 |
MINUTES |
 |
|
MINUTES |
|
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
MINUTES OF A MEETING
April 24 and 25, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY
REPORT FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH
~~~~~~~~~~
MINUTES OF A MEETING
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
April 24 and 25, 1997
A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held on April 24 and 25, 1997, in the Ballroom in the Williams Campus Union at Arizona State University East Campus in Mesa, Arizona. President Munger called the meeting to order at 1:45 p.m. on April 24.
PRESENT: Regent Eddie Basha
Regent Rudy Campbell
Regent Arthur Chapa
Regent Kurt Davis
Regent Judy Gignac
Regent John Munger
Regent Jonathan Schmitt
Regent Donald Ulrich
ABSENT: Regent George H. Amos, III
Regent Fife Symington
Regent Lisa Graham Keegan
Also present were: President Lattie Coor, Dr. Milton Glick, Mr. Allan Price, Dr. Charles Bantz, Dr. Charles Backus, Dr. Christine Wilkinson (Friday only), Mr. Alan Carroll (Thursday only), Mr. Jennus Burton (Thursday only ), Mr. Paul Ward (Thursday only) and Dr. Elaine Maimon, Arizona State University; President Clara Lovett, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Dr. Charles Connell, Ms. Sharon Marmaduke (Thursday only), and Mr. Sam Polito, Northern Arizona University; President Manuel Pacheco, Dr. Paul Sypherd, Mr. Joel Valdez (Thursday Only), Dr. Saundra Taylor (Friday only), Mr. Richard Roberts, Dr. Randy Groth, Dr. Celestino Fernandez (Friday Only), and Mr. Greg Fahey, University of Arizona; Executive Director Frank Besnette, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Mary McKeown, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda, and Ms. Norma Salas, Central Office; Mr. John Platt, Student Regent Designee (Thursday only), and Dr. John Schwarz, Chair of Arizona Faculties Council.
All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the April 24 and 25, 1997, Documents File.
Regent Chapa led the pledge of allegiance. President Munger introduced John Platt, Student Regent designee. Mr. Platt is a law student at ASU and will join the Board July 1.
Christy Zimmerman, a freshman at the University of Arizona, spoke in support of the proposed Integrated Instructional Facility (IIF Building) as she believes it will strengthen advising and computing services.
Melanie Freedman, a student at the University of Arizona, spoke in support of the proposed IIF Building. She is an advisor who works with students who are undecided about their majors or are thinking about changing their majors. She believes the IIF would help students as all freshmen services would be consolidated in this building.
John Barentine, a student at the University of Arizona, spoke against the proposed IIF Building. He believes the building is unnecessary and the cost is unjustified. He also believes the student body officers at the UofA are not accurately reflecting the opinions of the study body on this subject.
Rachel Reinhardt, a sophomore from the University of Arizona, spoke against the proposed IIF Building and in support of renovating the Student Union. She believes renovations at the Student Union could encompass all the features from the IIF Building.
Chantene Brewer, a student from the University of Arizona, spoke against the proposed IIF Building. She would rather see the money used to renovate the Student Union.
Summer Katzenbach, a sophomore from the University of Arizona and a new Senator for the Arizona Students' Association at the UofA, spoke in opposition to the proposed IIF Building.
Berrigan Melfy, Director of the Arizona Students' Association at the University of Arizona, thanked the Board for addressing priorities during the tuition setting process this year. She asked that building renovations be accomplished before new buildings are built on the UofA campus. She believes the Student Union should be renovated before the proposed IIF Building receives authorization.
Roger Axford, Arizona State University Professor Emeritus and a member of the ASU Coalition for Justice and Peace, told the Regents he had been arrested for circulating a petition in the Memorial Union. He asked the Regents to order President Coor to dismiss the action against him and to order ASU to change its policy to allow petitions to be circulated in the union.
Eric Roeder, speaking on behalf of current and former students in the Master of Business Administration program at the University of Arizona, spoke on behalf of tenure for Dr. Allen Atkins
Charles Thompson, President of the Fiesta Bowl, thanked the negotiating teams from Arizona State University and the Fiesta Bowl for the final agreement that is before the Board for approval today. He stated his belief this agreement would benefit the State of Arizona as well as the participants as the Fiesta Bowl brings many people to Arizona.
President Munger announced that Item 34, Enrollment Report for Spring 1997, had been removed from the Consent Agenda to be discussed during the Programs Agenda. The remaining items on the Consent Agenda, which are marked in these minutes with an *, were considered as consent matters and were adopted unanimously upon motion of Regent Campbell, seconded by Regent Gignac. There was no individual discussion of these items.
The Board approved the February 13, 1997, Executive Session, and the March 20 and 21, 1997, Regular Meeting minutes.
*Acceptance of Audit Report From the State Auditor General (ASU, NAU, and UofA)
The Board accepted the written reports as submitted by the Auditor General. The federal financial assistance programs of Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and the University of Arizona were audited by the Office of the Auditor General in accordance with the requirements of the Single Audit Act of 1984 and reports were issued for each of the universities for the year ended June 30, 1996.
*Internal Audit of Public Events Administration (ASU)
The Board accepted the internal audit reports as submitted for Arizona State University Public Events Administration. There were no findings reportable to the Board. Three internal recommendations were submitted to the university administration.
*Internal Audit Analysis of Prior Audit Findings and Recommendations
The Board accepted a written report on the status of past internal audit findings and recommendations that have not been resolved. The report stated university management has established target implementation dates with a reasonable time frame for all outstanding prior audit recommendations. Even though the recommendations may not be fully implemented, university management has demonstrated that steps to enact the audit recommendations are in process. In some cases, management is dependent upon an outside entity or process to achieve complete implementation of a recommendation. As of June 30, 1996, NAU had one unresolved Board Reportable Finding and ASU and UofA had none. As of June 30, 1996, ASU had three Internal Recommendations that were unresolved, NAU had two, and UofA had five.
*Contract with Southwest Research Institute (UofA)
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to enter into a contract with Southwest Research Institute to provide the Extreme Ultraviolet Imager for the Imager for Magnetopause-to-Aurora Global Exploration (IMAGE) Investigation for a Medium-Class-Explorer (MIDEX) Mission. The amount of the contract is $2,781,986 for the contract period ending January 31, 2000.
*Amendment for Insurance Requirements to the Karsten Golf Course Lease (ASU)
The Board authorized the Vice President for Administrative Services at ASU to enter into a lease amendment with the Collegiate Golf Foundation revising the insurance coverage to meet current industry standards, thus reducing the amount of Flood Insurance from $500,000 to $250,000. In addition, all insurance requirements for the ASU Karsten Golf Course will be administered between the Golf Course Management and Arizona State University, as opposed to being specified in the master lease document. Future changes will only be made to reflect appropriate insurance risks, will be discussed in advance with State Risk Management, and will reflect any appropriate changes in industry standards. Authority to approve or amend all future insurance coverages is delegated to the Associate Vice President for Administrative Services.
*Approval of Sale of Alcohol at the Sundome (ASU)
The Board approved a special events license for the Cinco de Mayo Festival at the ASU Sundome as requested by the Phoenix Union Partnership. A partial waiver of ABOR policy 5-108(A) was approved to permit the sale and consumption of alcohol in accordance with the terms of the Executive Summary. The Miller Beer Garden will be located in a separate, fenced location and ID will be required for beer sales. Beer will be served only in the fenced area. The Phoenix Union partnership will be the licensee (in the name of Martin Samaniego, Jr., Executive Director, Phoenix Union partnership), have the appropriate insurance, and will indemnify ASU. In addition, ABOR policy 5-108 (B) will be followed regarding the manner of sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages on university property.
*Report on Academic Program and Organizational Unit Changes
The Executive Director provided a written report informing the Board he had approved the following requests: Arizona State University - Changed the name of the Higher and Adult Education Program to Higher and Postsecondary Education, Changed the name for Ed.D. Higher and Adult Education to Ed.D. Higher and Postsecondary Education, Changed the M.Ed. for Higher and Adult Education to M.Ed. Higher and Postsecondary Education, Changed the name for the Bachelor of Science in Purchasing and Logistics Management to the Bachelor of Science, Supply Chain Management; Arizona State University West Campus - Moved the Women's Studies Program from the Division of Collaborative Programs to the College of Arts and Sciences.
*Approval of Appointment of Regents Professors (NAU)
The Board granted Northern Arizona University permission to make two appointments to Regents' Professor-- Dr. Donald V. Bendel, Professor of Fine Arts in the Museum Faculty of Fine Arts, and Dr. Curtis M. Hinsley, Jr., Professor of History. The appointments will take effect July 1, 1997, and will carry a salary increase of $5,000.
*Progress of NAU's Self-study in Preparation for a Re-accreditation Site Visit from the NCA
Northern Arizona University provided the Board a written update on the progress of its self-study in preparation for a re-accreditation site visit from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Commissions on Institutions of Higher Education (NCA). A copy of the draft report is available at the NAU Cline Library for review by interested parties.
*Emeritus Status for Retired Faculty Members
The Board conferred the title of Emeritus Professor on those faculty members recommended by ASU, NAU, and UofA.
Regent Basha chaired this portion of the meeting.
Integrated Instructional Facility: Project Approval (UofA)
Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Michael Gottfredson, and Mr. Bob Smith joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Munger moved the Board grant the University of Arizona's request for Project Approval for the Integrated Instructional Facility (IIF) and authorize the university to seek approval from the Joint Committee on Capital Review for Revenue and Academic Bonding authority. The motion was seconded by Regent Gignac.
Regent Gignac asked how the renovation of the Student Union fits into the overall Capital
Improvement Plan and why the IIF project should be undertaken before the Student Union renovation. Mr. Valdez said the university is trying to decide how to accomplish the renovation of the Student Union while maintaining the services the building provides. The university is also considering whether the project could best be accomplished by a new building or by renovating the current building. He said the project is due to come before the Board in May.
Regent Schmitt asked how much money the university had set aside to this point for the IIF and was told approximately $3.5M. Regent Schmitt said he had received numerous calls from students who were against the IIF project and supported the Student Union project. He commented the university says it has the capacity to pay the debt service for this building, but later in the meeting will request a tuition increase to cover a $10M shortfall. At the same time, the Student Union requires renovation and the funding for this project has not yet been determined. He did not believe it would be wise to send the IIF forward until the Board knows how the students will be affected by the funding plan for the Union renovation. He asked the Board to postpone the IIF project until the Student Union project is brought forward with financing information.
Regent Chapa spoke in favor of the motion because he believed the IIF would support undergraduate education and he believed that is more important than a union. President Munger agreed with Regent Chapa. Regent Schmitt suggested the learning and computer commons and the advising function could be incorporated in the remodeling of the Student Union. This would convert the building from an auxiliary building into a learning center. He asked the Board to look at various options before authorizing the IIF.
Dr. Schwarz said the Student Union has the potential to be important to both students and faculty, but the current union is a lifeless place. He believes the union will gain life from having a building like the IIF next door. Regent Campbell said he is supportive of the IIF concept because it will support undergraduate education and he had been told it is not anticipated there will be an increase in tuition to support the debt service requirements. Regent Ulrich said he believed the IIF is a good concept, but he was not sure two buildings should be built when there might be a chance to combine the IIF and the Student Union.
The meeting recessed at 2:47 p.m. and reconvened at 2:58 p.m.
Regent Davis said he believed educational excellence should not be tied to buildings as what goes on inside the building is more important than the building itself. Regent Chapa moved to table the matter until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Regent Gignac. The motion failed with Regents Gignac, Basha, Chapa, and Munger voting yes and Regents Campbell, Ulrich, Davis, and Schmitt voting no.
Mr. David Duffy joined the meeting for the remainder of this discussion. Regent Gignac asked about the advantages and disadvantages of tying the IIF and the Student Union projects together. She was told the size and scope of the facility and the proximity of food and beverages to computer equipment would be impediments. Mr. Duffy said the university had looked at five alternatives for renovating the union and believe they have developed one that will best suit the university's needs.
Regent Ulrich asked if the university's intention was to rebuild the union or to build a new union over the long term. He was told the concept was to develop a new addition on the north side of the existing union and selectively demolish those older parts of the union that are functionally obsolete. It will be a combination of new construction and extensive renovation. Regent Ulrich asked when consideration was given to building a combination facility and was told very early in the planning process for the IIF. He said it may be time to reconsider a combination building.
Regent Schmitt moved to table the item until the Board receives information regarding the Student Union (the initial proposal), receives information about options for the IIF, and receives information about funding for the Student Union and the effect it may have on students financially. The motion died for lack of second.
Regent Schmitt made a substitute motion to postpone the IIF request until such time as the Student Union proposal is brought forward with a proposed funding structure and the possibility of integrating the Student Union and the IIF Building has been reconsidered. The motion was seconded by Regent Davis and passed unanimously.
Report on 1997-98 Appropriations for the Arizona Universities
Regent Basha reported the legislature appropriated $500,000 to the University of Arizona College of Medicine to establish a liver research institute and $50,000 was appropriated to the Department of Commerce in FY98 and FY99 to fund the operation of the High Altitude Sports Training Complex at Northern Arizona University.
Setting of 1997-98 Tuition and Financial Aid Trust Fees
Regent Basha invited the student body presidents and Dr. Mary McKeown to join the meeting for this discussion. ASASU President Marc Baumgartner said the students are supporting a 0% increase in tuition because they believe the universities received adequate funds from the legislature this budget year. They also believe an increase in tuition is a tax on families.
ASU West President John Gonzales, who was also speaking on behalf of the students from UofA Sierra Vista and NAU Yuma, also asked for a 0% increase. He said any increase would be a burden to non-traditional students. ASUA President Rhonda Wilson said cost of attendance is increasing every year, but wages and financial aid are not increasing at the same rate. She asked the Regents to ask for accountability when they consider tuition and residence hall rates and stated she supported a 0% tuition increase.
ASNAU President Mark Davis said the students at NAU believe the legislative allocation plus internal reallocations can cover the funding needed for university priorities. He, therefore, agreed with the request for a 0% tuition increase. He also opposed implementation of the MBA differential tuition as requested by NAU because of lack of student input on this issue and lack of demonstrated need.
President Lovett recommended a 3% increase in resident and nonresident tuition for Northern Arizona University as that is roughly the rate of inflation. She reminded the ASA respresentatives a 0% increase would represent a 3% to 3½% decline in revenue available. President Coor recommended a 3% increase in resident and nonresident tuition for Arizona State University as he believed that would keep in balance the rate of tuition increase, the actual increase students would need to pay, and the needs of the institution. He stated he would use approximately 2/3 of the increase for ASU Main to fund the original budget request for improving undergraduate education and 1/3 would be used to strengthen the financial aid program. President Pacheco said the universities did not receive the level of funding from the legislature that was requested and a good share of the legislative increase will go for salaries. He said the legislative treatment of the law college tuition will be problematic for the university. The short-term enrollment decline also affects the university's finances. He recommended a 5% increase in resident and nonresident tuition for the University of Arizona.
Regent Davis moved to raise resident tuition 1% and nonresident tuition 3% with the new revenues collected to be assigned to fill out the unfunded parts of the state budget requests. Regent Ulrich seconded the motion.
Commenting on several requests that will be considered following the setting of tuition, Regent Davis said he believed the Board should consider the option of freezing the existing fees on campus at their existing levels and capping the dorm and residence hall increases at 2% with the specific requirement the new revenues be used for ongoing operational expenses and renovations, not for new programs. He also believed the Board should approve the professional degree tuition requests with the understanding 25% of the new revenue would be left with the particular school, 25% would go to fund the unmet portion of the state budget requests, and 50% of the new revenues would go to provide financial aid to undergraduate resident students.
Regent Gignac said she believed 1% would not raise enough revenue; she would be more inclined to support a 2% or 3% increase. She also would like to see nonresident tuition reflect the cost of education. Regent Campbell said the average increase in tuition per year since 1984 has been 6.5%. He considered 3% to be a reasonable increase to meet the needs of the universities. A 1% increase would probably place the Arizona universities last in tuition cost for public universities in the United States and that would cheapen the universities.
Regent Schmitt reminded the Regents the Arizona Constitution states, "Higher education should be as nearly free as possible." He believed a 3% increase would mean ASU and NAU nonresident students would be paying more than the cost of education. He could support the 1% and 3% suggested increases. He said students and families supported the universities' state budget request this year and this would reward those people rather than taxing them further.
President Munger said he supported Regent Campbell's statement as there is an inflation factor of approximately 3%. However, he believed President Pacheco's request was reasonable as it is only 2% over inflation. A 3% increase will only keep the universities even; a 5% increase would allow them to start to get ahead from the past reductions. He could support a 5% increase.
Regent Chapa said he believed the Board should continue to shift more of the burden to nonresident students. He made a substitute motion to set resident tuition at 2% and nonresident tuition at 4%. The motion died for lack of second. Regent Gignac said the Regents should look at the universities individually when they set tuition as there are different levels of expense at each university. She pointed out the tuition at Arizona universities is 40% below the average of public institutions in the United States. She complimented the legislature and the Governor for the job they did in approving budgets this year; however, the total dollars are not in line with how the Regents set the priorities as the legislature did get into micromanagement. She is afraid the Board is now also getting into micromanaging and is not giving the presidents enough latitude in how they spend the dollars. Tuition is not just to cover the budget gap; there are local issues involved with this money. She would support a 3% plus $300 increase.
Dr. Schwarz echoed the statements of Regents Munger and Gignac as he believes the students receive more than they pay for. He also expressed reservations about the program for rewarding teaching loads that was passed by the legislature. He asked the Regents to set tuition high enough to cover merit increases for deserving faculty that do not qualify under the legislative program.
Regent Ulrich said the use of averages is dangerous as more facts are needed when tuition history is considered. President Munger made a substitute motion to increase resident tuition 3% and nonresident tuition by 5%. Regent Chapa seconded the motion. The motion failed with Regents Munger, Gignac, Chapa, and Campbell voting yes and Regents Schmitt, Davis, Basha, and Ulrich voting no. The original motion to increase resident tuition by 1% and nonresident tuition by 3% failed with Regents Davis, Ulrich, Schmitt, and Basha voting yes and Regents Campbell, Gignac, Chapa, and Munger voting no.
The meeting recessed at 4:14 p.m. and reconvened at 4:25 p.m. President Munger moved to increase resident tuition by 2½% and nonresident tuition by 4%. Regent Chapa seconded the motion. The motion passed with Regents Ulrich, Munger, Gignac, Chapa, Campbell, and Basha voting yes and Regents Davis and Schmitt voting no.
Upon motion by Regent Basha, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Regents set the Financial Aid Trust Fee at the maximum.
Setting of Tuition for College of Medicine for FY 1997-98 (UofA)
Regent Gignac moved to set the registration fees for the College of Medicine for FY 1997-98 in the amount of $7,930, a 6.7% increase. The motion was seconded by Regent Chapa. Regent Davis asked if the entire increase would stay with the College of Medicine and was told yes. Regent Schmitt asked that the College of Medicine tuition setting process follow the same process as regular tuition in the future as there is currently no information concerning the use of the new money. Regent Gignac asked the Regents to keep in mind that the needs of each university are not covered by the state budget request so tuition increases should not necessarily be tied to the money that would make up the difference between the request and the money authorized.
Regent Davis offered a substitute motion that would affect the tuition for the College of Medicine and the proposed differential tuition for selected graduate or professional programs that follows. He moved to leave 60% of the new revenue with the professional degree programs and allot 40% of the generated revenue for financial aid for undergraduate resident students. The motion was seconded by Regent Ulrich.
Regent Gignac said she believed taking this action today without input from the Dean of the College of Medicine would not be a good idea. Regent Chapa agreed and asked the presidents for comments. President Pacheco said there is a student commission that participates in determining the fees that are set for the College of Medicine. He believed it would be problematic to try to support undergraduate students with fees that go to the College of Medicine. President Coor strongly suggested the money generated by the differential tuition be used to strengthen the programs themselves. Part of that should go to financial aid, but for the programs themselves instead of general aid.
The motion failed with Regents Davis and Ulrich voting yes and Regents Gignac, Chapa, Campbell, and Basha voting no. Regent Schmitt abstained. The original motion to set registration fees for the College of Medicine at $7,930 passed with Regents Gignac, Chapa, Campbell, Basha and Ulrich voting yes and Regents Schmitt and Davis voting no. Regent Basha said he believed the idea suggested by Regent Davis had merit and asked the Council of Presidents to discuss the issue.
Differential Tuition for Selected Graduate or Professional Programs
Selected Professional/Business Master's Degree Programs (ASU, NAU, and UofA)
Regent Davis moved to approve the fees as requested for the MBA (ASU-Main, ASU-West, NAU, and UofA), Master of Accounting (ASU and UofA), Master of Taxation (ASU), Master of Health Services Administration (ASU), Master of Science in Information Management (ASU), and Master of Science in Management Information Systems (UofA) with 60% of the new money remaining with the programs and 40% of the new money to be allotted for financial aid for undergraduate resident students. Regent Chapa seconded the motion. The motion failed with Regents Davis and Ulrich voting yes and Regents Gignac, Chapa, and Basha voting no. Regent Schmitt abstained.
Regent Schmitt moved to approve the establishment of Professional Business Master's Degree Program fees as requested for the MBA at ASU and the UofA, but not NAU. He also excluded the Master of Accounting at ASU, the Master of Taxation at ASU, and Master of Health Services Administration at ASU, the Master of Science in Information Management at ASU, and the Master of Science in Management Information Systems at the UofA. He reminded the Regents they had passed a framework last month whereby the universities would justify any professional fee increases. He believed the justification accompanying these fee increases applied to the MBA program, not the other masters degree programs. He also questioned whether students had been consulted about the fee increase in the other programs. The motion was seconded by Regent Chapa.
Provost Glick and Dean Larry Penley joined the meeting for this discussion. Dean Penley said students take their first year of courses under the MBA program and specialize in the second year in programs such as Master of Science in Information Management or Master of Health Services Administration. The students in the Master of Accounting and Master of Taxation are not all taking courses with the other MBA students. If the fees are not implemented for all the programs, there will be students sitting in the same classes paying different tuition. Provost Glick said part of the new money will be used to expand access for the special computer labs and career services.
President Lovett asked Regent Schmitt why he chose to exclude NAU from the increase and was told he did not believe there was true student input into the decision and he believed the amount of money that would be actually be raised for the program would be small. Regent Gignac disagreed with excluding NAU as she believed the program quality is the same at all the institutions and would not want one university to have a lower rate than the other two. She asked how these numbers relate to the ASU evening MBA program and was told they would be slightly lower than the evening program.
Regent Davis made a substitute motion to approved the establishment of Professional Business Master's Degree Program fees as requested, including the UofA Master of Accounting. The motion was seconded by Regent Chapa. The motion passed with Regents Schmitt and Chapa voting no and Regents Gignac, Basha, Campbell, Ulrich, and Davis voting yes. Regent Chapa stated he supported the idea of the fee structure, but would like to see the increases shaped toward the non-traditional students who want courses at nights and on weekends.
MBA Program (ASU West Campus)
Dean Jonathan Silberman joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Gignac asked why ASU West needed an off-campus MBA as there already is an evening MBA. Dean Silberman said the evening MBA is located on the ASU Main campus and Motorola University. This would be an equivalent program to the Motorola University program and the initial location would probably be north Scottsdale where there is a growing market. Regent Munger asked if these would be evening and weekend classes and was told yes. He asked how much the University of Phoenix charges for similar programs and was told approximately $6,000. Regent Munger expressed his support for these types of programs. Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent Ulrich, the Board set an annual off-campus MBA program fee for ASU West of $3,800.
Off Campus Post Master's Family Nurse Practitioner Program (ASU)
Provost Glick joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Munger asked if the tuition would pay for all the costs of the program and was told it would pay for 65% of the costs of the program. He also asked when the program would be taught and was told some evenings and weekends, but summer in particular. He was told this is a one-time program for two years which market surveys show will be over-subscribed. At the end of two years, there will be an evaluation as to whether another program should be initiated.
Regent Gignac asked if this fee would be in addition to regular tuition as that would make the cost higher than the cost for the College of Medicine. She was told no. Upon motion of Regent Ulrich, seconded by Regent Davis, the Board approved the proposed $6,300 program fee for the Off-Campus Post-Master's Family Nurse Practitioner Program at Arizona State University, College of Nursing.
Executive Director Besnette informed the Board that the law school deans, as a result of legislation passed this past session, are discussing the level of tuition that would be appropriate for the law schools. The universities will come to the Board in the fall with a recommendation for tuition for the law schools starting in 1998-99.
Provost Glick said he had incorrectly answered Regent Gignac's question concerning the fee for the Family Nurse Practitioner Program. He was referring to the $9,362 number on the table on Page 3 when he said that would be the total fee. The $6,300 fee is in addition to tuition. It was correctly stated in the Executive Summary; he misspoke when he answered the question. This is a 12-month program, not a 9-month program; however, it does cost more than the College of Medicine. Regent Ulrich asked if the $9,000 number represented only 65% of the cost of the program and was told yes; it is a very expensive program.
Regent Davis moved to reconsider the previous motion. Regent Gignac seconded the motion which failed with Regents Ulrich, Campbell, Chapa, and Basha voting no and Regents Davis, Gignac, and Schmitt voting yes.
Setting of Residence Hall Rates for 1997-98
Regent Davis moved the residence hall rates be capped at 2% this year with the restriction the new revenues be used only for on-going expenses and renovations. Regent Ulrich seconded the motion. Regent Davis said he believed programmatic expenses should be kept to a minimum and instead pay for the ongoing expenses of providing a residence hall. President Pacheco said residence halls today are used for more than just sleeping. Some classes are taught there and counseling services are available . Regent Ulrich asked if rent was charged when classes were taught in the residence halls and President Pacheco answered he did not know. Regent Gignac noted there were fund balances for the residence halls at all three universities. She asked for a report some time in the future concerning the use of these balances. The motion passed unanimously.
Cancer Research Institute: Project Budget Increase (ASU)
Upon motion of Regent Basha, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board granted ASU a budget increase of $533,501 for the Phase II and III Addition to the Cancer Research Institute, increasing the overall project budget to $5,226,300.
Request for Authorization to Sell Approximately 281 Acres in Phoenix (Cotton Research Center) (UofA)
Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to sell at public auction the former Cotton Research Center property, located in Phoenix, Arizona, to the highest responsible bidder, with the successful bidder having the right either to purchase the entire property with payment in full at closing 90 days after the public sale, or to have a series of options to purchase the property in multiple parcels over a period not to exceed seven years, at such price and upon such terms as the University deems appropriate, but in no event below appraised value. The Board further granted a partial waiver of Policy 7-305 so the University of Arizona might employ appraisers from the prequalification list maintained by Arizona State University.
Request to Purchase 3.03 Acres of State Land Adjacent to the Page Ranch Hazardous Waste Landfill (UofA)
Upon motion of Regent Campbell, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to purchase at public auction 3.03 acres of State Trust Land west of the Page Ranch Landfill, to be funded by state Risk Management as a claim expense, subject to approval of all documents by University Counsel.
Spring Update of 1996-97 All Funds Budget
Ms. Sharon Marmaduke, Mr. Joshua Allen, and Mr. Alan Carroll joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Basha moved that the Board approve the FY97 All Funds Budget Report - Spring Update. The motion was seconded by Regent Davis. Regent Gignac stated her appreciation for the additional information on the FY96 actuals. However, only NAU's report ties to the beginning carry forward balance for FY97. Mr. Carroll said it was a difference between cash and accrual accounting. Regent Gignac asked about the money NAU was using to begin a financial aid program when it appeared the money was originally set aside for bonds that weren't sold and it was "one-time only" money. Ms. Marmaduke said the $600,000 is "seed" money for the program and the program will be built from permanent funding beginning next year.
Regent Davis said there is a need to work out the suggestions from the morning's Process Review Committee meeting to establish consistency in reporting. Dr. Besnette said the focus has been primarily on the state operating budget and he senses the Board would now like to also focus on the funds locally retained as well as other initiatives discussed this morning. The Board approved the FY97 All Funds Budget Report - Spring Update by unanimous voice vote.
License Agreement with the Arizona Sports Foundation, Inc. (ASU)
Upon motion of Regent Davis, seconded by Regent Chapa, the Board granted permission to Arizona State University to enter into a ten-year License Agreement with the Arizona Sports Foundation, Inc., consistent with the terms of this resolution, for the playing of the Fiesta Bowl at Sun Devil Stadium. A partial waiver of ABOR Policy 5-108(A) is approved to permit the sale and consumption of alcohol in accordance with the terms of the License Agreement. (A partial description of the terms is outlined below).
The term shall be approximately ten years ending on February 28, 2007. With proper notice to ASU, the Fiesta Bowl may be played on any date each year between December 30 and January 4. The Foundation may request other dates and ASU shall use its best good faith efforts to accommodate such a request. The Foundation will pay ASU a surcharge of $2.60 for each ticket sold to the 1998 Fiesta Bowl and the surcharge fee shall increase by ten cents for every other Fiesta Bowl until the 2006 and 2007 games when the surcharge fee shall be $3.00 per ticket.
During the term of the License Agreement, the Foundation shall be authorized to use the Rio Salado site (north of Rio Salado Parkway and west of Rural Road), or other mutually agreeable area, for certain pre-game activities. ASU shall operate and retain exclusive control of the sale of all Soft Concessions and the revenue from same shall be shared equally. The Foundation shall operate and retain exclusive control and retain all revenue from the sale of Hard Concessions. ASU shall control all aspects of parking and shall collect and retain all parking revenue.
The Foundation shall pay ASU the costs it incurs in staging the Fiesta Bowl pursuant to a budget approved by the parties no later than the December 1 preceding the game. The Foundation will provide comprehensive public liability and property damage insurance in the amount of $10,000,000. The License Agreement contains such other terms and conditions as are appropriate to resolve all other matters necessary to permit the Foundation's use of the Campus for the playing of the Fiesta Bowl.
Report and Recommendations of the Process Review Committee
Executive Director Besnette reminded the Board there was a Process Review Committee meeting that morning. A number of issues relating to reallocations in the budget process were discussed. The Council of Presidents was asked to present some recommendations to the Process Review Committee as to how the Board could feel more comfortable with its oversight responsibility relative to reallocations in the budget that are significant and not necessarily directed to the highest priorities as established by the Board. There will be a continual pursuit of standardization of reporting formats.
Dr. Besnette called the Board's attention to the recommendations in the Executive Summary which have been forged over the last several months. If the recommendations are adopted today, they will be conveyed to the Governor.
The recommendations the Board is asked to adopt today are: 1. The Board should retain the concept of its current planning and budget calendar. 2. The Board should seek legislation to extend submission of the state operating budget requests until October 15 so that 21st day enrollment counts and revenues attributable to the current year's enrollments may be included. 3. Tuition-setting should remain in the April-May time frame, following the state appropriations process. 4. The Board should adopt the annual tuition setting calendar at the same time it adopts the current planning and budget calendar; or alternately, include the tuition setting calendar within the planning and budget calendar to ensure coordination of the two calendars. 5. The Board should modify the planning and budget calendar so that no permanent changes in state operating budget expenditure authority can be authorized after the Board approves the expenditure authority in the spring. 6. Any changes to state operating budget expenditure authority reflecting fall 21st day enrollments should coincide with the Board's approval of the state operating budget request. 7. Central office, university, JLBC, and OSPB staffs should work together to improve and standardize budget reporting documents. 8. The responsibility for determining the use of designated funds should remain with the Board of Regents, and designated funds should not be subject to the appropriations process. 9. The Board should review the level of budget detail needed to assure proper accountability and oversight. 10. There appears to be sufficient and adequate oversight for university revenues and expenditures in current processes, but the Board should always look for improved accountability mechanisms, through additional central office staff analyses or other means. 11. Prior year's budgeted and actual revenues and expenditures should be added to the All funds Budget Reports. 12. Documents prepared for the Board's consideration of the state operating budget request should include the prior year's budgeted and actual revenues and expenditures. 13. The Board may wish to consider the utility of having available current year actuals at the time of the fall and the spring updates to the All Funds Budget Reports. 14. The Board should continue to review fund balances as a component of the All Funds Budget reports and as a part of the Board's annual financial ratio analysis. 15. Review of fund balances and financial ratio analysis should be added to the planning and budgeting calendar so that all financial oversight, accountability, and budget related items can be considered by the Board in an orderly manner. 16. When fund balances are increasing, the Board should receive a report and analysis of the increase and the potential uses of the fund balances. 17. The universities and central office staff should work with OSPB and JLBC staffs to continue to refine, define, and improve the formula funding convention that is an integral component of the universities' state operating budget requests. This recommendation is in accord with one of the recommendations from the External Review Committee chaired by Mark DeMichele. 18. The central office and university staffs should work to develop greater standardization in the formats of budget and financial reports. 19. The Board should permit use of revenues where appropriate and most effective in the university state and local operating budgets to maintain flexibility in budget administration. 20. Since changes less than $1,000,000 occurring in the All Funds Budgets after the spring update are not approved by the Board, the Board should establish a process to ensure Board review and approval of any changes occurring after the spring update. The Board should establish parameters within which universities may make changes and report those changes to the central office. Outside of the parameters, any changes must come to the Board for approval.
Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Chapa, the Board adopted the recommendations of the Process Review Committee.
The meeting recessed at 5:35 p.m. and President Munger asked the Regents to be ready to reconvene at 9:15 a.m. the next morning rather than 9:30 a.m. as scheduled.
The meeting reconvened at 9:20 a.m. on Friday, April 25.
Regent Gignac chaired this portion of the meeting.
Duplicative and Low Productivity Academic Programs
Categories of Programs
Provost Glick, Provost Connell, Provost Sypherd, and Dr. Wickenden joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Gignac announced the Regents had received several letters concerning the astronomy program at Northern Arizona University and she wanted to make it known there is no plan to eliminate that program. It was reviewed as part of the process of looking at all programs to identify low productivity and duplicative programs. This is not, however, a process intended to eliminate all programs that have low graduations rates or are duplicative.
Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Schmitt, the Board reviewed and approved the university recommendations for the academic programs that fell below the thresholds in the pilot review, asked that a status report be provided next year on those programs recommended for elimination or consolidation, asked that a follow up review be provided on those programs recommended for retention or reorganization with the expectation of an increase in graduates, and asked that the rest of the programs begin a second-look review with a report to the Board in six months.
Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Schmitt, the Board approved the methodology for identifying low productivity and duplicative programs.
Amendment to Board Policy 2-208, Academic Program Review (First Reading)
The Board reviewed for first reading the proposed modifications to Board Policy 2-208, Academic Program Review, and directed the universities to bring the proposal back to the May meeting for final action. The policy modifications are intended to provide a general framework for a periodic system wide review of low-productivity and duplicative academic programs. By describing the specific details of the review process in a separate Board-approved methodology statement, the Board is provided with increased flexibility to refine the review process over time.
Amendment to Board Policy 6-201, Conditions of Faculty Service (First Reading)
Regent Gignac reminded the Board this is part of the Board's work plan for revising tenure and the Conditions of Faculty Service. This item was tabled as a first reading at the March meeting as a result of the discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of including one or more community representatives on the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT) for the purpose of hearing appeals from faculty members recommended for suspension without pay or dismissal. Faculty representatives Dr. Daniel Landers, Dr. Thomas Callarman, Dr. Vianne McLean, and Dr. Larry Gould joined the meeting for this discussion.
It is currently being proposed that one or more community or alumni representatives be added to CAFT for a trial period of three years, following which the effectiveness of this modification will be evaluated and reported to the Board in a sunset review. Regent Schmitt asked if the faculty support the suggested change. Dr. Schwarz answered the faculty has reservations about adding outside reviewers as this policy suggests; however, they are willing to work with the Board and to go into the future with the decision the Board makes. Regent Ulrich said he would like to make sure any review committees or boards are staffed equally with teaching and research personnel. President Coor said the universities intend to insure those committees are staffed by people who are both teachers and researchers. In his view, they are not separate people.
Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Schmitt, the Board removed this item from the table. Regent Chapa stated he had originally wanted the entire membership of the CAFT to be composed of outside people, not faculty. He no longer has those concerns as he better understands the system.
The Board reviewed the proposed changes to Board Policy 6-201 (L) and (M) for a first reading and directed that this proposal be brought back to the Board in May for a second reading and final action.
Amendment to Board Policy Chapter 6 by Adding Section L. Arizona International Campus of the University of Arizona Conditions of Service Documents (Second Reading)
Dr. Celestino Fernandez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Gignac said she believed some of this policy language could be a starting point for discussions with regard to part-time, non-tenure track faculty in positions at the other universities. She asked the status of the campus developed rules and procedures for faculty review and evaluation and for a description of the faculty consultative process that is taking place to develop those rules and procedures. Dr. Fernandez said the AIC is unique in having all faculty on one-year employment contracts. He said all faculty and other personnel will be involved in developing the internal policies for their own category; but as the internal policies come as a result of the policy the Board adopts, they have not yet been developed.
Regent Gignac asked how people are being reviewed for renewal or nonrenewal if the policies are not yet in place and was told the AIC is using the University of Arizona existing policies which includes peer input into the process. She asked if there would be some provisions in the to-be- developed policies for some periodic feedback on the fixed term faculty so they know what they need to do to improve to be successful. Dr. Fernandez said it was anticipated there would be at least annual evaluations for everybody. Regent Gignac questioned if 6-1202 (F) (1) (a) (6), Rules for the Administrative Positions, should contain more details about the appeal process. Dr. Fernandez said there would be more information in the internal campus policies that would be approved by the University of Arizona.
Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent Chapa, the Board approved the additions to the Arizona Board of Regents Policy Manual 6-1200, Conditions of Faculty Service, 6-1201, Conditions of Administrative Service, and 6-1202, Conditions of Professional Service, for the Arizona International Campus of the University of Arizona. Regent Davis voted against the motion.
Approval of the Second-Year Curriculum for the Arizona International Campus of the University of Arizona
Dr. Celestino Fernandez and Dr. Edwin Clausen joined the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Fernandez said the second year curriculum was developed internally with the faculty. The AIC worked closely with the university-wide General Education Committee of the University of Arizona as well as the Undergraduate Council. The curriculum is composed of four tiers. There are three required courses, some optional courses, some language courses, and some special topics courses. There are also some specific courses like calculus, biology, and chemistry for students contemplating premedicine or other graduate programs that require greater emphasis in the sciences or mathematics. Dr. Clausen emphasized the collaborative nature of the development process with students, faculty, administrators, and the Undergraduate Council and the General Education Committee at the University of Arizona.
Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent Chapa, the Board authorized the Arizona International Campus of the University of Arizona to offer the second-year curriculum as proposed.
Proposal to Establish the University of Arizona Prevention Center
Dr. Paul Sypherd and Dr. Ken Campbell joined the meeting for this discussion. President Pacheco announced he had received a letter from Dr. James Dalen stating a contributor, who has asked to remain anonymous at this time, has announced his intention to provide a gift of $10M to the University Foundation to support the development of programs at the Arizona Prevention Center at the College of Medicine. Final details are still in negotiation, but the contributor wishes the money to be used to develop innovative life-style and behavioral health programs at the Arizona Prevention Center. This gift will allow these programs to become a central focus of the Center and make possible the Prevention Center's evolution into a School of Public Health within the next five years. Dr. Sypherd said this Center will bring together elements that have existed for some time throughout the health sciences.
Regent Gignac asked if there will be collaboration between this Center and Arizona State University's Arizona Prevention Resource Center. Provost Glick said the ASU Prevention Resource Center is a collaboration between state government and ASU to do certain kinds of prevention education in the Valley. ASU does intend to have strong interactions with the new UofA Center. Dr. Campbell said there is already collaboration between the centers in smoking prevention programs and in public health.
Regent Schmitt asked if the Prevention Center would look into the effects of gambling on the population and was told it had not been considered. Regent Schmitt said he believed this is an area that has a social effect on society and he believed a center like this could be an invaluable resource on this problem. Regent Basha expressed his support for the Center.
Regent Davis endorsed the endeavor. He said he agrees with Regent Schmitt--it might be worth investigating and coming back to the Board with any ideas on the effects of gambling as well. Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Basha, the Board authorized the establishment of the University of Arizona Prevention Center at the University of Arizona with a sunset review date of 2002-03.
Proposal to Establish the Institute of Human Origins (ASU)
President Coor said this Institute has established itself as the leading force in paleoanthropolgy, including Dr. Don Johanson, the discoverer of "Lucy." ASU believes there will be a fit with the work of the Institute and the programs at ASU, especially in physical anthropology. He told the Regents there are still details to be worked out for the transfer, but the Board is being asked today to approve the creation of the Institute of Human Origins and to commit to the location of the named individuals there. The Board will be kept apprised of progress as the details are finalized. Provost Glick and Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Wendy Wilkins joined the meeting for this discussion.
Regent Davis moved to approve the establishment of the Institute of Human Origins as an institute within the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Arizona State University, with a sunset date of 2002-03, effective July 1, 1997, with the caveat that ASU develop a report describing the manner in which ASU ensures that theories related to human origins are explored and examined in its relevant courses. The initial draft of the report would be available to the Board at the August meeting. He stated he had discussed this with President Coor and had conveyed his thoughts to Regents in a memo on this subject. Regent Basha seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Enrollment Report for Spring 1997
Regent Campbell reminded the Board it was determined approximately three years ago the University of Arizona was exceeding the Board's policy on limiting non-resident enrollment to 25%. This report shows the UofA is still over the limit. He believes this, combined with legislative appropriations, translates into more money per student for the UofA than ASU. President Pacheco said he believed this is partially a result of the UofA enrollment decline because the base number has changed.
Regent Gignac said she remembered the UofA was going to bring its percentage down to the 25% over a series of years so there would not be a major financial impact. Regent Schmitt asked if any qualified state residents had ever been refused admission and was told no. Therefore, he said he believed it was a plus for the system to have non-residents attend. Dr. Schwarz agreed with Regent Schmitt as he believed the non-residents fund programs that benefit resident students as well. Regent Gignac stated she would like to correct the written record as University of Arizona Sierra Vista increased both its headcount and FTE.
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
President Coor welcomed the Board to its first meeting at ASU East Campus. He informed the Board ASU West Provost Elaine Maimon will be part of the Arizona delegation to the President's Summit on the Future of America next week in Philadelphia. ASU East Provost Charles Backus introduced Dr. David Schwalm, Vice Provost of ASU East and Dean of the East College, and told the Board about the ASU East Campus and the partnerships involved.
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
President Pacheco reported a shared governance agreement between the administration and the faculty is about to be signed. He said it would be compatible with Board policy. Dr. Pacheco told the Regents an Internet magazine survey placed the University of Arizona 15th on a list of America's 100 most "wired" colleges, reflecting how well the faculty is using the Internet for academic programs. He also announced the UofA campus would be the site for National Senior Sports Classic late in May, an event that brings over 25,000 people to the community. Regent Ulrich requested that he be provided a copy of the shared governance agreement.
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY
President Lovett said NAU has been successful in attracting National Merit Scholarship finalists, Flinn Foundation Scholar semi-finalists, and a National Hispanic Merit finalist. NAU has also had five Achievement Rewards for College Student Scholars. Dr. Lovett announced NAU received renewal of the National Science Foundation grants for the Native Connections program which develops science instruction combining western and Native American perspectives of science for middle and high school students.
REPORT FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Executive Director Besnette reminded the Board the budget cycle for FY99 would begin at the next meeting when the Board would begin its discussion of budget guidelines for the FY98 state operating budget requests. The Board will also receive reports on space utilization and deferred maintenance. He reported that Mark DeMichele and a subcommittee of his original group continue to work on behalf of the universities. They are currently focusing on classroom utilization. The RFP to hire a consultant to look at deferred maintenance is being developed. It is estimated the cost for the consultant will be approximately $100,000.
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
Dr. John Schwarz summarized the faculty's plans and objectives for the sessions dealing with workload and the workload plan. They would like to keep the focus on workloads and on issues that concern members of the Board about faculty workloads. There will be some presentations, but they will be succinct to allow as much time as possible for discussion. The end objective of the work plan is to reach a consensus within the Board and between the Board and the universities on the appropriate workload for faculty and steps to take to implement that consensus. He also summarized for the Regents the steps that are being taken on the campuses to implement the Board's new policy on Post Tenure Review.
The meeting recessed at 10:40 a.m. and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.
Regent Ulrich chaired this portion of the meeting.
Program Assessment Review (PAR) of the Universities' Extended Education Programs
Dr. Art Ashton joined the meeting for this discussion. The Board reviewed the university extended education self-assessments and proposed Board responses to the "special questions" from the Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting and Joint Legislative Budget Committee staffs for the universities' extended education programs.
Regent Davis chaired this portion of the meeting.
1st Session, 43rd Legislature; Update on Legislation Related to Public Higher Education in Arizona
Dr. Mary McKeown and Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda joined the meeting for this discussion. The Board was given a summary of bills that had been tracked this legislative session. The biennial budgeting bill has been sent to the Governor for signature. Beginning in FY2000-01, all state agencies will be on a biennial budget and all agencies will go to program budgeting. There will be no Program Assessment Review (PAR) in the 1999 legislative session; from now on they will be done every other year. Private sector members will now be added to the PAR review committees. Beginning in the year 2000, all budget requests will have to separate out administrative costs.
Regent Davis recommended staff put together an implementation plan for the Board to review that will help guide the Regents through the process and enable the Board to look at specific time lines, etc. Regent Gignac asked if there would be a clear definition of administrative costs and was told that is still in negotiation. Regent Davis said he assumed staff would consult with OSPB and JLBC when the implementation plan was developed. Regent Gignac asked if it was known where the funding would come from for the program to award honors endorsements to qualifying high school students as this will be an expensive program and the funding was stripped from the bill. Executive Director Besnette said there was no answer yet.
The ASU night law school bill was held and a key legislator has requested the Board and the universities study the feasibility of a part-time law program and report back to the legislature this year. Regent Davis asked to be involved in the part-time law program discussion. President Munger informed the Regents the law deans have appointed a committee to study the feasibility of an evening law program and they expect to report to the Board by the fall.
Regent Gignac was unable to attend the Community College Board meeting due to a conflict with a Presidential Search and Screening Committee meeting. Dr. Donald Puyear, Executive Director of the State Board for Community Colleges, said the primary topic of the meeting had been tuition setting. One of the community college districts raised its tuition 8+%.
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA PRESIDENTIAL SEARCH
Executive Director Besnette reminded the Regents they had approved the guidelines for the search process at the last meeting. Upon motion of Regent Schmitt, seconded by Regent Chapa, the Board approved the Position Specification for the position of President of the University of Arizona as submitted.
The meeting adjourned at 11:12 a.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
_______________________________
Judy E. Garza, Secretary to the Board
APPROVED BY:
________________________________
John F. Munger, President
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Kurt Davis, Assistant Secretary
The
Regents | The
Universities | For
the Student | For
Faculty | For
Parents | Special
Programs |
Administrative/Staff
| Government/Legislative
| FAQ | Site
Index/Map
Contact
us
Arizona Board of Regents
2020 N. Central Ave., Suite 230
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4593
Telephone: (602) 229-2500 / Fax: (602) 229-2555