methodology for calculation of nonresident headcount enrollments, will address the inclusion of enrollments in courses delivered by nontraditional forms of instruction, such as Internet courses, will clarify that retroactive enrollment transactions are the responsibility of university staff, and will update outdated terminology.

Mr. Dave Harris and Dr. Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay said the Regents were being asked to approve ASU's Revised Multi-Year Bonding Plan. The revised plan updates ASU's portion of the Regents' Multi-Year Bonding Plan approved by the Board in March 1997. The revised plan will be submitted to the Legislature's Joint Committee on Capital Review (JCCR) and the Governor in accordance with the Statutory requirements.

Dr. Harrison explained ASU had identified the need for additional infrastructure. There is a need for $27.7M infrastructure improvements and enhancements. They are switching $26M previously identified in the Multi-Year Bonding Plan, $15M from a Learning Research Complex new building and $11M from a parking structure, to academic revenue bonds. Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Stuart, the Board approved ASU's revised Multi-Year Bonding Plan and authorized ASU to present the plan to the JCCR for review and the to Governor's Office for comment.

Dr. Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Stuart did not participate in this item due to a potential conflict of interest. Regent McKay said this is a request from ASU to sell System Revenue Bonds, not to exceed $15M, to finance a Residential Life new building and Residential Life Building additions. The Board granted Conceptual Approval for these projects in November 1999. The proposed bond sale was reviewed and approved by the State Legislature's Joint Committee on Capital Review (JCCR) on March 22, 2000.

Upon motion of Regent Thompson, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board authorized ASU to sell System Revenue Bonds, not exceeding $15M principal amount, for the purpose of financing Residential Life New Building Addition (ASU Project No. 99201) and Residential Life New Building (ASU Project Nol 99043), of paying costs of issuance for the bonds, and to take related actions and to enter into necessary agreements, as provided in a resolution reviewed by Board Counsel and staff.

Dr. Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay said ASU requested approval to enter into a ground lease with a to-be-formed not for profit corporation for the development of a 300 bed student residence hall located in the south campus area of ASU Main. The Board approved Project Initiation in February 2000. ASU selected Century Development to design, finance, and construct the project. A subsidiary, Century Campus Housing Management Company, will provide ongoing management and maintenance of the project.

The proposed method of financing requires ASU to lease the property to a non-profit housing entity, to be formed by Century, which will sell tax exempt revenue bonds and contract with Century to construct the facility and with Century Campus Housing Management Company to provide ongoing management. Regents Gignac and McKay complimented ASU on a creative approach to financing.

Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Thompson, the Board authorized the President or Vice Provost for Administrative Services for ASU, or their designee, to negotiate, sign, and enter into a ground lease agreement for the development of an approximately 300 bed
residence hall on substantially the terms described in the Executive Summary, together with such additional terms and conditions that are not inconsistent with the approval granted, and to take all appropriate actions to complete negotiations, and to enter into such related documents as needed, provided that Counsel to the Board has reviewed the ground lease.

Mr. Terry Isaacson and Dr. Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay said ASU East requested Board approval to enter into a ground lease with a to-be-formed, not for profit entity, to facilitate capital improvements to the residential and recreational property at the Williams Campus. The property to be redeveloped is owned by ASU East (615 acres) and by Maricopa County Community College District (62 acres) and includes 612 single family homes, 12 dormitories, 4 motel-like units, and related recreational property.

ASU East has also chosen Century Development to construct and finance the improvements through a not for profit corporation. Century Campus Housing Management was also selected to operate and manage the units. These housing facilities are unique to ASU East and will serve to define the character of campus life.

Mr. Isaacson said this project is also going through the approval of the Maricopa Community College Board. This project will also require the ultimate approval of the federal government. ASU East is responsible for administering the property on behalf of both ASU East and the community colleges. Regent McKay asked if Mr. Isaacson was aware of any concerns raised by the community college system as this issue proceeded and was told quite the opposite. The community colleges seemed very happy with the creativity of the project. Regent Thompson expressed her appreciation of the work that had produced this project.

Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Palacios, the Board authorized ASU East to proceed with the capital improvement project described above. The Board further authorized the President of ASU or the ASU East Provost or their designee to negotiate, sign, and enter into a Ground Lease Agreement for the purpose of making capital and infrastructure improvements to residential and recreational property at the Williams Campus, consistent with the terms and conditions described in the Executive Summary, subject to approval by the federal government, as outlined in the Executive Summary, and to take all appropriate actions to complete negotiations and to enter into such related documents as needed, including any documents in connection with any approvals required or granted by the federal government, provided that Counsel to the Board has reviewed the Ground Lease.

Dr. Mike Mullen joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay said Northern Arizona university is requesting concurrent Conceptual Approval and Project Approval to replace the roof at Walkup Sky Dome, along with requesting Board approval of modifications to NAU's Multiyear Bonding Plan to recover plant funds previously earmarked for other projects to provide funding for the roof replacement. At the time of NAU's submission of this year's Capital Improvement Plan, the roofing system at the Skydome was expected to have an additional two year life. University maintenance and roofing consultants now agree that replacement before next winter's storms is necessary.

Dr. Mullen said the life of the roof is expected to be ten to fifteen years so it does not make good business sense to use twenty year bonds to pay for the roof. Therefore, the proposal is to withdraw plant funds from the Centennial Building and the Biology/Biochemistry Building and replace them with bond funds so plant funds can be used for replacement of the roof. Regent McKay said the roof needs to be replaced because the community uses the building as well as the university. Regent Gignac asked if there was a charge to use the building when the event was a revenue-producing event and was told yes.

Regent Jewett asked if sufficient fees were raised from the building as an enterprise and was told it is not totally an enterprise function as it is also used for instructional activities and other administrative functions. The portion that is revenue generating is covering its operating costs. There is an administrative fee on all outside revenues that is normally used to cover the maintenance and normal repair costs of the facility. Regent Jewett asked why it was not an income producing function. President Lovett said there are revenue producing activities which cover day to day operations, such as trade shows or rock concerts. However, the predominant use, other than NAU's athletic program, is community service. There is a long standing expectation in the community, from such organizations as high schools or Flagstaff groups, that expect access to the facility either free of charge or at nominal cost. There is nothing else of its kind in the region. Any increase in fees would reflect negatively on relationships with the community.

Regent Jewett said this is an emergency funding issue and NAU is having to be very creative in order to do the repairs on something that has the capacity to produce income. He would hope the community would understand the need of the university to change from being a community service provider in this area to charging a fee, given the nature of the fiscal reality. Regent McKay said this has been a conundrum for the university and she believes the community should be made aware of the university's problem.

Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Thompson, the Board granted combined Conceptual and Project Approval to NAU for replacement of the Walkup Skydome Roof. Further, the Board also approved the revisions to NAU's Multi-year Bonding Plan and authorized presentation of the plan to the Joint Committee for Capital Review for review, and to the Governor's office for comment.

Mr. Valdez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay said the University of Arizona was requesting Project Approval and a $400,000 Budget Increase for the Strategic Alternative Learning Techniques Center (SALT). The Board granted Conceptual Approval for this project at the January Board meeting. Since that approval, detailed construction cost estimates have risen from $2.7M to $3.1M. The project will be funded through gifts.

Upon motion of Regent Thompson, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board granted Project Approval and a $400,000 Budget Increase to the UA for the SALT Center project.

Board Counsel Sideman joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay said the Board is being asked to waive a section of its Intellectual Property Policy for FY 2001 to allow the assignment of title to intellectual property to the Arizona Disease Control Research Commission (ADCRC) for less than the fully burdened overhead rate. She also reminded the Regents this item was tabled at the February 2000 Board meeting. Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board removed this item from the Table.

Regent Gignac said she understood negotiations were underway to see if this problem could be worked out before next year's RFPs are issued. She asked staff to let the Regents know if negotiations are unsuccessful. If the majority of Regents will not vote for a waiver next year, she believes it would be better for researchers to be notified early that they may not be able to accept contracts from the ADCRC.

Regent Amos said he was prepared to vote for this because he understands negotiations are underway and there are researchers who are relying on these grants this year. However, he agreed with Regent Gignac and he would not vote for a waiver next year, either. Regent Stuart said his vote today was based on his understanding the ADCRC was engaged in good faith negotiations to compromise the issue.

Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board waived the assignment fee and fully burdened overhead requirements of ABOR Intellectual Property Policy (6-908 C. 1. a) to permit the universities to assign title to intellectual property sponsored by ADCRC to ADCRC with no assignment fee and for less than fully burdened overhead. The universities ask the Board to waive this requirement for fiscal year 2001 to permit assignment of title in exchange for ADCRC's payment of a significantly reduced rate of overhead.

Arizona Faculties Council members Bill Davey, Judy Sellers, and Jerry Hogle, and Dr. Glick, Dr. Somerville, Dr. Erwin, and Dr. Wickenden joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett reminded the Regents a six-member team of Regents, faculty council representatives and Central office staff presented a proposal entitled "Towards Promoting an Environment for Learner-Centered Education" at the February meeting. The team proposed to develop an action plan to help the universities become more thoroughly and systematically learner-centered in their reeducation processes and support services. After discussing the proposal, the Board asked the team to work with the university provosts in developing the action plan. Regents also recommended that more prominence be given to student preparation for learner-centered education.

Possible changes to Board documents and policies were presented for discussion. Regent Gignac said the work group is suggesting a change to the introductory paragraph of the Arizona University System Mission Statement. A legislative markup was provided in the Executive Summary material. Regent Gignac highlighted the suggested changes. The word instruction has been replaced by the more current language of "promoting learning". If this is adopted at some future meeting, the Arizona system may become the first in the nation to actually place learning at the center of the institutions.

Regent Stuart mentioned the Arizona Constitution charges the universities with providing instruction as nearly free as possible; it does not mention education. By removing the word instruction from the mission statement, it may cause concern by some people. Regent Gignac said she would be concerned if the universities received funding based on the cost of instruction, but that is not the case.

Dr. Hogle said the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) had a suggested change to (3), asking that it would say, "promotion of learning and the products of acquired knowledge, research, and creative activities . . ." Regent Gignac suggested the mission statement, with the suggested changes, come back to the Board in May for action. Regent Jewett suggested the new language be sent to Regent Stuart before it is submitted to the Board.

Regent Gignac said it has been suggested an 8th Strategic Direction be added to the Board's System Strategic Directions. The proposed direction might be defined as: "To promote learner-centered education by placing improvement of learning at the center of decision-making processes and policies at all levels of the institution; by developing and using clear measurable goals and student outcomes for all academic programs; and by directly involving learners in activities that produce a deeper understanding of content broadly transferable to life and work."

If this Strategic Direction is added, there would be a discussion as to what action items would need to be included under the new Action Plan next year. Dr. Hogle said the AFC would like to strike "a deeper understanding of content" and put in its place "knowledge, abilities, skills, and attitudes." A question was raised about the word "attitude" and Dr. Hogle said it had been considered as an "attitude of learning." President Lovett suggested changing it to "openness to life-long learning." It was decided to remove the word "attitude" and put an "and" before "skills." The team suggests this be brought back for adoption at the May meeting.

Dr. Hogle presented policies that might aid or present constraints for learner centered education, specifically the need for flexibility that is required. The work group and the AFC would like to stress thoughtful consideration should be given before any of the policies are changed. They were created to deal with conditions that existed at the time they were fashioned, and some of those conditions still pertain. One of the issues that needs to be considered in the changes is intellectual property as related to instruction; for example, faculty created instructional modules that would be placed on line.

Dr. Hogle said the AFC does not want to devalue the classroom experience as learner-centered changes are discussed because it is an important part of learning. Regent Gignac said the work group suggested a smaller group, composed of faculty and provosts, should look at how these different policies have been interpreted to constrain what the work group is trying to move forward and to indicate if they could be interpreted differently. This group would come back to the larger work group in June for further discussion.

Regent Gignac told the Board the smaller work group would also be looking at criteria for programs to be listed in an "inventory" of what is already happening at the universities in regard to learner-centered activities.

Regent Jewett suggested one of the policies needing to be completely rewritten was 2-404, Nontraditional Education. He said Board policies should not be a patchwork, but should be consistent throughout.

Regent Gignac asked for this item to be removed from the Consent Agenda to call attention to the proposed design of the inventory database which has been designed to allow the inventory to be a dynamic tool which provides functionality beyond just a listing. Once completed, it will be possible to query the data fields and create summary reports. The Regents were provided a sample of the database elements to be included in the inventory. They also received a sample report that will be available once the database is completed. Regent Gignac said she believed the idea of a dynamic database is outstanding. She wanted to emphasize the staff is looking for suggestions or comments and can be contacted after the meeting.

At the January 2000 Board meeting, the Regents requested the development of an inventory of the Centers and Institutes that had been approved by the Board in accordance with ABOR policy 2-302. The final entries for the current listing of Centers and Institutes will be completed by June 2000. At that time, the data will be accessible through the Central Office network only. It is intended the final product will be available on the ABOR Web site for access by university faculty, staff, administrators, Regents, and others. Once completed, the inventory will be maintained by the Central Office Staff. It will be updated each time a request is made for a new center or institute. The universities will be asked to provide updates regarding any other changes to the data elements for each center on a semi-annual basis.

This item was removed from the Consent Agenda to allows Board members to review the revised Executive Summary that was distributed. The revised summary does not change the substance of the original information, but provides additional information concerning resources. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Thompson, the Board authorized the establishment of the Southwest Regional Earth Science Applications Center and the Center for Gamma Ray Imaging at the University of Arizona, with the sunset review dates of July 1 and June 30, 2000, respectively, effective immediately.

Dr. Hogle said the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) wanted to express its gratitude and support of the Governor's tax proposal. At the same time, the AFC believes efforts should continue to change the legislature's mind in regard to financial support for the universities and to change the legislators as too few of them are taking the economic future of the state into account. The AFC believes pressure should continue to persuade the legislature to bond for the Students' First Program so money is not tied up that could be used for the universities and the rest of public education.

Dr. Hogle also reported the AFC admires Regent Ulrich's bold proposal to get more students involved in higher education. The AFC agrees entirely with the goals of the proposal; but as the plan is fully examined, consideration needs to be given to keeping the universities whole if there is a change in enrollment which results in a loss of revenue. The AFC also believes the high school graduation rate and the issue of ethnic diversity in the universities should be considered.

Regent Gignac reported the major issue before the SBDCC's last meeting was the awarding of the Arizona Learning Systems contract for the implementation of a statewide telecommunications network. The contract was awarded to Management Applications, Inc., a systems integrator that has developed nationwide networks for both government and business. This system does not use NAU Net. Although the system is capable of interconnecting the three major elements of education in Arizona, it is unlikely it will do so because of cost issues.

President Amos chaired this portion of the meeting. Mr. Seese-Bieda, Ms. Barton, and Mr. Miller joined the meeting for this discussion. Mr. Seese-Bieda highlighted bills that had been signed or were still under consideration. He reported HB 2340, which provides the universities the ability to engage in Design Build procedures for construction projects, has been signed into law. SB 1190, which adds a second student regent to the Board as a nonvoting member, was amended to included a clarification of the new tuition setting process and has been signed into law.

Regent Stuart asked if the Board now needs to adopt a new policy framework for setting tuition in light of the new legislation and was told yes. Regent Gignac asked about legislation the Governor had vetoed concerning ASU East and ASU West and was told the amount of money in the bills had not been as significant as the fact they would have established the lease purchase arrangement, the only arrangement by which the facilities on a new campus can be developed. The Governor said she had vetoed these bills because they were not directly related to economic development and there was a need to await the outcome of the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education. There was a discussion of several bills that were not currently active.

Mr. Seese-Bieda distributed a draft of a resolution of support for the Governor's proposed sales tax initiative. President Amos asked the Regents to look at the draft and make comments in the Study Session to follow.

President Amos asked Regent Gignac and Regent Thompson to serve as a nominating committee to put forth a slate of officers for the May meeting.

Dr. Hogle expressed the pride of the faculty in the professional manner in which the students had participated in the tuition process. President Lovett announced Governor Hull would be on campus at 1:00 p.m. to formally sign an agreement between NAU and the State Land Department and invited the Regents and members of the Council of Presidents to attend. President Amos said he agreed with the students that there is need to go to the legislature for funding. He offered to meet with student leadership to discuss strategies for a united approach. Dr. Blessing distributed information on the new Regents' Web Site and asked for comments. She also announced Susan Brichler, a policy analyst with the Central Office, would be leaving to join the staff of the Auditor General.

The regular meeting recessed at 11:06 a.m. President Amos reconvened the Study Session at 11:25 a.m. in the Havasupai Room.

Regent Gignac explained how Town Hall participants were selected and what will happen at Town Hall in May. At the finish, a consensus from the group is worked into one document. This year the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education plans to use the Town Hall as a public forum.

President Amos asked the Regents to send any questions they might like to see discussed at Town Hall to Regent Gignac. There was a discussion of learner centered education issues that might be put on the table at Town Hall. This is the first Town Hall that will have a follow up committee. Regent Gignac will cochair that committee with Darryl Dobras.

There was a discussion of Regent Ulrich's proposal on access with concerns expressed about universities being kept financially whole. There were also concerns about ethnic diversity and four year community colleges. Everyone was interested in seeing more Arizona students complete high school and continue through higher education. There was a desire for the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education to put forth proposals that would use state money efficiently. President Amos left the meeting at 12:01 p.m.

The need for integration with K-12 and community colleges was discussed. The presidents will express their impressions and opinions to the Task Force and will acknowledge they have not had the time to secure the approval of the Regents. They were asked to express some of the Board's concerns.

The Board reviewed the proposed Resolution of support for the Governor's proposed sales tax increase and made comments and changes. Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Thompson, the Board approved the modified resolution and instructed staff to present the resolution to the Governor and send it to legislators and other appropriate parties.

MINUTES

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
MINUTES OF A MEETING
April 6 and 7, 2000

MINUTES OF A MEETING
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
April 6 and 7, 2000

MINUTES

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS MINUTES OF A MEETING April 6 and 7, 2000

MINUTES OF A MEETING ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS April 6 and 7, 2000

ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
MINUTES OF A MEETING
April 6 and 7, 2000

MINUTES OF A MEETING
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
April 6 and 7, 2000