 |
MINUTES |
 |
|
MINUTES |
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROGRAMS COMMITTEE STUDY SESSION
Review of State Legislation with Potential Impact on the Arizona University System
Governor's Task Force on Higher Education Status Report
Strategic Planning Area Review (SPAR) for University Extended Education Programs
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
Infrastructure Improvements - Phase V: Project Approval (UA)
Waiver of Board Policy 6-908, Intellectual Property (UA, ASU, NAU)
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, REPORTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held February 25, 2000, in the Student Union at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. President Amos called the Study Session to order at 9:24 a.m. in Room 256.
| PRESENT: | Regent George H. Amos, III Regent Rudy Campbell Regent Judy Gignac Regent Chris Herstam Regent Jack Jewett Regent Kay McKay Regent Christine Thompson Regent Donald Ulrich |
| ABSENT: | Governor Jane Dee Hull Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan Regent John Munger |
Also present were: President Peter Likins, Dr. Paul Sypherd, Mr. Greg Fahey, and Dr. Michael Gottfredson, University of Arizona; President Lattie Coor, Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Mr. Steve Miller, and Dr. Milton Glick, Arizona State University; President Clara Lovett, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Dr. Mason Somerville, Dr. John Haeger, and Ms. Anne Barton, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director Linda Blessing, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, Ms. Louise Houseworth, Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda, and Ms. Norma Salas, Central Office; Dr. Jerry Hogle, Chair of the Arizona Faculties Council, and Regent Designees Christina Palacios, and Gary Stuart.
All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the February 25, 2000, Documents File.
PROGRAMS COMMITTEE STUDY SESSION
Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting.
Provosts Glick and Sypherd, Interim Provost Somerville, Dr. Wickenden, Dr. Sellers, Dr. Hogle, and Dr. Davey joined the meeting for this discussion.
Regent Jewett reminded the Regents a six-member team, composed of Regents Gignac and Ulrich, Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) representatives Dr. Jerry Hogle, Dr. William Davey, and Dr. Judith Sellers, and Central Office representative Dr. Wickenden, attended a national workshop in January on leadership for change focused upon learning. The team had prepared a report entitled "Toward Promoting an Environment for Learner-Centered Education" that had been distributed with the Board agenda materials. The purpose of the Study Session was to provide an opportunity to review the proposal and discuss its implications.
Regent Gignac informed the Board the national workshop for college and university teams was sponsored by the National Academy for Academic Leadership. The Academy is based on two primary convictions: first, the need for academic program improvement is urgent, and second, academic program improvement must be at the heart of the institutional agenda and it must be supported and reinforced by appropriate resources--including knowledgeable and skilled leaders from across the institution able to work as a team.
The Arizona Team found these convictions to be very compatible with what the Board of Regents had been discussing since last April, using learner-centered education as the vehicle for the transformation of higher education. The team's project was to draft a proposal outlining various ways by which the Arizona universities could continue to promote an environment supporting, in a systemic way, the education of the learner.
Regent Gignac said the Regents had already adopted a statement of principles for learner-centered change that included commitments and responsibilities of the faculty, the universities, and the Board and a definition, proposed by the AFC, that described the essential elements of a learner-centered curriculum and support services.
Some of the factors the team considered were the Morrison Institute study on the new economy and its stated need for Arizona to move forward quickly, the beginning effects of a soon-to-be damaging "brain drain" due to lack of funding, neglect of adequate funding for building renewal, the demand of the Governor's Workforce Development Policy Council that higher education play a larger role in improving the state's workforce and quality of life, the emphasis of the Governor's Strategic Planning for Economic Development that developing industry clusters requires the support of higher education in the development of a highly skilled workforce, and the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education and its mission to provide a blueprint for Arizona's future higher educational needs.Regent Gignac said the team's definition of the project was stated on Page 2, "This proposal is an effort to make the state's public universities more effective in meeting their traditional missions and additionally responsive to the multidimensional contexts and challenges of the 21st Century." The team's work resulted in a strategy for a plan development process to address the goal through broad-based, internal and external participation. The four stated major actions are: 1) to develop an action plan that includes six separate steps, 2) to describe the plan with the clear depiction of the urgency with which these needs must be met and a concise, yet compelling vision of how the plan will meet these needs, 3) to deliver the plan, with a cost analysis, to the governor, the legislature, and key constituencies across the state, and 4) to implement the plan through a series of steps.
The proposal identifies ten indicators of success that can be used to evaluate progress as well as issues that will need to be addressed and possible actions to address these issues. A succinct definition of Learner-Centered Education and a necessary glossary of terms to help bridge the language gaps between higher education and external stakeholders and partnership was written.
Regent Ulrich said there was a need to connect this plan with the Governor's Task Force which is focusing on three major themes: growth, work force development, and the new economy. He described some of the changes being discussed by the Task Force and some issues raised by the private sector members of the Task Force. Dr. Hogle said this report is not intended as a criticism of current initiatives and is not intended as a "top down" mandate. The proposal recognizes the need for new resources and the critical role of faculty in accomplishing these objectives.
Regent Gignac said the team realized both faculty and students will need development so there will need to be time allotted for workshops and seminars. There will be a need to think about work load evaluations, contact hour evaluations, evaluations in the tenure process, and student evaluations.
Dr. Davey said change will happen, whether or not there is planning. Planning will allow some control and an orderly process. The final plan needs to be written for academic and private sector audiences. Regent Ulrich said the pressure from the private sector for change should not be underestimated. Dr. Glick said the beginning cost for these changes would be high in both money and time. Dr. Sypherd said students will have to take additional responsibility for their own learning under the new model. Dr. Somerville said funding will be a problem since Arizona is already very low in comparison to its peers in dollars spent per student.
President Lovett said relatively few people understand what "learner centered" is and it needs to be communicated in simple form. There will need to be additional resources in the short term, so there may be a need to eliminate or downsize something else to focus dollars and time on
this new approach.
Regent Jewett asked the team to amend the proposal based on what had been discussed. Some of the parts need to become more explicit and conflicting goals need to be addressed.
Regent Herstam and Regent Ulrich commented on how this would fit with the Governor's Task Force and said they did not believe it was quite ready to be forwarded. Regent Ulrich said the private sector wants to let the universities know what they need and allow the universities to decide how to meet that need. They will measure the outcomes. The private sector people are interested in what this will cost and there is a need to put dollar signs on paper. President Coor said it needed to be emphasized that learner centered education is currently taking place on the university campuses and there should be an attempt to see what needs to be done to allow this to continue and increase.
Regent Gignac commented the material presented to the Board was a plan to plan. She did not believe a great deal of time should be spent on this material. What the team was asking for was concurrence from the Board that the current six-member team proceed as a steering committee. Before April, the steering committee would develop items for the April Board meeting agenda. Two suggestions were a change in the system mission statement to integrate learner centered education and a discussion of Board policies and statutes that need to be changed to allow the flexibility to implement various types of learner centered education. There should be an opportunity to begin putting together a time line for various steps and to identify additional participants who should be involved as the process continues.
Regent Jewett said he believed the Provosts should be added to the steering committee. President Likins agreed. Regent Gignac said she would like to see a time line developed before the Provosts join the group. Regent McKay, Regent Jewett, and President Amos agreed the Provosts should be included from this point forward. Regent Gignac asked that the Provosts participate personally as members of the steering committee. Dr. Glick said the Board needs to encourage risk taking and allow failures so faculty and administrators will be willing to experiment.
Regent Jewett said he heard there would be a couple items on the April agenda for discussion, revision of policy barriers and revision of the university system mission statement. The Provosts will be part of the team. There would be a recommendation as to how to bring this concept to the Governor's Task Force.
The Study Session recessed at 10:45 a.m. President Amos called the Regular Meeting to order at 10:58 a.m. in the Rincon Room of the Student Union with the Pledge of Allegiance. He announced some changes in the order of the Agenda, stating the Board would start after the Call to the Audience in the afternoon with the Strategic Planning Committee.
President Lovett introduced Northern Arizona University's new Provost, John Haeger. Dr. Haeger will officially begin his duties around June 1.
Fred Ronstadt, Tucson City Council Member, spoke in support of the Arizona Institutions of Higher Education Substance Abuse Prevention Consortium. With him were Rick Ridel and Karen Mosley, also members of the Consortium. They thanked the three presidents for signing a letter of commitment to reduce high risk drinking among Arizona's university and community youth population. Mr. Ronstadt described several of the programs the Consortium sponsors.
Laura Winsky, President of the UA Residence Hall Association, spoke on behalf of the proposal to acquire three apartment complexes for use by UA students as residences.
Bill DeGenaro, UA Graduate Assistant, spoke on behalf of graduate assistants and instructors. He said graduate student assistants are not considered employees in the system, even though they work long hours. He asked the Regents to abolish registration fees for graduate assistants, address the disparate and inequitable workload issues for all graduate student assistants, and consider graduate student assistants as legitimate employees of the system.
Francisco Aguilar, ASUA Student Body President, read a resolution supporting diversity on campuses that was passed by the PAC 10 Student Body Presidents Conference. The Resolution asks the governing boards of their respective campuses to take immediate action to insure and increase minority admissions. He also spoke in support of the proposal to acquire three apartment complexes for use by UA students as residences.
Charla Carr, former resident of Christopher City, said her daughter was affected by the molds found at Christopher City recently and she was forced to move to a different location. She said Christopher City looks like a slum and she believes it is time for the university to provide better housing for incoming families and graduate students. She also asked for professional people to be called to remove the mold as it needs special handling to prevent it spreading into the air.
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 Campbell, seconded by Regent McKay. There was no individual discussion of these items.
The Board approved the November 18 and 19, 1999, and January 20 and 21, 2000, Regular Meetings and the November 18 and 19, 1999, and January 20 and 21, 2000, Executive Session minutes.
*Ecological Restoration Institute (NAU)
The Board authorized the establishment of the Ecological Restoration Unit at Northern Arizona University with a sunset review date of 2005-2006, effective immediately. This unit will reside administratively within the Ecological Restoration Program of the College of Ecosystem Science and Management.
*Appointment of Regents' Professor (NAU)
The Board granted Northern Arizona University permission to appoint Douglas Biber, Professor of English, as Regents' Professor. This appointment is to take effect as of July 1, 2000, and carry a salary increase of $5,000. Dr. Biber is a major international scholar in the fields of linguistics and applied linguistics.
The Board approved a new Policy 2-104 that incorporates a public service reporting requirement for the colleges of Law and Medicine. This requires the universities to submit periodic reports to the Board summarizing the public service activities of students in the colleges of law and medicine in three categories: unpaid volunteer service on and off campus, service related to credit courses, and service related to employment.
*Approval to Enter into a Lease Agreement for the ASU School of Social Work, Tucson Component (ASU)
The Board authorized the President or Vice Provost for Administrative Services for Arizona State University, or their designee, to sign and enter into a Lease Agreement with United Way of Greater Tucson, Inc., for approximately 7,900 square feet (SF) of space located at 330 North Commerce Center Loop, Tucson, Arizona, on substantially the terms set forth, and to take all appropriate actions to complete negotiations and to enter into such related documents as needed. The rental rate is $14.45 per SF, full service, with annual increases to reflect any increases in United Way's building operating costs. The lease will have a 9-year term to begin at the time construction is complete and ready for ASU occupancy.
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to purchase at public auction 14.01 acres of State Trust Land in Graham County, subject to approval of legal documents by the University and Board Counsel. The land will be used to relocate the Mt. Graham Base Camp currently located at the Federal Correctional Institution site in Safford. The Arizona State Land Department has appraised the parcel in question at $29,000 and will offer it at public auction this spring. A $2,500 advertising fee has been paid to the State Land Department to initiate this process.
*Authorization to Modify an Existing Lease with the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (UA)
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to extend and modify the current lease with National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) to include the new Steward Observatory addition until December 31, 2004, and to renew for three additional five-year periods, subject to approval of legal documents by University and Board Counsel. Lease payments will cover the $1.6M cost of construction at $115,000 per year. Lease payments will be $70,000 per year for the original 7,100 square feet plus $115,000 for the new addition for a total annual payment of $185,000.
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to enter into a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Goddard Space Flight Center, to design, fabricate, and test an advanced mirror system demonstrator using a glass membrane with active rigid support phase II - manufacture and testing. The proposed amount of the contract is $3,827,487 for March 1, 2000, through February 28, 2002.
*Request to Join a Proposed Wheat Growers Cooperative (UA)
The Board authorized the University of Arizona College of Agriculture to join the proposed Wheat Growers Cooperative, substantially as described, subject to approval of the necessary documents by University and Board Counsel. This cooperative will provide its members with stable, yearly wheat prices and will also provide additional revenues from the sale of pasta. It is anticipated the Maricopa Agricultural Center Demonstration Farm would join this closed cooperative at a 300-ton level (or about 100 acres), which is 50% of its historical production. The current cost of joining the cooperative at this level would be approximately $25,000.
The Board authorized the execution of all legal documents pertaining to the Master Development Agreement between the Cowden Property owners and the City of Tolleson by the Board's President, Secretary, or Executive Director, subject to review of all documents by Board Counsel.
The Master Development Agreement sets forth the various rights, duties, and responsibilities of the Cowden Beneficiaries and the City of Tolleson. The Agreement would require the Cowden Beneficiaries to pay for the following improvements and fees:
Completion of Phase 1 improvements, including 104th Avenue, Cowden Lane, and 107th Avenue improvements and the extension of water and sewer lines throughout the property. The estimated cost of these improvements ranges from $800,000 to
$1M.
Payment for one half of the cost to extend an EDR Isolation Line to provide a higher quality of water to Albertson's. The estimated cost of this improvement is $75,000.
Payment of a one time in lieu fee for the individual Water Development fees required at a discounted rate to cover all future Water Development fees for the entire property. The estimated cost for this fee ranges from $400,000 to $800,000.
The execution of this Master Development Agreement commits the Cowden property owners to spend from $1,275,000 to $1,875,000 for the required public improvements depending on the outcome of final negotiations with the City of Tolleson. The amount required to be paid by the Board of Regents is 38.5% of the total. In previous actions, the Board has approved adequate amounts to be withheld from the pending sales in escrow of the Somerville, Utility Trailer, and Quaker Oats transactions and from the recent sale of property to Grandilla Inc., Foot Creek Corporation to cover the entire cost of its share of these required improvements.
Regent Ulrich chaired this portion of the meeting.
Review of State Legislation with Potential Impact on the Arizona University System
Mr. Seese-Bieda, Mr. Fahey, Mr. Miller, and Ms. Barton joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Ulrich said the bills being reviewed were organized into four lists: bills to support, bills to oppose, bills to consider as neutral, and bills which are most likely going to advance through the legislative process. He suggested the bills on list four not be discussed.
Mr. Seese-Bieda highlighted a few bills from the "support list." He also summarized the four bills on the "non support" list. HB 2375, lease purchase, requires capital projects financed with lease-purchase arrangements, including certificates of participation, to come before legislative committee for review. HB 2488, sunset review, requires a sunset review and a performance audit of all state agencies every five years, including ABOR.
SB 1512, public employee whistle blowers, prescribes additional protection and processes universities must have in place in order to protect employees who seek whistle blower status in disputes with their employer. Mr. Seese-Bieda noted this issue was before the legislature and the Board two years ago. In response to the proposed legislation at that time, the universities changed their policies and practices as requested. There are now some state employees asking for additional measures and this has given university personnel who also wish additional measures an opportunity to proposed it be done through legislation. The universities believe they have done what was asked of them two years ago. Also, this legislation does not recognize the separation of the university personnel system from the state personnel system.
Regent Jewett said he understood the legislation did not move forward two years ago because commitments were made. He asked if the full faith of that agreement had been met by the universities and was told yes. Dr. Hogle also expressed the strong opposition of the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) to SB 1512. Regent Ulrich asked where the bill currently stood and was told it was ready for a third reading on the floor of the Senate.
SB 1554, fee deduction prohibition, prohibits the universities from deducting administrative fees or overhead expenses from certain biomedical technology transfers that originate with discoveries by university researchers. Mr. Seese-Bieda said this legislation should be of concern to the Board because of the new Intellectual Properties Policy the Board, in conjunction with faculty, administration, and private industry, just spent three years developing. Regent Gignac reminded the Board the current policy is the result of negotiation with private industry and this would take a small piece of technology transfer and make the rules different from the policy. She believes this bill, which lists very specific units that will be exempt from the policy, will set a precedent for other fields to also seek special treatment. Regent Campbell asked if the private sector had been brought into this issue and was told the private sector wishes to see the Policy remain as it was currently passed. However, this issue pertains to how royalties are divided once they are received at the universities, and they are reluctant to weigh in on an issue that primarily involves internal resource allocations.
Regent Ulrich said he was opposed to HB 2425, second student regent, which establishes a second student member of the Board. Student Regents would now serve two years; non-voting in the first year and voting in the second year. Appointment by the Governor and confirmation by the Senate remain intact. He said he believes this will open the floodgates for every constituency to ask for a Regent to represent their group. Regent McKay said she also opposes this bill as she does not believe it is appropriate to have a second Student Regent at the table. She would support having the Student Regent named earlier so he or she would have more time to come to the meetings to listen and to receive the material, but she does not believe they should be at the table and participate in the discussion.
Regent Jewett said he supported the legislation as it is currently written as it does not change the voting makeup of the Board. He takes in good faith the student representations they will not come back to ask for the vote for the second Student Regent. He can understand the learning curve for the Student Regent and can, therefore, support allowing a longer time for the Student Regent to be involved. However, he would not support changing the voting makeup of the Board.
Regent Campbell said he did not support this legislation because he believes it will lead to a second voting Student Regent. He agrees there are other constituents that will then also want a seat at the table. Regent Thompson said she, of course, supports the bill. She said it would be of great value to the Student Regent to allow that person a year to become comfortable sitting at the table and asking questions and she does believe the students have committed to a strictly non-voting second Student Regent. She said branch campus students do participate in the student regent selection process.
President Likins said this concept had been described to him as the selection of the succeeding Student Regent, the Student Regent Designee, a year earlier than is now the case. He said the wording of the bill does not follow what he believed would be proposed and he believes the Board could have supported the legislation if it had been worded differently. He suggested consultation before drafting future legislation might result in legislation that could be supported by more parties.
Regent Gignac encouraged the Board to place this bill in the neutral list and not take a position on it as she can see both sides of this issue. Regent Herstam concurred with Regent Gignac as he has no personal problems with the bill. He is concerned opposing this bill will send a poor message to the students. President Amos said he believed the students and the Regents had been working well together, but he was concerned because the students did not talk to the Regents about this issue; they went directly to the legislature. He does not like the language of the bill, but believes the students working with the Regents could have made some accommodation that would have served the students' purpose. He agrees this bill will lead to other constituencies asking the legislature to add them to the Board. Regent Ulrich said it appears that Regents are divided on this issue, so he suggested it remain on the "neutral" list.
Regent Gignac asked the Board to take a position in opposition to SCR 1008, ABOR members, which puts to a public vote changes in the Constitution to create an elected Board of Regents. She said it would make the Board smaller and less representative than it currently is and would make the Student Regent, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Governor non-voting Regents. She understands this bill may not be proceeding through the process at this time, but she would like to see it moved to the opposition list. Regent Ulrich said he would think the students would oppose this bill. President Amos agreed this bill should be opposed. Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Thompson, the Board voted to move this bill to the "opposition" list.
Regent Gignac said SB 1507, Appropriation for Cancer Research, which provides $15M to the ASU Cancer Research Institute, directs money to a very small group of cancer researchers at ASU, leaving out other cancer researchers at ASU and the UA. She is opposed to a small group of people getting money at the expense of the rest of the university system in tight budget times. She would rather see funding for cancer research go to the Board of Regents for distribution to the universities on a competitive basis.
Regent Ulrich asked for comment from President Coor, who stated ASU does not support the bill and did not initiate it. ASU believes appropriated money for research should be done on a competitive basis and would support the bill if it were written that way. Regent Jewett said he would like to see the motion cast in a positive way. He moved to support SB 1507 if amended to give the $15M appropriation to the Board of Regents for cancer research to be distributed by way of competitive proposals. The motion was seconded by Regent McKay.
President Likins reminded the Board this bill was originated by the same person who originated SB 1554. Regent Herstam said he believed it would be in the best long term interest of the Board and the university system to oppose the bill and move it into the opposition list for that reason. He believes that would be a more definitive statement to the originator. Regent Jewett and Regent McKay removed their motion from consideration. Upon motion of Regent Herstam, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board moved SB 1507 to the "opposition" list.
Regent Gignac said SB 1389, character education program, would provide about $500,000 for development and delivery through school districts of "character education" curriculum. This was an outcome of welfare reform and would funnel federal dollars that flow through to the state. The current practice has the money going to DES and DES has contracts to provide the services. It has been suggested the Arizona K-12 Center might be a good place for providing this service instead of DES. Regent Gignac said she was present as a Board member when the K-12 Board discussed this bill at its last meeting. She believes this will blur the focus of what the K-12 Center is all about. Even though no final vote was taken, several people spoke in opposition to the measure for various reasons and no one spoke in favor of receiving the money. Therefore, she would like the Board to move this bill to the oppose list.
President Lovett said Senator Peterson secured the funding for this "character education" program last year. He approached the K-12 Center and NAU about the possibility of changing the fiscal agent, which must be done by legislation.. She was not present at the meeting of the K-12 Center during which this issue was discussed and she has not read the minutes, so does not know what the feeling of the Board was on this issue. She has, however, spoken to different members of the Board and does know they have different opinions about the issue. President Lovett did not believe Regent Gignac's opinion reflected the majority of the Board, and she did not believe the Board of Regents would gain anything by putting this bill in the opposed list.
Regent Gignac moved to move this bill to the "opposition" list. Regent Ulrich seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote with Regent McKay voting no.
Regent Ulrich moved to approve List 1, bills the Board supports, List 2, bills the Board opposes, and List 3, bills on items the Board will remain neutral, as amended. Regent Herstam seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote.
Arizona University System Report Card
Mr. Seese-Bieda, Ms. Carol Diem, Dr. Mason Somerville, Dr. Milt Glick, and Dr. Paul Sypherd joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Ulrich suggested the Regents go through the Arizona University System Report Card page by page and note any exceptions to the proposed grades. Upon motion of President Amos, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board agreed to change the grade for "Success of Transfer Students" from Satisfactory + to Satisfactory. Upon motion of President Amos, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board agreed to change the grade for "Overall student/alumni satisfaction with faculty" from Superior- to Satisfactory.
President Lovett asked for the methodology used to determine student registration in electronic delivery modes for Fiscal Year 99 to be rechecked as she believed the numbers were too low. Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board agreed to change the grade of "Privatization of university functions" from Superior to Satisfactory. President Amos moved to change the grade of "Proportion of state operating budget used for educational activities" from Satisfactory + to Satisfactory. The motion died for lack of a second.
Regent Gignac said she believes it might be time to look at the Report Card and consider restructuring it before next year. Dr. Hogle said the faculty had a concern with the wording of the Learner Centered Education portion of the Policy Achievements of the Arizona Board of Regents page. It currently states, "The Board has conducted a year-long review of learner centered education to identify ways to concentrate undergraduate learning more on the student and less on institutional or faculty-based teaching methods." The Arizona Faculties Council would like the wording to be modified to read, "... to identify ways to keep concentrating undergraduate learning more on the student." The Regents agreed with that change.
President Amos said he was very appreciative of the efforts the universities have made over the last five years in these areas. He asked the members of the Council of Presidents to consider adding to the highlight section what each university has done to become more cost efficient and streamlined. It was decided the next Report Card should contain a draft of that type of information so the Regents could consider whether or not they would like it included. Regent Ulrich instructed the Central Office staff to prepare the final version of the Report Card with the amendments as made at this meeting and to distribute it promptly to the legislature, the media, the business community, and other stakeholders.
Regents Herstam and Ulrich left the meeting when it recessed at 12:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 1:55 p.m.
Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting.
Undergraduate Consolidated Accountability Report
Regent Jewett reminded the Board the draft Report contained follow-up items from the January discussion when the substitution of the Undergraduate Consolidated Accountability Report (UCAR) for the three existing reports and the three additional measures suggested by the universities was approved. The Board was asked to review the changes to the Report and take action on two recommendations: 1) To review and approve the baseline years and goals for several new measures and changes to existing measures, and 2) To determine a schedule for receiving the Report on an annual basis. In response to Board recommendations, the universities had reviewed and made several changes to the Report, including changing the ranges to a specific numeric value, addressing goals that have already been achieved to determine if the goal should be changed, and ensuring that all goals exceed the baseline measures. However, for the measure regarding the percentage of full-tine lower division students enrolled per semester with two or more primary courses taught by tenured or tenure-track professors, the University of Arizona has reviewed the goal and determined it should remain at 70%.
President Likins said moving faculty into this instructional assignment meant moving them from some other instructional assignment. The faculty must maintain their responsibilities to upper division students as well as lower division students. The university believes the 70% goal allows for the correct mix of responsibilities.
President Amos said he would like the University of Arizona 4A measure, Lower Division Courses Taught by TAs, to have a lower goal than 10%. He said he understood the problem of lack of faculty to fulfill this goal, but he believes it is worth working towards. He would not penalize the universities for not making the goal. However, if the goal cannot not be met because there are not enough faculty, he believed it would be a good way to demonstrate to the legislators the need for more money for faculty. After a discussion of what an optimum number might be and the problems associated with this measure, the Board decided the 10% number could stand.
Under the Common Measures, Regent Gignac addressed 9A which measures the average number of years taken to graduate for students who began as freshmen. She was concerned the measure had gone as far as it could and maybe shouldn't be set as low as it is. She also asked the members of the Council of Presidents to consider, in the future, lowering the measure identified in 9E, the percentage of seniors with more than 160 credit hours, to 155 credit hours. Regent Thompson said the numbers for 9D and 9E were great, but she wanted to know how many of these students had multiple degrees.
Regent Jewett said the Board would receive a partial UCAR in June and the first complete UCAR would be ready in February or March of 2001. Based on the time for reviewing survey data and completing the UCAR, it has been recommended it be received annually in February or March. Regent Jewett moved to accept the Report as submitted with the changes to the existing measures and the goals, baseline years, and reporting years for the new measures. A partial Report should be received by the Board in June of this year with the first of the annual Reports in February or March next year. The motion was seconded by Regent McKay and passed by voice vote.
Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting.
Governor's Task Force on Higher Education Status Report
Regent Jewett said the Governor's Task Force on Higher Education met on February 16, 2000, and agreed upon a purpose statement and five outcomes. The Task Force Agenda materials were included in the Board book under Item 6. During the Task Force meeting, the private education sector, community college presidents, and university presidents each gave reports that responded to the private sector recommendations presented at the January meeting. The presidents were also asked to provide additional background information about their organizations. The Task Force concluded that information technology and general bench marking information, including successful practices other states have used to support the new economy, would be the primary focus of an additional meeting scheduled for March 23.
Strategic Planning Area Review (SPAR) for University Extended Education Programs
Dr. Art Ashton joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett said the Board was being asked to review and provide guidance to the members of the Council of Presidents regarding the Strategic Planning Area Review (SPAR) for the universities' extended education programs. Dr. Ashton explained the SPAR process and the decision to review for the second time the extended education programs for the universities. That review has been completed by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) and the Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) staff. The report has been presented to a number of Senate and House committees. Legislators were supportive of the universities' positions and the Senate Appropriations Chair asked the JLBC staff to work with universities' staffs and Central Office staff to craft a bill. The recommendation coming back to the Board is a request for the Council of Presidents to respond to that legislation by November 1, 2000. The Council of Presidents will come back to the Board before that time for Board approval of the Report which will then be forwarded to the Governor's office.
President Lovett said it was very rare to see a bill go through as many committees and as many hearings as this one has. She said this process should be watched carefully and the Board should be concerned because this has gone substantially beyond the scope of the original intent of the review and because she does not believe the budget figures and other information originating from sources other than the universities has been accurate. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Campbell, the Board approved the recommendations as submitted.
South Campus Residential Facility: Project Initiation (ASU)
Dr. Mernoy Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett informed the Regents Arizona State University was requesting Project Initiation to proceed with negotiations with a private developer for financing, construction, operation, and management of 300 beds of student housing on campus. The project had been presented to the Board as an information item in February of 1999. The construction cost of the facility was estimated to range from $10M to $12M. The next time this project will come before the Board will be for approval of the ground lease.
Upon motion of Regent Thompson, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board granted Project Initiation and approval for ASU Main to proceed with negotiations with a selected developer to construct an approximately 300 bed residence hall. Regent Campbell asked if ASU would have any control over this project once it was built and was told the management firm would have to meet certain defined standards or ASU would have the option to replace that management.
Regent Gignac reported the State board of Directors for Community Colleges of Arizona (SBDCC) met on February 18. The Board, in conjunction with the college presidents, the district governing board members and other interested parties took part in an issue discussion on dual enrollment. During the regular meeting, curricula, concept phase for Maricopa, Pima, and Navajo community college buildings, easements, and quit claim deeds of property were approved. Legislation was also discussed.
President Likins said the UA conducted a study of students who had taken dual enrollment courses at Pima Community College during their high school years and found their subsequent academic performance at the university was excellent and was comparable for students who had advanced placement credit. He said the high schools can no longer afford to teach advanced placement courses; so they have partnered with the community colleges to fill that gap.
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
Dr. Jerry Hogle said the Arizona Faculties Council is putting together a WEB site in conjunction with the learner centered initiative in which faculty, students, and Regents can find information and make contributions to the discussion. After these groups test the site for its usefulness, it will be announced to the world. The address will be http//agarizona.edu/azlearners.
Regent McKay chaired this portion of the meeting.
Infrastructure Improvements: Information (ASU)
Dr. Mernoy Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay informed the Regents Arizona State University will update the Board on campus infrastructure improvements and expansions required to provide capacity for construction and operation of new campus facilities. The estimated cost of these improvements is $13M and is proposed to be funded through gifts, Resident Life Reserves, and Academic Revenue Bonds. Most of these projects have been part of ASU's Capital Improvement Plan for several years.
Dr. Harrison said he would like to let the Board know the magnitude of ASU's infrastructure expansion needs as this will require some revenue bonding. This is an update on ASU's long-range plan to initiate extensive infrastructure upgrades to improve and expand utility services for current and future development on the main campus. All of the infrastructure projects are required to upgrade current utilities, repair deterioration of existing facilities, and to support new building projects currently in design or in planning. Individually, these projects generally do not meet the Board's threshold and would not come to the Board for review.
Regent Thompson asked if there had been any consideration given to cogeneration, since the UA is now planning to use that process, or any other attempt to achieve utility savings. Dr. Harrison said ASU had just received material, through a Request for Proposals, from utility companies and was currently reviewing the huge stack of paper.
Dr. Mernoy Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay informed the Regents ASU was requesting authorization to modify the Disposition and Development Agreement for the Tempe Center, which is located at the southeast corner of Mill and University on the western perimeter of the ASU Main Campus. The Board granted initial authorization for this agreement in September of 1997.
She asked Dr. Harrison to update the Board on the modification to the agreement concerning the proposed underground parking structure which will be replaced with an above ground parking structure with fewer spaces. Dr. Harrison said there were two changes with the most substantive adjustment being the change in parking from underground to above ground. It was discovered the cost for underground parking would be prohibitive. This also allows ASU to take time to develop a comprehensive plan to address parking needs. The other change is the addition of ORIX Corporation to a partnership with TC21.
President Amos asked for further identification of the partnership firms and was told ORIX is one of the largest financial services firms in Japan. ORIX Real Estate Equity, the entity in this agreement, is their wholly owned American real estate development subsidiary that has been in business in the United States for 65 years. TC21 is composed of three local individuals from the Tempe area. President Amos asked how long the ground lease would last and was told 65 years and then the building would revert to ASU.
Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Campbell, the Board authorized the President or Vice Provost for Administrative Services for Arizona State University or their designee to sign and enter into an amended and restated Disposition and Development Agreement with Options to Ground Lease with ORIX TC21 Tempe Venture for the redevelopment of Tempe Center on substantially the terms previously approved, and as amended herein, 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 to carry out the redevelopment of Tempe Center. President Amos voted no.
Dr. Mernoy Harrison joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay informed the Regents Arizona State University was requesting authorization to enter into a 10-year ground lease with options to renew for an additional 14 years, with Athletes' Performance Institute (API) for the construction, operation, and management of an athletic training facility on campus. The estimated cost of the approximately 16,000 square foot facility to be constructed ranges from $1.5M to $2M. The lease requires the facility to be completed by December 2000. API will also receive a limited license to use ASU's turf practice field adjacent to the facility, subject to ASU's primary right of use. API, with Adidas America, Inc., as guarantor, will pay ASU an annual, fair market value rent of $72,500, and other good and valuable consideration, for the first 5 years of the lease, and then a base rent of $145,000 thereafter, increased annually by the CPI for Phoenix. ASU will own the facility at the end of the lease, which may be extended by mutual agreement.
Dr. Harrison described the project as a training and testing facility for professional and Olympic caliber athletes, allowing ASU to bring some of the world's finest athletes, athletic trainers, and athletic scientists to the campus. ASU's athletic training staff will be able to interact with these people to learn new techniques for ASU's athletes. This will also increase ASU's attractiveness for recruiting efforts. ASU will receive some income from the lease. It will be the only facility of this type on a university campus in the United States.
Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Gignac, the Board authorized the President or Vice Provost for Administrative Services for Arizona State University or their designee to sign and enter into a ground lease with API on terms and conditions consistent with the above, and to take all appropriate actions as necessary to go forward with the ground lease.
Infrastructure Improvements - Phase V: Project Approval (UA)
Mr. Joel Valdez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay informed the Regents the University of Arizona was requesting Project Approval for the Infrastructure Improvements: Phase V project and they had reviewed this project on several occasion, most recently at Revised Conceptual Approval in November 1999.
Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Thompson, the Board granted Project Approval to the University of Arizona for the Infrastructure Improvements: Phase V project.
Mr. Joel Valdez joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay informed the Board the University of Arizona was requesting Board authorization to issue and sell System Revenue Bonds for the Main Library Improvements and the Infrastructure Improvements: Phase V projects. Project Approval for this project was just granted in Agenda Item 14 and the Executive Director granted Project Approval for the Main Library Improvements in early February. Authority to issue and sell bonds was granted by the Legislature's Joint Committee for Capital Review in December 1999.
Regent Gignac asked if this would cause an impact on tuition and was told it had been built into next year's budget as it had been anticipated for several years. Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to sell System Revenue Bonds, not exceeding $21,300,000 principal amount, for the purpose of financing a portion of the Campus Infrastructure Improvements, Phase V Project, and the Main Library Improvements Project and 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.
Waiver of Board Policy 6-908, Intellectual Property (UA, ASU, NAU)
Mr. Joel Sideman joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay informed the Regents they were being asked to waive a section of their Intellectual Property Policy for FY2001 to allow the assignment of title to intellectual property to the Arizona Disease Control Research Commission for less than the fully burdened overhead rate. She reminded them the item was discussed in Executive Session earlier in the day.
Mr. Sideman said the Arizona Disease Control Research Commission (ADCRC) acts as a pass-through agency for funding from the legislature for funding for research initiatives. The universities have been primary participants in the program over the years. In this year's funding cycle, researchers from ASU and UA have submitted proposals which are under consideration.
Last year the Board adopted a new Intellectual Property Policy that sets forth a framework under which the universities are prepared to assign title to technology developed by university researchers. This framework calls for the parties receiving the title to have paid the fully burdened overhead rate or an appropriate assignment fee. Under the contract conditions established by the ADCRC for this year's funding cycle, they are not prepared to pay the fully burdened overhead rate; but they do require the universities to assign title.
There was a discussion of the impact this would have on researchers at the universities who depend on grants like these to continue their work and the possible impact on the new technology policy. Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Thompson, the Board tabled this item until the next meeting, hoping a modified contractual relationship with ADCRC could be established for future funding cycles.
Authorization to Lease Three Apartment Complexes (UA)
Dr. Saundra Taylor, Mr. Joel Valdez, and Dr. Melissa Vito joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay informed the Regents the University of Arizona was requesting Board authorization to lease 3 apartment complexes containing 593 units in order to supplement on- campus housing for undergraduate students until pending residence life projects can be completed. The university anticipates an initial lease term of 1 to 2 years, with 3 or 4 possible one year extensions. Dr. Taylor said the University of Arizona has been short of dormitory rooms for freshmen and sophomores the last several years. The university has been leasing apartments to help with the space shortage. This year they sent out a Request for Proposals and 10 apartments responded. The 3 before the Board were selected as an interim solution to manage the housing shortage until additional residence halls can be constructed.
Regent Gignac asked what would happen to students currently living in these apartments who wished to stay and was told residents of the Corleone Apartments are UA students and they will be offered the opportunity to remain. Residents of the Sky View Apartments will be given an option to relocate to one of their other four locations in the area or they can stay in the UA system. The university already had students in some of the Palm Shadows Apartments and there will now be additional units available.
Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Thompson, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to negotiate leases for the following apartment complexes to supplement on-campus housing for undergraduate students: Corleone Apartments, Palm Shadows Apartments, and Sky View Apartments.
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, REPORTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
Regent Thompson said interviews would be conducted the coming weekend by students across the state for next year's Student Regent. Executive Director Blessing reminded the Regents the Tuition Hearing would be held on March 30 from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Teleconferencing will be available from the three main campuses, ASU West, ASU East, NAU Yuma, UA South, and Douglas.
The meeting adjourned at 3:14 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
______________________________________
Judy E. Garza
Secretary to the Board
APPROVED BY:
_______________________________________
George H. Amos, III
President
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Jack B. Jewett
Secretary