 |
MINUTES |
 |
|
MINUTES |
|
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
MINUTES OF A MEETING
May 30, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROGRAMS COMMITTEE STUDY SESSION
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
REPORT FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA (Continued)
AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD REGENTS MEDAL
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL
ELECTION OF BOARD OFFICERS FOR 1997-98
REPORT
FROM THE BOARD'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR COMMUNITY
COLLEGES OF ARIZONA
ADOPTION OF BOARD
CALENDAR FOR 1998-99
INQUIRIES, REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
<<<=>>>
MINUTES OF A MEETING
ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS
May 30, 1997
A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held on May
30, 1997, in the Canyon/Madera Room at the Tucson Marriott University Park
Hotel, 800 East Second Street, Tucson, Arizona. President Elect Campbell called
the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.
PRESENT: Regent George H. Amos, III
Regent Eddie Basha
Regent Rudy Campbell
Regent Arthur Chapa
Regent Kurt Davis
Regent Judy Gignac
Regent John Munger
Regent Jonathan Schmitt
Regent Donald Ulrich
ABSENT: Regent Fife Symington
Regent Lisa Graham Keegan
Also present were: President Manuel Pacheco, Dr. Paul
Sypherd, Mr. Joel Valdez, Dr. Saundra Taylor (Afternoon only), Dr.
Michael Cusanovich, Dr. Michael Gottfredson, Mr. Richard Roberts (Afternoon
only), Dr. Randy Groth, and Mr. Greg Fahey, University of Arizona;
President Lattie Coor, Dr. Milton Glick, Dr. Charles Bantz, Dr. Charles Backus,
Dr. Christine Wilkinson, and Mr. Jennus Burton, Arizona State University;
President Clara Lovett, Dr. Jeanette Baker, Dr. Charles Connell, Mr.
Norm Hintz, and Mr. Sam Polito, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director
Frank Besnette, Board Counsel Joel Sideman, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza,
Dr. Mary McKeown, Dr. Thomas Wickenden, Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda, and Ms.
Norma Salas, Central Office; Mr. John Platt, Student Regent Designee, and Dr. John
Schwarz, Chair of Arizona Faculties Council.
All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents
referred to in these minutes can be found in the May 30, 1997, Documents File.
President Elect Rudy Campbell called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m. He
acknowledged the presence of John Platt, the Student Regent designee. He offered
congratulations to the University of Arizona Women's Softball team for winning
the Pac 10 and NCAA Championship this year, noting they have won the NCAA
Championship five times in the last seven years. He also congratulated the
Arizona State University Women's Golf Team for winning the NCAA Championship
this year, noting they have won the NCAA Championship four of the last five
years.
PROGRAMS COMMITTEE STUDY SESSION
Regent Gignac chaired this portion of the meeting.
Information Session on Instructional Activities and Other Faculty Work
President Coor introduced the topic on behalf of the members of the Council of
Presidents, the Provosts, and the faculty leaders. He said there would be
opportunity for Regents to state their individual concerns today so a collective
sense of the issues the Board would like addressed could be obtained. Dr. Robert
Diamond, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Director of the Center for Instructional
Development, and Professor of Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation,
and Higher Education at Syracuse University, will help structure the discussion.
It is hoped this information session will work toward the development of a clear
statement of problems at the June meeting, with a major plan to address these
issues being developed during the summer and fall.
Dr. Coor stated faculty workload is the third piece of three major pieces the
Board has been addressing the last five years. Undergraduate instruction and
post-tenure review were the first two pieces. He identified the perceptions he
believed Regents, legislators, and the public have concerning faculty workload.
First, it is believed faculty members are not working hard enough; and second,
that faculty members are not paying sufficient attention to undergraduate
education.
The statement of that problem has led to a variety of solutions; but almost all
of those solutions state the only way to measure faculty effort is semester
credit hours. Dr. Coor stated he believed that is an inadequate instrument to
judge faculty effort as it does not begin to embrace the true nature of what
instruction is all about. As we shift to learner-centered activity, all kinds of
things are part of teaching and learning. Active learning, team learning, and
collaborative learning are just a few of the approaches in which there is a good
deal of work that is separated from the standard lecture, recitation format that
cannot be captured in semester credit hours. The greater involvement of students
in undergraduate research, in the use of interactive technology, and in
community activities also is not captured in semester credit hours.
President Coor suggested, as a way to structure this discussion, a solution be
sought that is a more accurate statement of what the activity is itself. He
informed the Board a group of faculty members from ASU just came back from
several days at the Whorton School in which they developed an interesting Venn
Diagram to illustrate how faculty effort might better be expressed. This will be
presented to the Regents in June. Secondly, a way needs to be found to express
and measure faculty effort. One of the limitations of the semester credit hour
description is that it is strictly an input measure. There are ways in which you
combine post-tenure review, faculty compensation, and the criteria for promotion
and review that are displayed in Dr. Diamond's writings. It is hoped this will
be the nature of the discussion today.
President Munger entered the meeting at 9:24 a.m. Regent
Basha said his concern is the public perception that six hours of faculty
teaching load is an inadequate return on investment for taxpayers. He and Regent
Chapa have expressed concern about the teaching mission of the universities
since they joined the Board and have tried to generate this type of discussion.
He believes this issue requires a comprehensive analysis and he hopes the
consequences will be something that will be fair, effective, and acceptable to
the public.
Regent Chapa said many Regents are frustrated with this issue. Whether it is an
appropriate perception or not, the public has the impression there is not a lot
of demand on a faculty member's time. Boards of trustees throughout the country
are struggling with the same issue as people don't believe their children are
getting everything they should be getting out of their higher education
institutions. Just coming up with an explanation of what is happening on the
campus will not be enough. The faculty has to be part of the solution. He hopes
this process will help define the issue more clearly and will come up with some
measurable goals.
Regent Amos said he has confidence this process would lead to the same positive
results as the discussion regarding the post- tenure review process. He agreed
the legislators, the public, and the Regents don't really understand all the
roles faculty members play, but there still needs to be some improvement in
teaching loads. He believes the legislature and the public need to see
improvement or this process will be criticized and changes will be mandated by
the legislature
Regent Schmitt agreed this is not a matter of educating Regents, legislators, or
the public because he believes change must be demonstrated or change will be
forced upon the universities. He also agreed that student credit hours is not a
fair assessment in terms of gauging the teaching activities of faculty. The
Board must be able to look at teaching related activities such as student
advising, working with independent study students, working with graduate
students, advising clubs and organizations, and serving as faculty fellows in
residence halls, etc. These could be grouped together as student contact hours.
He believes it is possible faculty engaged in these activities should not have
to teach as many hours as those who do not engage in any of these activities.
President Munger said he viewed this as a credibility issue with the public,
many Regents, and the legislature. He does not know what the right answers may
be, but he would like to see this issue investigated with the same amount of
time and vigor that was dedicated to the issue of tenure. He believes this is
the only way the results will have credibility. He also believes a collateral
issue is the need to reward quality work with adequate compensation.
Regent Davis asked if the financial incentives are currently aligned correctly
to reward people for being in the classroom or for student contact time. Regent
Campbell said there is frustration because there is no way to judge productivity
in this area. He also noted many faculty only work 7 ½ months each year and
that should be considered when compensation is given. He commented that use of
time and space, such as teaching classes at "off-hours" should be
considered along with other parts of this issue.
Regent Ulrich would like the discussions to remain at the pragmatic level rather
than the philosophical. He would like to see priorities for students to be
established and decisions to be made as to how these priorities would be
delivered. He would like to see performance standards developed so measurements
could also be developed and the universities could be evaluated on how they meet
the standards. He would like to know how productive people involved in the
educational process are in terms of time utilization against the priorities that
would be established. He agreed public perception is very important. He also
agreed compensation packages need to be reformed; but he believes people should
not receive incentives for doing the job they were hired to do; incentives
should be given to people who make extra effort.
Regent Gignac believes the short-term issue should focus on ways to increase the
quantity of undergraduate instruction that is provided directly by ranked
faculty in the classroom. A longer-term issue looks at the full range of faculty
activity and how to improve the quality of education through outcome measures.
She would not like to see the longer-term issue come before the short-term
issue.
Dr. Thomas Callarman, Dr. Vianne McLean, Dr. Ron Piotrowski, Provost Glick,
Provost Sypherd, and Provost Connell joined the meeting for this discussion.
Regent Gignac introduced Dr. Robert Diamond, who was invited at the
recommendation of the Provosts and faculty leaders to talk to the Regents about
his study concerning faculty work from a national perspective.
Dr. Diamond stated there is currently no clear picture of instructional goals;
there is no evidence the goals that do exist are being reached; and there is no
evidence the instructional procedures being used are effective or efficient.
National data shows that over 74% of all teaching is still in the lecture mode;
yet the data shows conclusively that it is the least effective of any
instructional technique available.
The challenge is to improve the quality of the enterprise, improve retention,
and meet the growing needs of the universities and the state effectively and
efficiently. One improvement in education will come when there is improved
articulation between high schools and higher education so the students come to
the universities with the competence they need to succeed.
Dr. Diamond suggested the Regents look at two areas. The first is student
learning and the second is meeting the needs of the community.
According to Dr. Diamond, looking at faculty contact hours as a primary
indicator of improved teaching and learning can be counterproductive. For
example, improving the quality of learning requires examining course and
curriculum design. This won't appear as faculty contact hours, but will require
the best faculty available. If students are to go out into the community,
faculty must go with them and work with employers and government officials. This
activity is also not considered traditional contact hours. One of the things the
Board must do is look at the range of measures that show the impact of the
faculty member on meeting the goals of the academic program.
Some faculty are better motivators, some are better in small groups, and some
are better in large groups. The goal of the institution is to take the range of
talents available and use each most effectively. Using new and emerging
technology provides ways to accomplish things better than before. In many cases,
this will free the faculty to spend more time with individual students. Dr. Diamond
stated he could not find any research that proved increased contact hours
improved the quality of learning. He encouraged the Regents to broaden the
definition of contact hours, to look at it as those hours faculty spend in
learning related activities.
He suggested the Regents focus on Mission and Impact. Are the resources being
used in a manner that fulfills the university's mission and impacts the students
and the community in a manner compatible with its mission? This requires the
institution and each unit to have goals that are clear, appropriate, and
measurable; and allows each institution and unit to develop the goals that are
sensitive to its unique characteristics and mission. It is important that units
within the universities develop their own mission statements and priorities
based on the mission of the institution. This provides an opportunity for
faculty and administrators to actively participate in the process. It develops
ownership. Statement of what competencies every student should have upon
graduation are needed. When this is done, there will be clarity within and
without the institution as to what is important.
Dr. Diamond suggested a two-tiered approach. One is to work very hard at
relating the tenure and priority system to the priorities of each institution.
The other is to improve the entire learning experience of students at the
institution.
The process the Board used in the post-tenure review is an example of how to use
appropriate steps to accomplish change. This type of change has to be systemic,
it has to follow a pattern. Dr. Diamond recommended each institution have the
opportunity to lay out its plans on how to get where it wants to go and where
its mission is. What are the priorities of the academic unit? The system also
must be sensitive to the differences between the disciplines. Some are teaching
focused and others are more research focused.
Goals should be stated in outcome terms that are measurable. In a relatively
short period of time, a statement of outcomes for every student could be
developed. There is amazing agreement among faculty on the competencies that
students should have at graduation--communication skills, interpersonal skills,
ethics, willing to participate in community activities, and competencies in
math, reading, and writing. Many of the basic competencies can be taught in any
discipline. Teaching computer skills, presentation skills, and writing skills
doesn't mean adding new courses; it means teaching in a different manner.
Every student will not be proficient in each area; but the goal should be for
each student to have the opportunity of developing these competencies. The
challenge is how to insure the elements of the curriculum, courses and other
student experiences combine to make the goals obtainable. When the tenure and
promotion system is adjusted and the institutions focus on the academic
experience, more faculty time will be spent on teaching-related activities and
applied research. The question is how the Regents, as a Board of trustees, can
help the institutions address the issues raised around the table.
Dr. Ron Piotrowski asked if there was any evidence improvements in quality and
productivity will really change public perception, and if so, what segment of
the public is being surveyed. Dr. Diamond said his university involved
members of the community, such as community leaders and business and industry,
when they designed academic programs. Also, when the faculty is in the community
helping solve problems, the community sees the faculty solving problems that are
relevant to them. There are tremendous resources among the faculty, but they are
not being used to address the issues the community sees. However, there is also
the necessity to do a better job of showing the public the successes of the
universities.
Regent Basha maintained there is a perception of insularity that pervades the
university system. There needs to be a greater commitment to community-based
activities. He cited as an example a school in Chandler where there are many
undereducated students and parents. ASU has, through various outreach programs,
brought opportunities to help the students succeed. He believes community
outreach will break down the negative perceptions.
President Munger said he believed Dr. Diamond's comments raised the need for a
study that starts with reevaluation, confirmation, and amendment of the
university mission statements. Once the mission statements are clearly in mind,
it can be determined what needs to be done, how the students should be impacted,
what the goals are for the students at each institution, and how
teaching and interaction can be done better to accomplish
those goals and the missions. He believes this is more than a faculty workload
issue. It is a study of what each of the universities is about, what the role of
that university is in the overall state mission, and how the universities impact
students. He believes each university should be asked to look at its mission
statement and define what it believes its mission should be. They should then be
brought to the Board for review and approval. The decision can then be made as
to how each university will impact students to accomplish its mission. It won't
be the same for each university. Perhaps admission standards and tuition should
not be the same for each university. The universities should be examined in the
sense of mission, strategy to get to the mission, tactics to meet the strategy,
and the detail that goes with it.
Dr. Diamond said each academic unit should take the university mission statement
and apply it in context with its discipline, its strengths, and its priorities.
This will also provide a tenure and promotion system that recognizes the
differences in the disciplines as well.
Regent Gignac said she believed President Munger's approach is a good long-term
approach. At the same time, however, she believes the public is concerned with
how the Board is addressing the issue of productivity in the short term. She
would like to see the Board find a way to increase the quantity of student
instructional contact, however it is defined, in the shorter term. If this is
not done, she is afraid there will be more legislative mandates that will be
hard to implement. President Munger said he would not like to see short-term
productivity gains be done at the expense of damaging the system. He has great
confidence the people of the state, as they did on the tenure issue, will
understand the Regents are serious about this issue and will allow the time
needed.
Regent Campbell asked if the universities currently have mission statements by
college and departments and was told they do. Regent Basha said he would not be
on the Board long enough to be part of a long-term study, but he agreed with
Regent Ulrich's statement that pragmatism is important. He believed the Regents
should provide direction to the committee evaluating workload issues. He would
like to see greater value placed on teaching-related and applied research.
Regent Davis said Dr. Diamond had stated increased contact hours does not
necessarily impact learning; therefore, the conclusion could be made that
reducing contact hours would not have an impact on learning either. Regent Davis
said he believed the current construction of the tenure system needs to be
modified before teaching will be equally rewarded with research and publishing.
Dr. Diamond said teachers that are moving the field ahead by doing more creative
things and developing courses in ways they haven't been developed before are not
recognized as performing a scholarly activity. He believes the goals can be met
within the current system by weighing and placing importance, by insisting on
different types of documentation, and by broadening the definition. At Syracuse,
the statement has been made regardless of whether one is teaching one graduate
course or three undergraduate courses, teaching is going to be considered 50% of
the criteria for merit pay, etc. Faculty has to be educated on how to document
the quality of the work they are doing.
Regent Davis said he believed changes in education, such as technology and
distance learning, will require measurement of students on a competency basis,
rather than seat time, upon entry and exit. Regent Chapa asked what is present
in the university culture that is preventing the Regents across the country from
being able to enlist faculty and administrators to take the lead in emphasizing
teaching. Dr. Diamond said his national study shows faculty themselves perceive
the other faculty differently than they themselves reported. Getting the issue
out on the table is an important first step.
Regent Chapa said Dr. Diamond had stated the Regents should focus on the
pre-tenure system. He asked what role the Board should play in this and asked if
there is a model at any institution the Board might look to for help. Dr.
Diamond said Syracuse had developed two check lists, one for the questions the
Board should ask about tenure and promotion and one for the questions the Board
should ask about academic programs. He said he would be happy to provide these
questions for distribution..
Dr. McLean said she believed one of the critical things that needs to be
addressed soon is the redefinition of instructional activity to include all the
other pieces that are of value. This should be one of the first tasks for the
faculty workload subgroup and could be accomplished in the relative short term.
Dr. Callarman said he believed the emphasis on the Hurwitz measures over the
last few years has impacted the attitude towards teaching at ASU. He also
believes the objectives from the Post-tenure review will impact teaching.
However, those impacts won't be known for some period of time.
Regent Ulrich said he assumed this issue can be addressed as successfully as the
tenure issue. He said he did not believe the Regents were going to solve the
problem; they were going to put a process into place that will solve the
problem. Once the Board arrives at the goals and mission statements, he
suggested they should be published along with the timetable for proceeding with
this issue. He believed the redefinition of the instructional part should be
more than just the wordsmithing of a definition, including a lot of things
people don't understand, to make the picture look better.
Dr. Schwarz agreed this issue should be studied with intensity and vigor so the
public will have confidence in the outcome. He believed the first item for the
subcommittee should be to determine what is happening in the Arizona
universities in instructional and instruction-related activities. As Dr. Diamond
said, there are some instructional activities that have better results than
other instructional activities; and there should be an attempt to optimize
instructional activities that have optimal results on students. They should be
included in the definition.
Regent Gignac suggested Dr. Besnette work with the faculty leaders, the
provosts, and the presidents to initiate a process, through approved measurable
goals, that will do many things within the context of the institutional and unit
mission statements. It will incorporate classroom as well as individualized
instruction, involve participation by representatives of the larger community,
provide the Board with definitions and information sufficient to understand and
evaluate the relevant options that are open, and provide benchmarks and
comparative data and analysis so that meaningful goals can be set. The process
will allow for institutional flexibility, change over time in the way in which
facilities and technology are utilized, how programs are delivered, and how
student learning is facilitated and assessed. It could lead to the development
and review of strategies, including financial incentives. As a subset or in
addition to, there would be a process for the review of faculty reward systems
that would include pre-tenure as well as monetary rewards, broaden the
definitions of research and service if it is believed that is required, improve
the quality of academic programs, assess student learning through competencies
instead of credits, and redefine the role of faculty in relation to the change
in program delivery and the use of information technology in assessment and
credentialing.
President Munger said he believed the first thing that should be done is for the
universities to come back to the Regents to tell the Board what they think their
university should be doing and whether their existing mission statement is valid
or whether it should be modified. Step two will be determining the strategies
and goals related to the student outcomes for undertaking the Board agreed-upon
mission statements.
Regent Gignac said each university had missions statements, goals, and
strategies and asked if the process should start from that or start anew.
President Munger said he would like them to start from the existing framework.
He believed the mission statements were five to seven years old. He had never
been informed how the strategies relate to individual tactics, what tactics are
undertaken to get to the strategies, and how that relates to faculty workload,
student outcome, etc. It may be that the mission statements and the strategies
are fine, but he would like to work through those to get to the subsequent
steps.
Regent Gignac said she could agree that is the place to start, but she would
like to make certain this doesn't drag out too long. She would like to have a
process come to the Board that includes that as a first step, but also lays out
the process for looking at the rest of the issues so the Board doesn't get
bogged down in the sheer weight of the mission statements and strategies.
President Munger proposed the universities come to the Board at the June meeting
with the substance of any proposed changes in their mission statements and with
a process proposal for where the Board goes from there.
Regent Ulrich agreed a review of the mission statements currently in place at
the university level is appropriate; however, he is more concerned with what
happens with the mission statements at the unit level. Therefore, the quicker
the Board can review the university level and turn it over to the administration
to bring it to the unit level made sense to him. At the same time, he would like
to concur with Regent Gignac's suggestion to get some faculty committees
together now to start taking about the definitions of what should be included in
instructional activity.
President Coor said he believed the mission statements were current and he did
not believe the two week time period available before the June Board mail out
would allow time for the various university constituencies to review and comment
on changing the mission statements. He said the mission statements had been
before the Board several times, but suggested the universities bring the
statements to the Board for discussion in June. He said the universities would
review the statements, but this could not be accomplished by June.
Regent Gignac asked if it was clear what the Board was asking for in June. Dr.
Besnette said he heard the Board wanted an update to get back in focus on what
the current mission statements are and to have a better understanding as to how
those mission statement are translated down through the organizations. These
will be a brief, concise presentation in June, with a chance for questions to
enhance understanding. Regent Gignac said that would be fine as long as a plan
is presented in August, somewhat as she had outlined, that lays out the rest of
the process. Dr. Besnette said this will be subject to review as it proceeds as
this will be a dynamic process.
Regent Schmitt agreed mission statements are important for the organization;
however, he would implore the Board to remain focused on the issue of faculty
workload. He believed proper alignment of incentives for promotion and tenure on
the front end and outcome-based benchmarks in terms of departmental statements
for what skills students will have upon graduation are things the Board should
focus on. He would like to see some process outlined in June so the Board does
not lose focus of what it is trying to accomplish.
President Munger thanked Dr. Diamond for his help with the discussion. President
Munger introduced Mr. Ted Ferris, the Director of the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee. He also introduced Lourdes Moreno-Jeong, representative of the State
Board of Directors for Community Colleges from Santa Cruz County. A cake was cut
and everyone sang Happy Birthday to President Pacheco in celebration of his
birthday.
The meeting recessed at 11:25 a.m. and reconvened at 11:40
a.m.
REPORT FROM
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
President Pacheco distributed signed photographs of the University of Arizona
Men's National Champion Basketball team to the Regents. He also commented on the
University of Arizona Women's National Champion Softball team. They have won the
Championship five times in the last seven years. He said the June Agenda will
contain a request for Project Initiation and Conceptual Approval for a new
Weight Training Facility. It is expected it will be totally gift funded and will
be significant for the continued excellence of all UofA student athletes.
Dr. Pacheco reported the Five-Star Faculty Award went to Dr. Ana Perches in the
Department of Spanish and Portuguese. Appointments as University Distinguished
Professors have gone to Dr. William Bickel, physics, and Dr. Richard
Cosgrove, history. The Provost's General Education Teaching Awards went to Dr.
Janice Dewey, humanities program, and Dr. Gerald Swanson, economics. He informed
the Board the UofA presented 50 teaching awards to 85 recipients this year.
REPORT
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF NORTHERN ARIZONA UNIVERSITY
President Lovett reported Northern Arizona University swept all athletic
trophies in its conference this year--men's, women's, and all conference. NAU
undergraduate students from the College of Business Administration placed well
in the Students in Free-Enterprise competition, both nationally and
internationally.
Dr. Lovett informed the Board that NAU, in conjunction with its Centennial
Celebration, has named 1996-97 as the Year of Education. Fifty one educators
from Southern Arizona who received their degrees from NAU and who have done
outstanding things for public education will be honored tonight at a dinner in
Tucson. There will be similar events in Phoenix and in Northern Arizona.
REPORT FROM
THE PRESIDENT OF ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
President Coor reported ASU East graduated 148 students and ASU West graduated
650 students this spring. Nine teachers from the Navajo Nation who had just
earned Masters Degrees were honored at the ASU Main commencement. Five ASU
students won Fullbright Awards this year and six juniors won the Public Policy
and International Affairs Graduate Fellowship. Thirteen students are spending
the summer in Tsinghua University in China in an innovative program co-sponsored
by Motorola and the National Science Foundation.
REPORT FROM THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
Dr. Besnette called the Board's attention to his written report contained in the
Agenda materials. He reported the three universities and central office staff
attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on Capital Review on May 15. A
favorable review was received for the Systemwide Bonding Plan and Project
Approval was obtained for seven projects. There was recognition the universities
and the Regents are on the right track to significantly improving the capital
development planning processes.
REPORT
FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA (Continued)
Mr. Joel Valdez presented the history of the Main Gate project which was done in
conjunction with the Marshall Foundation. The project includes a parking garage,
the Marriott Hotel, and a university office building. The hotel was paid for by
Mr. John Q. Hammonds with private money. This was a joint public-private
partnership--the UofA working with the City, the West University Neighborhood,
and the Arizona Historical Society.
PUBLIC AWARENESS
This portion of the meeting was chaired by Regent Davis.
1st Session, 43rd Legislature: Update on Legislation
Related to Public Higher Education in Arizona
Regent Davis called the Board's attention to the written report in the Agenda
materials that summarized the impact of legislation on the universities and the
Board. President Coor reported
there is active exploration on the issues related to the
community colleges and the baccalaureate institutions following the veto of the
Community Colleges; upper division bill. It was suggested the Joint Conference
Committee (representatives of the Regents and the State Community College Board)
would be the appropriate entity to examine this issue.
Regent Davis suggested the Board articulate, in a one-page discussion paper, its
philosophical difference with the legislation that was proposed. He said the
Board believes this will lead to the creation of a third-tier of educational
institutions which will take scarce public resources away from the community
colleges and the universities. He believes this difference is not bridgeable,
and legislators should be educated as to why that path is not a good idea from
either a public policy or a financial standpoint.
Regent Gignac stated she was concerned with having a statement on the table
articulating the Board's position before any meetings have begun. She suggested
the material looks as if much of the expansion of the community colleges may be
totally focused on technology kinds of programs or degrees. If that is the case,
then there should be the flexibility for discussion of those issues. Regent
Davis said he would abide by the Board's general direction, but he believed the
letter would establish a fundamental parameter of the negotiation; this Board
does not advocate or support moving in the direction of creating a third system.
Regent Basha and Regent Ulrich agreed with Regent Davis. Executive Director
Besnette said he would work with Regents Davis, as Chair of Public Awareness,
and Regent Gignac, as the Board's representative to the State Board of Directors
of Community Colleges, to frame a position statement on another
baccalaureate-level opportunity in Arizona. He also reported he met with Senator
Springer at the suggestion of Regent Davis. Senator Springer intends to form an
ad hoc committee and will invite participation from the universities and the
Regents. She also asked for thoughts as to what the charge to the committee
should be and the composition of the committee. If acceptable to the Board, he
will also work with Regents Davis and Gignac on these issues. President Munger
recommended Regent Ulrich be added to the group. He would like to see two
Regents on the committee who will fully participate at every step of the
process.
Executive Director Besnette explained the universities have been working to sort
out the major issues relative to the Teaching Incentive Program appropriation.
The language in the bill required the Board to report to OSPB and JLBC by June 1st,
but Mr. Ferris has agreed to an extension of time. Regent Davis implored the
three institutions to stick close to the letter of the legislation when they
work out the solution for this issue. He does not believe this is good public
policy and he would not like to see a repeat of this next year at the
legislature.
The meeting recessed at 12:20 p.m. and reconvened at 2:00 p.m.
CALL TO THE AUDIENCE
Janolyn Lo Vecchio, an employee of the University of Arizona who became
disabled with myasthenia gravis in September 1996, asked the Regents to
investigate the way the University of Arizona managed short term and long term
disability and the use of sick and vacation leave time.
AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD REGENTS
MEDAL
Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Ulrich, the Board voted to
award the Regents' Medal to President Manuel Pacheco. This Medal has only been
bestowed nine times in the past 32 years. The Medal was given in recognition of
his qualities as a human being and his accomplishments as President of the
University of Arizona.
CONSENT AGENDA
President Munger announced that he had been asked to remove Item 8, First
Reading on Amendment to Board Policy 6-201 J., from the Agenda as it has been
determined, in consultation with the Chair of the Programs Committee, there are
still issues to be resolved before these changes are presented to the Board.
Item 12, Multiple Appointments of Lecturers and Senior Lecturers, has been
removed from the Consent Agenda to be discussed under the Programs Committee
Agenda. The remaining items on the Consent Agenda, which are marked in these
minutes with an *, were considered as consent matters and were adopted
unanimously upon motion of Regent Basha, seconded by Regent Davis. There was no
individual discussion of these items.
*Minutes
The Board approved the March 20, 1997, Executive Session Minutes.
Programs Committee Consent
*Amendment to Board Policy 2-208, Academic Program Review (Second Reading)
The Board approved the proposed amendment to Board Policy 2-208, Academic
Program Review, which provides a general framework for a periodic systemwide
review of low-productive and duplicative academic programs. The specific details
of the review process are described in a separate Board-approved methodology
statement.
*Amendment to Board Policy 6-201 L and M, Conditions of
Faculty Service, Hearing Procedures (Second Reading)
The Board approved the proposed amendment to Board Policy 6-201 L, hearing
Procedures for Faculty, and 6-201 M, Procedure to Review Allegedly
Discriminatory or Unconstitutional Action. These policy changes are part of the
Board-approved workplan for modifying the conditions of faculty service and
tenure.
*1998-99 and 1999-00 Academic Year Calendar Revision (NAU)
The Board approved the following calendar for NAU for 1997-98 through 1999-00:
1997-98 Fall 8/25/97 - 12/12/97 Spring 1/12/98 - 5/8/98
1998-99 Fall 8/24/98 - 12/11/98 Spring 1/11/99 - 5/7/99
1999-00 Fall 8/30/99 - 12/17/99 Spring 1/17/00 - 5/12/00
*Report on Academic Program and Organizational Unit Changes
The Executive Director informed the Board by written report he had approved the
following requests: Arizona State University - Change the name of the
Department of Botany to the Department of Plant Biology; Change the name of the
Department of Zoology to the Department of Biology; Change the name for the
B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in Botany to B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in
Plant Biology; Change the name for the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Zoology to the
M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Biology; Disestablish the B.S. in Zoology, M.S. in
Biological Sciences, B.S. in Dance, and the Bachelor of Music, Music Theory. University
of Arizona - Change the name for the M.S. in Soil and Water Science to Soil,
Water and Environmental Science; Change the name for the Ph.D. in Soil and Water
Science to Soil, Water and Environmental Science; Consolidate the major in
Finance, Management and Policy, and Marketing into a single major in Management
for the M.S. degree; Consolidate the major in Pharmacology and in Toxicology
into a single major in Pharmacology and Toxicology for the M.S. degree;
Consolidate the major in Pharmacology and in Toxicology into a single major in
Pharmacology and Toxicology for the Ph.D. degree; Consolidate the Jazz Studies
Major and the Composition Major into Performance major for the B.M.Degree;
Disestablish the Ph.D. in Water Resources Administration, the M.S. in Home
Economics Education, the M.Ed. in Family and Consumer Resources, the MHEE in
Home Economics Education, the M.S. in Food Science, the M.Ed. in Chemistry, the
M.Ed. in Communication, the M.Ed., in English, the M.Ed. in French, the M.Ed. in
Geography, the M.Ed. in German, the M.Ed. in Mathematics, the M.Ed. in Physics,
the M.Ed. in Political Science, the M.Ed. in Reading, the M.Ed. in Russian, the
M.Ed. in Spanish, the M.Ed. in Special Education, the Ed.S. in Educational
Media, the M.Ed. in Educational Media, the M.Ed. in Health Education, the M.S.
in Botany and the Ph.D. in Botany.
Resources Committee Consent
*Telecommunications Services: Internal Audit (NAU)
The Board received a written report on the internal audit of the
Telecommunications Services at Northern Arizona University. There were no
findings reportable to the Board and three internal recommendations were
submitted to university administration.
*Transfer of the ASU Frank Kush Endowment to the ASU Sun Angel Foundation (ASU)
The Board authorized Arizona State University to enter into a trust agreement
with the Arizona State University Sun Angel Foundation to manage the assets of
the ASU Frank Kush Endowment as stated in the proposed Trust Agreement, subject
to approval of all documents by ASU and Board Counsel.
*Intergovernmental Agreement with Arizona Department of Health Services (ASU)
The Board authorized Arizona State University to accept a continuation contract
from the Arizona Department of Health Services to conduct the Hispanic Tobacco
Education Coalition. The amount of funding is $1.7M for Year 02 of the project,
with an estimated $6.5M total funding for Years 02 through 05. The project would
end June 30, 2001.
*Mediated Settlement for Dorothea Nobile v. the State of Arizona, Board of
Regents, University of Arizona, DBA KUAT (UofA)
The Board granted permission to the University of Arizona to enter into a
settlement agreement with Dorothea Nobile, a former employee at KUAT at the
University of Arizona, based on the proposed terms outlined below. The salient
terms of the proposed settlement are: 1) Nobile will receive $50,000 as full and
final settlement; $25,000 to be paid by Arizona Risk Management and $25,000 to
be contributed by the University of Arizona. 2) Plaintiff's counsel will be paid
directly
$25,000 in full and final settlement of any claim for
attorney's's fees. This amount will be contributed by the University of Arizona.
3) Nobile will not be reinstated.
Strategic Planning Consent
*Status Report on Project EAGLE
The Board received a written status report on Project EAGLE. Project EAGLE is
the combination of Project Connect of the Arizona Department of Administration
and the Arizona Learning System community college project to increase buying
power and expand network services by forming an anchor-tenant relationship with
a single private telecommunications vendor. Initial Project EAGLE members
include the universities, community colleges, libraries, and executive and
judicial branches of government. Based upon the universities' input to the
Request for Proposal (RFP) team, the Chief Academic Officers, acting on behalf
of the Presidents and the Executive Director, approved the release of the
Project EAGLE RFP for Statewide Telecommunications Carrier Services.
REPORT FROM THE ARIZONA
FACULTIES COUNCIL
Dr. John Schwarz welcomed the Board to the University of Arizona. He commented
on the Board's relationship with the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) and the
commitment of the AFC members to work together to accomplish their goals. He
informed the Board that Dr. Thomas McGovern, former Chair of the AFC, has
suffered an illness that will involve a long recovery.
TEACHING INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Executive Director Besnette said this is a complex issue that has required a lot
of work and discussion to sort out how to best implement this program, as he
commented earlier in the meeting. The discussions continue among the Chief
Academic Officers and the presidents on the fundamental issues. Mr. Ted Ferris
has indicated he will allow additional time for the details on the program to be
finalized.
PROGRAMS COMMITTEE AGENDA
Regent Gignac chaired this portion of the meeting.
Proposal to Establish the Institute for Children, Youth, and Families (UofA)
Provost Sypherd joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Davis suggested
members of the Governor's office for Children, Domestic Violence, Drug Policy
and Project Intervention might be considered, along with other community
leaders, as potential Advisory Committee members for this Institute as they
would bring financial capability along with other qualifications. Regent Gignac
agreed this was a good suggestion. She also asked for coordination with the
recently established program in the UofA College of Medicine, the program in the
ASU College of Extended Education, and any appropriate programs at NAU. Regent
Campbell complimented the university on being able to extend extra service
without extra cost. Upon motion of Regent Basha, seconded by Regent Schmitt, the
Board authorized the establishment of the Institute for Children, Youth, and
Families at the University of Arizona with a sunset review date of 2002-03.
Multiple Year Appointments of Lecturers and Senior Lecturers
Regent Schmitt said he had been told the salaries for lecturers were to be
comparable to assistant professors and salaries for senior lecturers were to be
comparable to associate professors. He asked the universities if the salaries
before the Board today were comparable to the tenure track salaries and was told
they were. He asked if salary incentive opportunities for advancement were
available for lecturers and senior lecturers. President Coor answered this group
comprises 4% of the total staff and the designation of lecturer and senior
lecturer had been established in the last few years as a more substantial place
within the institution than in prior years. They do qualify for incentive pay.
Regent Schmitt asked if 4%, the current limit in Board policy, was the correct
number and President Coor answered the Board might consider raising the cap in
the future.
Regent Gignac said she would like to have the Board, in the future, have the
chance to learn more about lecturers, instructors, academic professionals--the
whole group of people that are non-tenure track--in light of their faculty
development, their place in the community of the academy, and the protection of
their academic freedoms. Provost Sypherd explained the three largest salary
requests by the University of Arizona.
Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Campbell, the Board approved
the multiple year appointments for lecturers and senior lecturers as submitted
by the three universities.
ELECTION OF BOARD OFFICERS
FOR 1997-98
President Munger informed the Board he had followed tradition by asking the Past
President, Regent Basha, to Chair the nominating committee. He had also asked
Regent Chapa to be on the committee. Regent Basha placed the following names in
nomination: President Rudy Campbell,
President Elect Judy Gignac, Treasurer Hank Amos,
Secretary Kurt Davis, Assistant Secretary Donald Ulrich, and Assistant Treasurer
John Platt. Upon motion of Regent Basha, seconded by Regent Chapa, the Board
elected the officers as nominated.
RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Regent Amos chaired this portion of the meeting.
Process for Developing the FY99 State Operating Budget Requests
Regent Amos announced this will be the last year the universities and the
central office will submit budgets for a single year as the biennual budget
request will begin next year. As a result of new Board policy this year, the
university presidents will be asked to display for the Board the goals and
objectives they are targeting for funding to accomplish the priority goals and
objectives of their strategic plans.
President Lovett said that a decision as to whether there would be a
"box" or upper limit set this year would need to be made. If an upper
limit is set, she asked that annualization of salaries and current expenditures
not be included because it gives a distorted view of the final product. She
believes it would be better for each of the universities to present to the Board
its list of top priorities that call for additional funding with price tags
attached. She also suggested the universities harmonize their priorities as some
categories appear at the top of each list. She suggested laying out the needs
and priorities first and then determining an upper limit. Dr. Lovett said NAU's
new budget requests would be largely geared to expansion of delivery to the
rural areas through the 2 + 2 programs.
President Coor found last year's process to be constructive and believes this
process should be utilized again this year. Experience with last year's process
indicates where some refinements could be made as Dr. Lovett mentioned. He
agreed it was too early to try to establish an upper limit. President Pacheco
said the figure for annualization may be higher than in past years due to salary
programs. He agreed the decision concerning next year's priorities should come
before the upper limit is established.
Regent Davis said he believed the Resources Committee Chair should work with
Executive Director Besnette and the Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting
(OSPB) and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee ((JLBC) to begin the
discussions concerning an upper limit. He asked for three items in the
development of budgets: 1) Where will the unfunded priorities from last year
fall in this year's budget? 2) How do the items on the priority list link to the
Board's and university's strategic plans? 3) How are the revenues created by the
tuition increases applied to the unfunded priorities from the general fund?
Regent Schmitt asked that students be involved in the setting of budget
priorities and he asked for the names of the students that would be involved.
Arizona Students' Association (ASA) FY98 Budget
Ms. Christine Thompson, Executive Director of ASA, joined the meeting for this
discussion. Regent Amos reminded the Board ASA successfully passed referenda at
all three universities which resulted in a charge of $1 per semester per
student. The fee will begin in the fall of 1997. Students may request a refund
of this fee directly from ASA. ASA will not have revenues from this fee
available until after the 21st day of classes. Therefore, they are
requesting $45,000 in support from the universities until the funds from the new
fee are available. ASA expects to be financially self-sufficient after Spring
1998 and will then return the $45,000 to the universities. Upon motion of Regent
Amos, seconded by Regent Basha, the Board approved ASA's 1997-98 budget request
of $128,600 and university subsidies of $15,000 each, for a total of $45,000,
with a provision the subsidy will be repaid when ASA has collected sufficient
fees.
Annual Space Inventory and Utilization Report
Dr. Brian Gregory joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Amos noted this
is the first year the universities furnished information on scheduled classroom
usage during each hour of the day. This information will be used as the
foundation for improvements in and developing new standards for space
utilization. Dr. Gregory gave a status report on the progress made by the
Workgroup on Space Utilization (a subgroup of the DeMichele Committee). He said
the group is looking at the current classroom usage and ways that usage could be
improved. The Workgroup also is looking at the Board approved guidelines, which
are tied to national guidelines, and trying to improve on each category. The
Workgroup is also trying to understand the space needs associated with
technology in the classroom.
Regent Schmitt asked if scheduling, as in keeping small classes in small rooms,
would be considered by the Workgroup and was told it would be. However, as the
number of classes taught at one time is increased, there will necessarily be
some times when small groups will meet in larger classrooms. Regent Schmitt
suggested a committee, composed of students, administrators, and deans of
students, be put together to look at what can be done to change the dynamic of
when students choose to take classes.
Regent Davis noted the graphs illustrate the peak classroom usage is from 9:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and said he would like to see the usage increased from 7:45
a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Regent Amos commented he
believed the standards for space utilization are not correct and they should be
changed. He also believes the universities' customers are changing; there is
higher demand for classes at the non-traditional times.
Status Report on Deferred Maintenance
Regent Amos noted the May 1997 report lists total estimated deferred maintenance
needs of $110M, a decrease of over $48M from the estimate reported in June of
1996. The DeMichele Committee made several recommendations relating to
identification, tracking, and prioritization of deferred maintenance projects.
One of those recommendations was to hire an external consultant to review
deferred maintenance on the campuses. The Board directed the universities to
hire a consultant to review the process the universities use to evaluate and
quantify deferred maintenance. Currently a Request for Proposals has been
advertised to procure the services of a consultant. The opening of the proposals
is scheduled for June 30, the awarding of the contract for August 15, and
the completion of the report on November 15.
Dr. Gregory informed the Regents the three things the consultant will be asked
to do are: 1) Look at the way deferred maintenance is measured for facilities
and buildings currently. 2) Develop a process for measuring deferred maintenance
for infrastructure. 3) Look at the backlog and the plans to reduce the backlog
and suggest improvements.
Regent Amos asked why there was such a big decrease in deferred maintenance at
the University of Arizona. Vice President Valdez and Director of Facilities
Management Albert Tarcola joined the meeting and explained the changes that had
occurred in the use of funds and the accounting for funds that had caused the
change.
Guidelines for Developing the 1999-2003 Capital Improvement Plans
Regent Amos moved approval of the 1999-2003 Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs)
Guidelines as presented. The motion was seconded by Regent Gignac. Regent Davis
commented on the Bond and Certificate of Participation Debt Ratio of 10 percent
for each year of the CIPs and asked if a similar formula could be applied to
academic bonding. Dr. Gregory said it would be possible; this formula is used
because it is a standard ratio the bond rating firms use. Regent Davis said he
believed that kind of formula would be helpful to show the Regents a general
idea of the impact of bonding decisions on future tuition decisions so he would
like to see it included.
Regent Gignac asked for a further explanation of the suggested ratio. Regent
Schmitt suggested academic bonds against the portion of tuition going to pay
debt service from the total generated university revenue. Dr. Besnette said that
information is available and would be highlighted the next time this is
presented. Regent Campbell said the information was presented this time in the
NAU chart. Dr. Gregory said that information has been presented in the Debt
Capacity Report and it could be presented with the CIP. With the inclusion of
the suggestion by Regent Davis, the motion passed by voice vote.
Renovation of the Technology Center: Project Approval (ASU East)
Dr. Charles Backus and Dr. Albert McHenry joined the meeting for this
discussion. Upon motion of Regent Basha, seconded by Regent Ulrich, the Board
granted Project Approval for the Renovation of the Technology Center on the ASU
East Campus.
Performing Arts Renovation: Project Approval (NAU)
Upon motion of Regent Basha, seconded by Regent Schmitt, the Board granted
Northern Arizona University Project Approval for the Performing Art Renovation.
It also authorized NAU to complete design and to begin the project.
Building Systems Repair/Replacement: Project Approval (NAU)
Upon motion of Regent Basha, seconded by Regent Schmitt, the Board granted
Northern Arizona University Project Approval for the Building Systems
Repair/Replacement project. It also authorized NAU to proceed with design and to
begin these projects totaling $4,000,000, with the deletion of the Gammage
Building and insertion of the Blome Building.
Utility Infrastructure Renovation: Project Approval (NAU)
Upon motion of Regent Basha, seconded by Regent Schmitt, the Board granted
Northern Arizona University Project Approval for the Utility Infrastructure
Renovation Project. It also authorized NAU to complete the design and to begin
this $3,000,000 project.
Approval to Issue Revenue Bonds (NAU)
Upon motion of Regent Basha, seconded by Regent Schmitt, the Board authorized
Northern Arizona University to issue $30.9 million of Series 1997 System Revenue
Bonds to finance the construction projects per Attachment A
(Biology/Biochemistry Addition, Replacement Building and Campus Entrance,
Utility Infrastructure Renovation, Eastburn Building Renovation,
Performing Arts, Renovation, TV Studio Renovation, and
Building Systems Repair/Replacement) according to the terms and conditions
identified in the bond resolution and official offering statement.
REPORT
FROM THE BOARD'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE STATE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR COMMUNITY
COLLEGES OF ARIZONA
Regent Gignac reported she was unable to attend the last meeting and asked Ms.
Lourdes Moreno-Jeong, representative of the State Board from Santa Cruz County,
to make a report. Ms. Moreno-Leong said there was a special meeting and
teleconference to authorize the release of the RFP for Project EAGLE which was
released May 5.
ADOPTION OF BOARD CALENDAR
FOR 1998-99
Upon motion of Regent Gignac, seconded by Regent Amos, the Board adopted the
following calendar for FY1998-99 and changed the meeting place of the April 2
and 3, 1998, meeting to NAU Yuma:
August 13 and 14, 1998 - UofA
September 24 and 25, 1998 - NAU;
November 19 and 20, 1998 - ASU;
January 14 and 15, 1999 - UofA;
February 25 and 26, 1999 - UofA Sierra Vista;
April 15 and 16, 1999 - ASU;
May 20 and 21, 1999 - UofA;
June 24 and 25, 1999 - NAU.
INQUIRIES,
REQUESTS AND COMMENTS FROM REGENTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS
Regent Gignac asked the three universities to make the Board Agenda book
available to all of their campuses so the student associations on each campus
can receive a book as soon as possible. She also requested that electronically,
the data that is put into the student directory be made available to the student
associations on each of the main campuses. She asked Mr. Tony Seese-Bieda from
the central office to facilitate that occurrence. She also asked the staff to
look at Board Policy 6-809 that was referred to in the Call to the Audience,
particularly the circumstances surrounding the individual's comments.
Regent Basha expressed his pleasure at having a representative present from the
State Board of Directors of Community Colleges. Regent Amos suggested the
teaching incentive reward referred to in Item 7 should not be given for
satisfactory performance; he believed the performance should be better than
satisfactory.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:46 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
_______________________________
Judy E. Garza, Secretary to the Board
APPROVED BY:
________________________________
John F. Munger, President
ATTEST:
_________________________________
George H. Amos, III, Secretary