 |
MINUTES |
 |
|
MINUTES |
|
ARIZONA
BOARD OF REGENTS
MINUTES OF A MEETING
FEBRUARY 25 AND 26, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STUDY SESSION: ECONOMICS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
REPORT FROM THE HOST PRESIDENT, DR. LIKINS
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
RESOURCES COMMITTEE (Continued)
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 and 26, 1999, in the Cancer Center at the University of Arizona Health Sciences Center in Tucson, Arizona.
President Gignac called the Study Session to order in the Peter Kiewit Auditorium of the Cancer Center at 12:20 p.m. Regents Amos, Campbell, Gignac, Herstam, Jewett, McKay, and Reichelt were present. Presidents Coor, Likins, and Lovett, Executive Director Besnette, Dr. Jerry Hogle, Chair Elect of the Arizona Faculties Council, and Sam Leyvas, Executive Director of the Arizona Students' Association, were also present, along with various staff members from the universities and the central office.
STUDY SESSION: ECONOMICS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
President Gignac said she hoped the Board would be able to reach a consensus today so guidance could be provided to the Council of Presidents with regard to linking tuition and financial aid. Also, on the financial aid portion, she would like to discuss some of the guiding principles for narrowing the gap between the cost of attendance and the help that is available, whether it is gift aid, self help, or something else.
There was a discussion of the five proposed guiding principles/themes as presented in the Executive Summary: 1) The primary goal of the Board's policy framework regarding student financial aid is to maintain access to quality education for resident undergraduate students demonstrating financial need. 2) There is a level of indebtedness which financially needy resident undergraduate students should not exceed. 3) Part of the price of attendance for financially needy resident undergraduate students may be met by students working a reasonable number of hours per week. 4) The remaining need of financially needy resident undergraduate students should be a major consideration in decisions regarding tuition and financial aid and the Board should explore options for addressing it. 5) Private philanthropy should play an increasing part in supporting the financial aid goal to maintain access for financially needy resident undergraduate students.
President Gignac asked if the Board agreed with the first principle. President Coor strongly endorsed focusing on resident undergraduates with demonstrated need. President Likins said he believed everyone had taken for granted this would be the focus, but felt it was good to state it explicitly. Regent McKay agreed. President Gignac said she heard a consensus saying the focus should be on resident, undergraduate students needing financial aid.
Concerning the second principle, the amount of debt for Arizona students has been increasing; the average debt of an Arizona university system undergraduate, graduating with federal student loan debt in 1998, is up to $17,114. President Lovett said that number includes resident and non-resident students and all who borrowed, not just those who are financially needy. She would like to have the data for just financially needy resident students. Executive Director Besnette said he was told by the financial aid people they would have to start collecting that data, it is not currently available. Regent Jewett asked if there was any estimate of what that number would be and was told no. President Gignac asked for this data to be tracked in the future.
President Gignac asked if there would be a range beyond which a student would have incurred such a significant amount of debt it would be a burden to pay off that debt after graduation. President Likins said many students borrow because it is the cost effective way to pay tuition. Understanding there is no current data on this number, President Gignac asked if there is a range of student indebtedness beyond which the Regents would not be comfortable. This number might be helpful in deciding how much financial aid needs to be provided.
Regent Campbell said things change so quickly it is hard to find a number that would be helpful. President Likins said it is hard to identify a set number; however, it raises the question of whether there is a level of debt that alters student behavior by causing them to drop out, not go to graduate school, or to seek employment for the purpose of paying debt rather than pursuing their career. The point at which debt becomes so oppressive it alters behavior differs from student to student. He suggested instead that the Regents should maintain an awareness of debt level when setting tuition or financial aid. Regent McKay agreed. She suggested it might be possible to set a formula using a percentage rather than a number; but it would be hard to say how much debt an individual student should incur and the number of hours they should work since each student's circumstances are different. She agreed awareness is the most important part.
Regent Reichelt said she would like to know what the average median income is for Arizona residents and how long it takes an average student to pay off his or her loan. President Gignac said the amount of debt a student has is a function of the direct cost of education, which this body controls, and the items a student can control to a certain extent, such as transportation and personal expenses. She believes this concept should be considered as part of the framework in trying to narrow the gap with additional financial aid. Mr. Leyvas agreed this is a very important consideration when setting tuition and financial aid.
President Coor said this information should become part of a checklist. When decisions about financial aid and related issues are made, the Regents should consider whether there has been a shift from grants to loans, whether students are borrowing or working more, or whether there is a greater unmet need. Rather than fixing an absolute figure, there should be an awareness of certain basic features.
President Gignac asked Regent Jewett if he would be comfortable with that kind of tuition setting process. Regent Jewett said his thinking has evolved since he came on the Board. It seems as if the students focus on tuition increases and keeping tuition as nearly free as possible. He is troubled by the widening gap and believes the trend is in the wrong direction. He applauds this effort to establish some principles, but believes it will be hard for all Board members to agree exactly on a number or percentage that would not be exceeded in the tuition setting process.
President Gignac asked Regent Herstam how he would suggest tying a checklist and awareness of the issues to the action of setting tuition and financial aid. Regent Herstam said his opinion has also evolved since he joined the Board and he now believes the variables should be used as a checklist. Things change dramatically and he believes everything should be factored in when the time comes, but setting tuition is also a political process just like setting the budget is a political process at the legislature. The students say financial aid is a moving target; it is impacted by things like changing interest rates. That is why they focus on tuition as it affects them the most directly. Therefore, he would like the Board to focus on setting tuition and use the remaining data as a checklist.
Executive Director Besnette said he had seen a report that might be useful as a sample prototype. It outlined debt carried by graduates and contained a survey of graduates asking how they felt about their debt, should they have carried more or less, and how long it took them to pay off their debt. President Likins said no tuition would be optimal, but he does not believe that is possible now as there has been a transfer of responsibility, across the nation, from the state to the family. Regent Jewett agreed "no tuition" is not on the table. However, the range of tuition is from the high end of the lower third to no tuition. The students seem to prefer the formula being considered by the legislature. He believes the zone in which all this consideration takes place is a small one. He hopes any increases will be in the modest range, closer to what the students support, because he does not believe the legislature should set tuition. He believes that is the responsibility of the Board of Regents.
Regent Campbell said several millions of dollars in fees are waived every year for scholarships and employee waivers. President Gignac asked the Council of Presidents to look at these funds to see if the current usage should continue or if changes should be made. Regent Campbell also asked that resident students be given consideration over non-resident students for campus work study programs.
Regent Reichelt said the Regents should be proud of the waivers given in their names to high school students as that is the reason many bright students remain in the state. She cautioned the Board to be careful about considering any changes in this program as many times this is the only aid a bright student receives if the family is just over the limit for need-based financial aid.
President Likins asked if there would be a demand if more good jobs were available on campus for students. Mr. Leyvas said many students go off campus to find jobs because they pay more or are more related to their field of study. He said President Lovett had tried to create some more reasonable, higher paying jobs that would be helpful to students by filling vacancies in staff jobs with students. These jobs were broken up into two, three, or four part-time jobs. However, President Lovett said NAU is the largest employer in the region, so the needs of the students must be balanced with the needs of the community to keep those jobs. Regent Reichelt said she thought on campus jobs are more appealing to students. The current drawback is low pay. Regent Campbell said statistics show students working on campus have a lower drop-out rate than students working off campus.
President Gignac asked why there was such a difference in the guidelines for the number of hours students are allowed to work on campus among the three universities. President Lovett said NAU's guidelines reflect a long-standing belief by the faculty that working more than 20 hours per week creates a negative impact on students. However, they are just an internal guideline which may not be closely followed. Of course, students working off campus or having jobs both on and off campus may work more hours. President Coor said the ASU Main Campus has a greater link between on and off campus employment than many places. For example, entire companies have located close to campus with a commitment to work around students' schedules. President Likins said many of the working UofA students are graduate students and they need to work more than 20 hours per week. He said many students are employed on campus besides the work-study students.
President Gignac asked if there were limits on employment provided by work study and was told they must be needy and their hours are limited to 20 hours per week during the academic year and up to 40 hours per week during summer or breaks. Mr. Leyvas asked if all the allotted work study money is used every year as he thought the unused money could be used to increase wages. He was told the universities are using all the money.
President Gignac said she was hearing the five guiding principles should be combined and viewed as a checklist to be considered whenever the board is talking about tuition. President Lovett said she was concerned with bullet five which says private philanthropy should play an increasing part in supporting the financial aid goal to maintain access for financially needy resident undergraduate students. As a matter of general awareness, it is well stated. However, she believes the Board should not lose sight both of the huge differences among the institutions' ability to raise funds and the differences from one year to the next of each institution to raise funds.
Regent Herstam commented on bullet three, which states part of the price of attendance for financially needy resident undergraduate students may be met by students working a reasonable number of hours per week. He believed it is admirable the universities advise students strongly there is a correlation between working too many hours and students dropping out; but he thinks students should be allowed to work as many hours as they want or need to unless it is a condition of federal aid. President Gignac said she believes the universities have some obligation to keep working hours within limit on the campuses so students will succeed. President Likins said he did not believe students should be limited if they need the money. President Gignac asked what if the students work so many hours it puts them in jeopardy of dropping out because they don't have time to study. President Coor said the universities try to target certain groups of students, such as freshmen, with aid that enables them to neither work nor borrow so they can get established before they add work to the mix.
President Gignac said she was hearing a consensus the guiding principles are reasonable areas of awareness, but the Board would like more data on principle two. President Coor noted the data in the table on Remaining Financial Need Analysis does not include off-campus employment, non-federal family loans, or the potential impact of tax credits. President Gignac said the Illustration on Page 9 shows how the universities currently get to remaining need. When there is talk about narrowing the gap for a financial needy individual, should books and supplies, transportation, and other personal miscellaneous expenses be included in that unmet need when the Board has no control over anything except direct educational expenses? President Coor said he believed there is a federal formula based on a reasonable and prudent expense.
Regent Herstam said data furnished to the Board last summer shows a decade from now Arizona will be in a position of greater diversity of student population with more low income families than today; so unmet needs may mushroom. Mr. Leyvas asked if loan fees and mandatory fees were included and was told the average of the fees is worked into tuition and fee line. The cost of personal computers is not built in unless all students need personal computers, such as in architecture. Last fall the UofA made a blanket adjustment on campus and they are now included in books and supplies.
President Gignac called the Board's attention to the options available to reduce remaining need as presented. Those options which the Board has more direct control over include increasing the percentage of need based set-aside from tuition revenues for financial aid, increasing the allocations of need based waivers, and/or allocating a larger portion of the current student financial aid to financially needy resident undergraduate students. Other options that the Board has less control over include increasing the general fund contribution to the Arizona Student Financial Aid Trust Fund, increasing private philanthropy for financial aid, and forgiveness of loans for designated career choices.
She asked if it would be helpful to the Board to look at remaining need in two different ways, one to see how close we are coming to meeting direct educational expenses and the second to look at the remaining need, including the total price of attendance. President Likins said he thought it would be good for purposes of awareness, but that is only half of the formula. President Coor said he believed the lack of data for off-campus employment presents an inaccurate assessment of unmet need which will not be helpful for awareness use.
Dr. Besnette said pursuing an increase in the legislative contribution is an appropriate avenue; however, a decision would need to be made if marshaling a lot of effort would be worth the possible increase. President Likins said the advantage of that initiative would be the legislature would understand the money would go to students who need the money and not to the universities.
Regent Jewett said he believed keeping tuition low, reducing it, or not increasing it to the extent it has been increased in the past should be added as one of the options over which the Board has direct control. President Gignac referenced a paper called Solving the Tuition Puzzle which suggests tuition be set first, then the entire budget and strategy for obtaining that budget be decided. President Likins said that strategy would have more relevance in a private university where tuition provides the major portion of the budget.
President Gignac asked the Council of Presidents, over the next several months, to review today's discussion and to put together a coherent package, with some additional data, of awareness areas and recommendations for reducing the unmet need for Board consideration in the fall.
The meeting recessed at 1:40 p.m. and President Gignac convened the regular meeting at 2:00 p.m. in the Peter Kiewit Auditorium by leading the Pledge of Allegiance.
PRESENT:
Regent George H. Amos, III
Regent Rudy Campbell
Regent Judy Gignac
Regent Chris Herstam
Regent Jack Jewett
Regent Kay McKay
Regent John Munger (Friday Only)
Regent Jennifer Reichelt
ABSENT:
Regent Donald Ulrich
Governor Jane Dee Hull
Superintendent of Public Instruction Lisa Graham Keegan
Also present were: President Peter Likins, Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Saundra Taylor, Ms. Judith Leonard, Dr. Janet Bingham, Dr. Richard Powell, Mr. Dick Roberts, and Dr. Randy Groth, University of Arizona; President Lattie Coor, Dr. Christine Wilkinson (Friday only), Dr. Mernoy Harrison (Friday only), Mr. Paul Ward (Friday only), and Dr. Elaine Maimon (Thursday only), Arizona State University; President Clara Lovett, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Dr. Charles Connell, Mr. Kurt Davis, and Ms. Anne Barton (Thursday only), Northern Arizona University; Executive Director Frank Besnette, 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; and Dr. Jerry Hogle, Chair Elect of the Arizona Faculties Council.
All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the February 25 and 26, 1999, Documents File.
President Gignac expressed sympathy for Dr. William Davey who has the flu and was not able to attend. She welcomed Dr. Jerry Hogle, Chair Elect of the Arizona Faculties Council, to the table in Dr. Davey's place. She also thanked the administration of the Cancer Center for allowing the Board to use their beautiful facilities for the meeting.
Mr. Sam Leyvas, Executive Director of the Arizona Students' Association, spoke on behalf of legislation outlawing use of social security numbers for identification purposes except where required by law. He stated he was able to gain access to student social security numbers through the universities' web sites.
The 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 Jewett, seconded by Regent McKay. There was no individual discussion of these items.
The Board adopted the
January 15, 1999, Regular Meeting, and the January 20, 1999, Special Meeting
minutes.
Resources Committee Consent
*Appointment of Vice President for Strategic Initiatives (NAU)
The Board approved the appointment of Mr. Edward Groenhout as the Vice President for Strategic Initiatives at Northern Arizona University, retroactive to February 1, 1999, at a fiscal year rate of $115,000. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Groenhout served as Vice Provost for Statewide Programs. He also has served as Interim Vice President for Institutional Advancement and Associate Vice President for Educational Systems Development.
*Special Class Fees for Park Protection I and II (NAU)
The Board approved special class fees in the amount of $150 for Park Protection 310 and $150 for Park Protection 311 at Northern Arizona University, beginning the fall of 1999. The fees will cover the costs of special supplies and equipment such as flashlights, flares, ear and eye protection, and vehicle fees for driver training.
*Financial Advisor and Bond Counsel (UofA)
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to retain for terms of three years, with options for two more years, the following firms for the positions listed, subject to approval of all documents by University Counsel: 1. a) Dain Rauscher, Principal Financial Advisor, b) Piper Jaffray, Alternate Financial Advisor; and 2. a) Snell & Wilmer, Principal Bond Counsel, b) Kutak Rock, Alternate Bond Counsel,
*Sale of Unimproved Land in Kingman, Arizona, and Exception to Board Policy Concerning Auction (UofA)
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to sell directly an unimproved parcel in Mohave County, Arizona, without auction, at the appraised value of $2,500, subject to approval of legal documents by University Counsel. The 5,000 square-foot parcel is described as Lots 13 and 14 of Block 6, Kingman Metropolitan Addition No. 1. To date, no interest has ever been expressed in the property except by the current proposed buyer, Ms. Ofelia Lopez.
*Purchase of Property Located at 1516 East Mabel Street, Tucson (UofA)
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to purchase property located at 1516 East Mabel Street at the current appraised value of $101,000, subject to approval of legal documents by University Counsel. The property is located within the University Planning Area and the owners, Wayne K. Ward, Helen E. Ward, and Wendy Ward, initiated the sales request.
*Purchase of Property Located at 1503 East Helen Street, Tucson (UofA)
The Board authorized the University of Arizona to purchase property located at 1503 East Helen Street at the sales price of $74,000, subject to approval of legal documents by University Counsel. The property is located within the University Planning Area and the owner, William R. Hardwick, initiated the sales request. The current appraised value of the property is $114,000. The remaining $40,000 will be gifted by the owner.
Strategic Planning Committee Consent
*College of Business Facilities Improvement Plan (ASU)
Arizona State University informed the Board of its intention to complete phases I, II, and III of its Facilities Improvement Plan for the College of Business (COB) over the next three years. Projects that need to pass through the Board's capital development process will be submitted at the appropriate time. Work will begin immediately on smaller projects not requiring Board approval. ASU anticipates coming forward with the following potential major renovation projects: 1) Conceptual Approval request for the COB-West (BA) Building Patio Infill/First Floor Renovation/New Cady Mall Entry/Identity Project; and 2) Conceptual Approval request for the conversion of the COB-West (BA) basement to create four university classrooms and the conversion of five classrooms on the fourth floor into departmental office/work space.
Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting.
Review of State Legislation with Potentially Direct Impact on the Arizona University System
Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda and Ms. Anne Barton joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett announced Representative Weiers had planned to join the meeting to discuss HB2453, but was unable to attend today. The Regents discussed and took the following positions on bills currently before the legislature:
HB2154, Student Identification, Colleges: This bill would prohibit colleges and universi-ties from using social security numbers for identification by June 30, 2001. Mr. Seese-Bieda said there was some concern with ambiguity as to when social security numbers could be used, for instance, transferring student records between the universities and a community college. President Coor said the underlying premise of allowing students to choose not to use their social security numbers and to not have the numbers displayed if the students do choose to use them for identification purposes is an important issue for all three universities. Especially disturbing is Mr. Leyvas's comment concerning access to social security number through the web; and all three universities will work to see how best to secure the numbers. However, Dr. Coor said he believed the students should be able to choose to use their numbers if they wish; but he believes the universities should make it clear the students do have a choice in this matter. He also believes it is more appropriate for Board to make policy on this issue, not the legislature. He endorsed the recommendation to oppose.
President Likins said the UofA is in process of replacing its student information software, a lengthy and expensive process that will enable the university to identify students with identifi-cation numbers other than their social security numbers. He is concerned with the timetable affixed to the legislation. Therefore, he opposes the legislation even though the university is in the process of accomplishing its goals. He believes the process will be for the student to provide the university with his/her social security number. That number will be matched with a number that becomes an accessible identification number and the matching social security number will be kept confidentially in the records. However, if ten years in the future there is a need to identify that student with a social security number, the university could go to that confidential record.
Dr. Hogle said there is also a problem with the legislation as it refers only to students. This issue is the same for faculty and staff. The faculty believe the protection process ought to available to all in the university system. Regent Jewett asked if amendments, such as had been suggested for student choice, longer timetable, and the inclusion of all university employees, could be offered to make the bill more palatable so the Board could support it. Mr. Seese-Bieda said the government affairs people could pursue those options. President Gignac asked that it be made very clear to legislators we absolutely support privacy for students and all university employees, that is not what we are opposing; but she urged trying to amend the bill so the Regents could support the legislation or at least remain neutral. Regent Jewett summarized the discussion by saying the Board would support the bill with amendments as discussed, but opposes it as now stated.
HB2338, Regents; Members; Tuition Increases, and HB2657, Regents; Members; Tuition Increases; Public Notice. These bills would provide a maximum percentage increase in the tuition that can be set by the Regents and impose restrictions in terms of how the notification of those meetings will be handled. President Gignac asked why there were two bills so similar and was told the second bill also contains some of the provisions that were amended out of the first bill. Executive Director Besnette asked for more detailed information on the two bills.
Regent Jewett asked Mr. Leyvas for comments. He said originally HB2338 included a number of provisions in addition to the tuition cap: a requirement for a certain number of days notice to the public for a tuition hearing, a requirement the notices be published in a newspaper of general circulation in three different counties, and a legislative liaison. For tactical reasons, those additional provisions were removed. Several of those provisions, the ten day notice and the notice in general circulation papers, were put back in HB2657. The legislative liaison was also left out of HB2657.
Regent Jewett commented he personally might not object to using an index for tuition and he can certainly see the value of public notice; however, he believes the Board already provides public notice. If there is a need to improve on current practice, that could easily be done. He believes these bills erode the authority of the Board to govern the universities, so he urged the Board to oppose them. President Coor agreed, stating it is the fundamental responsibility of the Board to set tuition and these bills would undermine that responsibility. Regent Jewett said he was hearing agreement to hold a position of opposition.
HB2389, University Research Parks: Mr. Seese-Bieda said he was not sure the bill made it to a second reading in the House, but there is an assumption there is still legislative interest in prohibiting any future decision by the Board to get into a research park situation. President Gignac commented there is some preliminary interest in a consortium among tribal groups, community colleges, and a university for an economic development incubator which is similar to a research park. To say there will not be any new ones presupposes the only places these are needed or necessary or are of a benefit to the state or community is in the Phoenix Valley or Tucson. She does not agree with that, and recommended opposition to the bill. Regent Jewett said he believed there was an information gap concerning the parks and he hoped there would be an awareness effort made to inform the sponsors of the bill. President Coor said efforts had been made on behalf of the ASU Research Park. Board Chairman Jack Pfister had written a document describing the importance of the research parks that was used in the discussions. He offered to furnish copies to Board members. President Likins said there had also been substantial explanations on behalf of the University of Arizona Research Park and he believed the efforts from the current parks are what had caused the modifications to the legislation. However, he agreed closing the doors on future parks would be inappropriate.
Regent Herstam stated he felt uncomfortable taking a position on this legislation since he feels he doesn't have the data to make an informed decision. He would like to see the report given to the legislative committee. He believes the history of the creation of the ASU Park is what resulted in this legislation as there is a belief there may have been more commercial development, which competes with the private sector, than university-oriented research development at the Park.
Regent Campbell said CC&R's had been adopted for the Park in the beginning that matched the enabling legislation. Those CC&R's have been followed. Only Walgreens has deviated slightly from this plan and a portion of their operation is not tax exempt. He believes part of the problem stems from the negative 1997 Auditor General's Report that was prepared with year old information. Since that time, there has been an economic upswing and the Park is doing extremely well. However, the early perceptions are hard to erase.
Regent Herstam commented he was also a part of the creation of the ASU Research Park and voted for its creation as a legislator. Regent Jewett asked if the legislation was still alive and was told that was uncertain. President Gignac suggested the Board position be left as opposition now and the legislation be watched to see if it changes. Regent Jewett did not hear any opposition to this position.
HB 2397, Historical Preservation; Duties: Mr. Seese-Bieda said this bill would change some of the authority Arizona State Museum has over preservation of antiquities. The people who are charged with protecting those antiquities believe the changes would imperil the preservation so are asking the Board to oppose the bill. President Likins said the Director of the Arizona State Museum would acknowledge the Museum has behaved in the past in a way that closed information access to interested parties in state government. He has determined to alter the mode of operation to change that problem and has communicated extensively with the authors of the bill. Regent Jewett suggested the Board continue to oppose the legislation and heard no opposition to that position.
HB2453, Barry Goldwater State University: President Coor said he, Provost Maimon, and Dr. Besnette met with Representative Weiers to discuss his interests and to invite him to make his concerns known to the Board. He has since withdrawn the bill. With the agreement of the Board President, he was invited to speak to the Regents at this meeting, but his legislative duties did not allow him to attend. Dr. Coor said ASU would like to fully examine the options suggested by the legislation, especially in the area of lower division courses since that would infringe on the cooperative programs with the community colleges and the definition of ASU West and its place in the university system. Those options would then be brought to the Board for consideration.
SB1081 Performance Based Incentives Pilot Program: Mr. Seese-Bieda said this would propose a pilot program for incentive pay. The resources used to create this pilot program would be a reallocation of existing university resources, namely savings on job vacancies. The recommendation is to oppose the bill because it is not funded. Regent Jewett asked if the legislature and the Board staff have identified what kind of resources it would take to run this program and was told the legislation asks the universities to determine how much money they have in vacancy savings and then allot that much money to this program.
President Gignac said the Board could support the bill if it was financed with new funding and not vacancy savings as vacancies were sometimes not filled because the money did not exist to fill them. President Likins said all would welcome a funded mandate but not an unfunded one. Regent Herstam pointed out Senator Huppenthal is not just picking on universities. He is visiting with most state agencies and is urging them to identify a small section or division within their departments to try to create a pilot project and identify savings and to develop this type of process. Regent Herstam does not believe the state agencies have received funding for their pilots, either. Regent Jewett said he was hearing the Board would support this legislation if it were funded.
SB1396, Public Employees; Whistle-Blower Changes: Mr. Seese-Bieda explained this bill prescribes for the universities some additional aspects to their whistle-blower protection policies. He reminded the Board the universities had agreed to additions to their whistle-blower policies last year in lieu of legislation. President Coor said there had indeed been agreements made last year and the universities believe they have upheld their part of the agreement; therefore, they see no reason for a legislative solution this year.
President Gignac asked if all three universities had new procedures in place now that address the issues or concerns of last year's legislation. President Likins said the UofA has an interim policy in place that meets those requirements as the new policy is currently being deliberated by the faculty senate. He would like to understand what is lacking or is not satisfactory in the new policy to the authors of the new legislation.
Mr. Seese-Bieda said the legislation seeks to make the university policies more parallel to the existing and proposed state personnel policy. Also, in the due process portion of the bill, it is proposed that the agreement the universities pay for the third party or independent hearing examiner somehow taints the credibility of that process, even though the examiner must be agreed upon by both parties. So the legislation states it becomes the responsibility of the employee who is grieving the matter to pay half the cost of the examiner. The universities' policy is written from the standpoint of requiring the universities to bear the cost of an employee grievance procedure so all employees can afford to access the process. President Likins said the universities would be happy to make that a matter of employee discretion so an employee who could not afford to pay could still use the process.
Mr. Seese-Bieda said the legislators also had expectations the university policies would have been in place before this time and there would have been some time to evaluate the new policies as they were used. However, the average number of whistle blower cases over the last seven or eight years has been two whistle blower cases per year per campus; so the universities are not dealing with a large magnitude of complaints.
President Lovett said the disconcerting part of the new legislation is that the agreement reached last year allowed the universities to review their internal processes and to strengthen those processes by adding the independent hearing officer. If the intent is to tell the universities, regardless of what was agreed upon last year, they need to be the same as the state personnel policy, a lot of time was wasted developing the new policies. The NAU faculty is scheduled to vote on their new policy March 1.
Dr. Hogle said the Arizona Faculties Council is opposed to the legislation because they believe the universities have lived up to the agreement made last year; and they believe the sponsors of the legislation are still trying, as much as possible within the state constitution, to take personnel decision making out of the university system and away from the Board of Regents. The current legislation would allow the grievant, if not satisfied at the end of the process, to take the case to court to be tried de novo, which means the case would start over. The faculty believe that would violate the principle of peer review.
President Coor reported ASU Main and ASU West faculties have both voted for the new policies and some minor editorial work is in process to make sure they are congruent. ASU East currently falls under the ASU Main plan.
Regent Jewett commented he would like to have a clearer understanding of the additional protections in the legislation; so he would like to have the provisions of the legislation scheduled for discussion at some future Board meeting. He could support a position of opposition to the bill with the agreement of a future discussion of the issue. He would like to see the Board engage in issues before they are brought to the legislature.
President Likins said this is not just a faculty issue; most whistle blowers are not faculty members--they are staff members or student employees. He said the universities had spent a great deal of time trying to understand the various needs and to devise something that was fair and balanced. Regent Jewett asked for any further comments on this bill and heard none.
HB2014, ASRS Retirement Window: Regent Jewett said the recommendation on this bill is for a neutral position. President Coor said the universities support the initiative, but would plead for the window to be broadened. The current timing would allow a faculty member sixty days in which to make a decision which would make departure the end of August with classes already scheduled and no way to know if they could be properly staffed. The ideal would be to have a year window, but certainly six months would be workable. President Likins agreed the tight window would create problems with the teaching schedule. Regent Jewett said he sensed the Board wished to support the legislation, but would request a longer window.
HB2266, Postsecondary Education; Remedial Courses; Prohibition: President Gignac commented the bill would prohibit both community colleges and universities from offering remedial courses. She believes this legislation forgets the non-traditional student who has been out of school for a period of time and she believes the Board should oppose the bill. President Likins said the Board should be clear its opposition stems from the inclusion of the community colleges in the legislation. Regent Jewett said he heard no objections to this position.
Regent Jewett reported he and Dr. Besnette met with Senator Gnant several weeks ago to discuss achieving a higher level of communication, trust, and confidence between the Board and the legislative leadership. The Senator was in agreement and had some recommendations to make that happen. Another meeting, to include President Gignac, has been scheduled with Senator Gnant.
Annual Arizona University Report Card
Mr. Seese-Bieda, Dr. Connell, and Dr. Gottfredson joined the meeting for this discussion. This item was tabled at the last meeting due to questions about the revised definitions in the grading system.
Mr. Seese-Bieda said the Executive Summary in the current meeting materials has a gray check mark to reflect last year's grade and a black check mark to illustrate this year's recommended grade. Even though there were some changes made to two of the definitions of the grades, it was reaffirmed with the universities those changes were meant as clarifying and did not influence the recommended grade for any specific indicator. Language has been added to the section entitled "Grading System" to explain the changes. Data was reviewed and verified for the indicators the Regents had questioned and the recommended grades were reviewed to make certain they were in line with the empirical data provided.
Regent Reichelt said the addition of last year's check marks made it much easier to see where improvements had or had not been made. She said she had met with students on all the campuses and they agreed with the recommendations relating directly to students. She asked why 160 hours had been chosen as excess hours as students believe that is a high number. She was told when that number was chosen it was believed there were many students with more than 160 hours and there was discussion concerning penalizing those students by charging non-resident tuition. Instead, the Regents chose to decrease the average number of hours for most degrees to 120 and the 160 figure was chosen as a beginning number. President Gignac agreed it might be time to consider lowering that number.
There was a discussion about the definition changes between the 1998 and 1999 Reports. For the "Needs Improvement" definition, last year the threshold was "No evidence of positive change." This year it is proposed the threshold be limited to "Limited evidence of positive change." The threshold on the "Unsatisfactory" last year was "Performances below expectations." This year the threshold is "No evidence of positive change and no initiative for improvement was underway."
The Regents reviewed the grades listed on the report. President Gignac raised a question on "Progress toward implementing collaborative on-line academic degree programs." She does not believe the grade should jump from unsatisfactory to satisfactory because three programs were implemented as there is still a lot of work to do in this area.
President Likins said it was important to know what is being measured. The adequacy of the progress is being measured, not the adequacy of the on-line collaborative programs. He believes the last year has seen extraordinary progress. President Gignac said the issue needs to be revisited at some time to have better understanding as to where this issue is heading.
Regent Jewett said this instrument has been used for three years. Prior to preparing this report next year, at least some of the matters should be revisited to see if the measures need to be recalibrated or if it is time to move on to different objectives. President Gignac asked Regent Jewett to work with staff to facilitate this change. Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board directed the universities and central office staff to release the modified Report Card to the legislature and the public the week of March 1, 1999. Regent Reichelt stated students' concerns with the area of advisement and expressed her hope the universities would continue to work with this area.
The meeting recessed at 3:21 p.m. and reconvened at 9:52 a.m. on Friday, February 26.
REPORT FROM THE HOST PRESIDENT, DR. LIKINS
President Likins announced there would be a tour available following the meeting for any Regents who would like to see the Cancer Center. He introduced Professor Jori Hancock, Head of the Dance Division of the School of Music and Dance. Professor Hancock explained the multifaceted approach used to educate the dance majors. Students are scholars, athletes, and artists. After rehearsing and performing, they go home to study academic subjects. He told about the benefit performances the students have given, festivals they have partipated in, and trips they have taken. He presented a video of a presentation given by Ben Vereen when he visited the campus.
President Likins reminded the Regents they would begin in April to discuss the ways the learning process in universities is changing and how faculty are trying to more deeply engage students in the learning process. The faculty in the arts have always understood the value of teachers and students working closely together.
Regent Reichelt chaired this portion of the meeting.
Student Union/Bookstore Replacement Project: Design-Build Agreement Approval (UofA)
Mr. Joel Valdez, Mr. Dick Roberts, and Mr. Bob Smith joined the meeting for this discussion. Mr. Valdez said Mr. Smith and the UofA legal counsel created a prototype of a new construction agreement. There was a considerable amount of student involvement in the planning for this project. The university expects to finance the project with Certificates of Participation, gifts, and non-academic reallocations from the Intercollegiate Athletic Department and the Utility Infrastructure Plant Fund. Discussions have taken place with Mr. John Lee from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee staff and he has agreed with the long-term financial plan.
Mr. Smith explained the design/build process allowed the contractor, Swinerton & Walberg Builders (formally Conelly Swinerton Constructing Co.) and the architect, MHTN, to work closely together. The university believes the proposal submitted by the recommended design/build team will save a substantial amount of money because it alleviates the need to relocate existing utility infrastructure. The university believes this cost savings to be a direct result of using the design/build procurement process. Mr. Jeff Stebar of MHTN presented more details on the project. This will be a full replacement of the current union with new construction. It will be a two-phase construction process that requires no temporary relocation of mandatory services. The building has been designed around a main north-south axis and is separated along the lines of the bookstore on the west side and the student union on the east side with an open space nicknamed "the canyon" through the middle. There will be an underground service dock below grade. There will be "pedestrian-friendly" activities along the mall, such as dining and retail facilities and retail space. The memorial lounge will be the most prominent space in the building and will make direct reference to the U.S.S. Arizona.
President Gignac thanked everyone for their work on this project. President Likins said this is the most complex construction project he has ever been associated with and he said Mr. Valdez's work and the development of the design/build process had made this building possible. He also stated his appreciation for the financial participation of the Intercollegiate Athletic Department and Mr. Lee's willingness to work with the university. Regents Campbell and Munger commended the university for its work on this project.
Upon motion of Regent Reichelt, seconded by Regent Munger, the Board granted approval to the University of Arizona to proceed with the Design/Build Agreement for the Student Union/Bookstore Replacement Project.
Psychology Research Laboratory Renovation: Conceptual Approval and Project Approval (UofA)
Mr. Joel Valdez and Mr. Bob Smith joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Reichelt explained the University of Arizona was requesting Conceptual and Project Approval for the renovation of the first floor of the Psychology Building to accommodate required research laboratories. When the project was first initiated in June of 1998, it was under $1M. It has now exceeded that limit and requires Board approval. Upon motion of Regent Jewett, seconded by Regent Reichelt, the Board granted Conceptual and Project Approval to the University of Arizona for the Psychology Research Laboratory Renovation project.
Setting of 1999-2000 Residence Hall Rates (NAU, ASU, UofA)
Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Dr. Saundra Taylor, and Dr. Sarah Bickell joined the meeting for this discussion.
Regent Reichelt explained the three universities were requesting approval for 1999-2000 residence hall and family housing apartment rates. The increases will provide funding to address increased operating costs and deferred maintenance. The residence hall increase requested by NAU will also address expanded academic support services such as computer labs in residence halls. The increase requested by the UofA will also address anticipated debt service expenses resulting from the construction of two new residence halls.
Regent Reichelt told the Regents she had met with or talked with all the residence hall association presidents as well as individuals on the campuses and they were in agreement with the requests. Regent Munger moved that the Board approve the 1999-2000 residence hall and family housing apartment rates requested by the three universities. The motion was seconded by Regent Campbell.
President Lovett informed the Board NAU will be bringing to the Board a proposal to be implemented beyond the year 2000 to do a pilot on differential residence hall rates based on the lengths of contracts students are willing to sign.
Regent Reichelt asked why ASU students pay more for residence halls than UofA and NAU students. Dr. Wilkinson said ASU had reduced its rates over the last ten years. President Likins said the rates depend extraordinarily on when a university last built a structure because the costs are spread over the entire residence hall program. The motion passed unanimously.
Amendment to Board Policy Chapter VII Remaining Sections (First Reading)
Regent Reichelt explained this amendment to Board Policy Chapter VII deals with delegating substantial authority to the universities to make decisions regarding acquisitions, sales, leases, and exchanges of real property. This will allow the universities to handle property transactions when the value is less than $250,000. President Gignac called the Board's attention to ABOR Policy 7-212, Naming of Buildings and Improvements, which is not recommended for revision at this time. She would like the Board to begin a discussion of this topic at the April meeting.
Regent Jewett chaired this portion of the meeting.
SALT Center Building: Project Initiation (UofA)
Mr. Joel Valdez and Mr. John Harvey joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett explained the University of Arizona was requesting Project Initiation for the construction of a 16,100 gross square foot Strategic Alternative Learning Techniques Center for Learning Disabilities (SALT) Building at a cost of approximately $2.7M. The SALT Center is a self-supporting, fee-based operation that provides services to approximately 500 students with learning disabilities having to do with written or spoken language, as well as instructional information to educational institutions in Arizona and the nation. The proposed capital funding is through gifts; operation and maintenance funding is through SALT funds and eventually through endowment earnings. President Likins said the SALT Center is a nationally recognized program.
Upon motion of Regent McKay, seconded by Regent Reichelt, the Board granted Project Initiation approval to the University of Arizona to construct a new SALT Center facility.
Residence Hall Acquisition and Expansion: Project Initiation (UofA)
Regent Jewett explained the University of Arizona was seeking approval to acquire the 18,100 gross square foot former Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity house for use as a 57-bed residence hall and for Project Initiation approval to construct an 80-bed, 20,000 square foot addition. The university currently owns the land the TKE building resides on and is leasing the building for use as a residence hall. The land for the addition is also owned by the university. The proposed purchase price of the house is estimated at $1.17M and will be financed through the Residence Life Auxiliary Enterprise Fund. The cost of constructing the addition is estimated at $3.72M. It will be funded by Certificates of Participation and will be entirely paid by residence hall revenues. No additional residence hall rate increases would be necessary to finance the project. The University of Arizona turned away approximately 500 students who requested housing in the Fall of 1998. Student housing occupancy rates have been 100% over the last ten years.
Mr. Harvey compared the costs of this project to the ASU project. Mr. Valdez explained there was money for replacement parking built into any project that eliminates parking. Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to purchase the former TKE fraternity house and granted Project Initiation for the building expansion.
Residence Life Expansion: Project Initiation (ASU)
Dr. Mernoy Harrison and Dr. Christine Wilkinson joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Jewett explained this is generally a multi-year development plan that includes a new residence life building, new building additions, renovations and deferred maintenance. It specifically includes a new Project Initiation for a 250 bed, 68,750 square foot residence hall costing an estimated $8M. Project Initiation is also requested for additions to three existing residence halls that will add 257 beds and 73,700 square feet at an estimated cost of $8.2M.
Dr. Wilkinson explained the increased usage of the dorms and Dr. Harrison explained the construction plan. President Gignac congratulated ASU on its residence hall programs and expressed appreciation for the presentation of the overall plan. Regent Campbell commented on how ASU had increased its residence life occupancy over the last few years. Upon motion of Regent Campbell, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board accepted the development plan presented by ASU and granted Project Initiation to Arizona State University Main for the multi-year Residential Life New Building and Additions.
Regent Herstam reported the State Board of Directors for Community Colleges approved the conceptual master plan for the new Red Mountain Campus of Mesa Community College and approved the appointment of architects for the new Pima Community College Campus in northwest Tucson. A hearing was announced in conjunction with a new rule regarding the procedures for offering community college courses in conjunction with Arizona high schools that is referred to as concurrent enrollment. Faculty at both the universities and the community colleges have expressed concerns in the past about the rigor of these courses.
President Gignac reported she attended the Arizona All-Academic Team Recognition luncheon where, on behalf of the Board, she presented the team members with tuition waivers to the universities. She advised the Regents of the receipt of a letter from Dr. Arthur DeCabooter, President of Scottsdale Community College and member of the Scottsdale Charros. The Charros plan to award scholarships each year to two students attending one of the Arizona public universities and majoring in education. These scholarships will fully fund tuition and fees, room and board, and stipends for four years. The plan is to eventually fund eight scholarships on a continuing basis. Those students will also receive a Charros' scholarship ring.
President Gignac reported the Joint Conference Committee, composed of members from the Board of Regents and the Community College State Board, met earlier in the month. They discussed items on the budget for the Transfer Articulation Support System. The JLBC staff had recommended matching funds from the universities and the community colleges be required to support the Transfer Articulation Support System and that those matching funds be spent first. Board members were urged to oppose this micro-management of the system.
President Gignac said there was a discussion of the University of Arizona's new general education program which is a very innovative program requiring academic departments across the universities to utilize a single, university-wide, general education curriculum. This should simplify transfers from the community colleges since the students need to focus only on a single general education curriculum. Students completing the new Arizona General Education Curriculum, AGEC, and transferring to the university will meet all the general education requirements. However, the community colleges are concerned certain individual courses included in the UofA general education program may not have any transfer equivalent at the community college level. It could cause difficulties for students who do not complete the new AGEC before they transfer. President Likins said he was working with the Community College Presidents to attempt to resolve the problem without inhibiting the faculties' right to design innovative programs for the benefit of students.
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
Dr. Jerry Hogle, Chair Elect of the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC), thanked the Regents and presidents for joining the AFC for breakfast. The AFC would like to see a revised process for examining the entire budgeting of the university system. They believe tuition is talked about too much out of context of the whole system and the whole financing structure. There is a disconnect between the budget preparations and the actual results that go to the legislature. There is a problem between strategic planning and actual funding. The AFC proposes there be some formal discussion process, involving faculty, student, administrative, Regent, and legislative representation to talk about revising the budget process significantly.
The meeting recessed at 11:40 a.m. and reconvened at 1:10 p.m.
RESOURCES COMMITTEE (Continued)
Regent Reichelt chaired this portion of the meeting.
Settlement of Claim Filed by East Valley Institute of Technology (UofA)
Regent Reichelt explained the University of Arizona was seeking permission to settle a claim by East Valley Institute of Technology (EVIT) regarding damages suffered as the result of environmental contamination of real property formerly owned by the university. Under the proposed terms of settlement, the University and State Risk Management will each contribute half of the settlement amount. The University's share of the settlement will be $418,606.50 plus $21,291.53 as its share of consultant's fees and related costs. Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent McKay, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to settle the claims of East Valley Institute of Technology as set forth above, provided the written settlement agreement with respect thereto be in a form acceptable to University Counsel and Board Counsel, and that no payment be made by the University until such agreement is executed.
Regent McKay chaired this portion of the meeting.
Appointment of Regents Professors (NAU)
Regent McKay reminded the Board the title "Regents' Professor" is reserved for faculty members with exceptional achievements that have brought them national or international distinction. The title serves as recognition of the highest merit and unusual contributions to the quality of an individual university.
Provost Connell presented the names of Michael R. Wagner, Professor of Forest Entomology, and Stan Lindstedt, Professor of Biology, to the Regents for appointment as Regents' Professors.
Professor Wagner is known widely in the field of forest entomology, with over 100 referenced research publications, including three books. Along with his teaching and mentoring responsibilities, he has used two stints as Fulbright Senior Scholar to establish a research plan in West Africa to save a key endangered species, the iroko tree, which is a key element of the tropical rainforest ecosystem. Closer to home, Professor Wagner was part of an award-winning team that developed a way to treat paper mill waste from a Stone Containers Corporation mill in Snowflake, Arizona, so the waste is converted into usable water for irrigation purposes.
Professor Stan Lindstedt has achieved world-wide recognition for his creativity and insight as a researcher in a wide ranging scope of interests that have led to published results in Nature magazine and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, among others. His lab at NAU has become one of the top two heart/lung research laboratories in the world. He believes in the integration of the undergraduate student in the lab experience and two of his students have recently won prestigious recognition, including the first Howard Hughes Fellowship awarded to an NAU student.
Upon motion of Regent Campbell, seconded by Regent Munger, the Board approved Northern Arizona University's request to appoint Professor Stan Lindstedt and Professor Michael R. Wagner Regents' Professors, with the appointments to take effect July 1, 1999, and to carry a salary increase of $5,000 each.
Western Undergraduate
Exchange Program of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE)
Dr. Dewayne Matthews, Senior Program Director of the Student Exchange Program at
WICHE, joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent McKay explained this
approval would allow the universities to participate in the Western
Undergraduate Exchange Program (WUE), one of the programs offered by the Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). This will help increase the
geographical diversity of Arizona students, strengthen support for the
development of academic programs, and offer Arizona residents the opportunity to
study at participating WUE institutions in other states. Dr. Besnette reminded
the Board Regent Munger had suggested the universities investigate this program
option.
Upon motion of Regent Munger, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board authorized the universities to fully participate in WUE and to annually report to the Board which programs will accept WUE students and under what conditions. The Board also approved the exclusion of these students from the policy limit on non-resident student enrollment.
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS, REPORTS, AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
Regent Reichelt said she had begun her second tour of each of the campuses to talk to students. She commended the residence life departments for including students in the process of determining rate increases and selecting priorities. Dr. Hogle expressed appreciation to Dr. Frank Besnette for everything he has done for the university system during his tenure as Executive Director and during his years at NAU.
The meeting adjourned at 1:25 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
______________________________
Judy E. Garza
Secretary to the Board
APPROVED BY:
______________________________
Judith A. Gignac
President
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Kay McKay
Secretary