Arizona Board of Regents-Minutes

A meeting of the Arizona Board of Regents was held November 18 and 19, 2004, in the Catalina Room of the University of Arizona Student Union Memorial Center, Tucson, Arizona. President Stuart called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. on Thursday, November 18. Regent Graff led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PRESENT:	Regent Fred Boice Regent Robert Bulla Regent Ernest Calderón Regent Lorraine Frank Regent Benjamin Graff Regent Chris Herstam Regent Jack Jewett Regent Wes McCalley Regent Christina Palacios Regent Gary Stuart
ABSENT:	Superintendent Tom Horne Governor Janet Napolitano

Also present were: President Peter Likins, Dr. George Davis, Ms. Edith Auslander, Mr. Dick Roberts, Dr. Randy Groth, Mr. Greg Fahey, Dr. Saundra Taylor, Dr. Richard Powell, and Mr. Joel Valdez, University of Arizona; President Michael Crow, Dr. Milt Glick, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, Dr. Christine Wilkinson, and Mr Scott Cole, Arizona State University; President John Haeger, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, Dr. M. J. McMahon, Dr. Fred Hurst, and Dr. John Burton, Northern Arizona University; Executive Director Joel Sideman, Board Counsel Paulina Vazquez-Morris, Secretary to the Board Judy Garza, Dr. Art Ashton, Ms. Cathy McGonigle, Mr. Ted Gates, Ms. Stephanie Jacobson, Ms. Kathy Bedard, Ms. Gale Tebeau, and Ms. Stella Galaviz, Central Office; and Dr. Frances Bernat, Arizona Faculties Council.

All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the November 18 and 19, 2004, Documents File.

Joseph C. Donaldson, Mayor of Flagstaff, expressed support for NAU, stating its impact on the state and local community. He asked that the proposed redesign plan maintain and enhance NAU.

The Mayor’s stakeholder group to consider the proposed redesign has developed five principles and conclusions regarding economic and societal benefits accruing to the state and Northern Arizona: 1) Collaboration and integration of state, tribal, Hispanic, and African American communities, community colleges, and the universities must take place and reorganization must plan for appropriate resources for K-12 education, including charter schools as well as higher education; 2) Access must guarantee meaningful access to higher education through a stronger preparatory process at the K-12 level;
3) ABOR’s current governance structure of the three universities should remain without change or its equivalent, for example, tuition differential across the universities;
4) Existing university structure, along with community college infrastructure and distance learning capabilities, can accommodate needed capacity for instruction; 5) Universities and community colleges should be able to define their respective missions and modify them independently over time to serve their constituencies.

Bonnie Poulos, Campus Farm Neighborhood Association and Neighborhood Infill Coalition in Tucson, spoke about University of Arizona relations with area neighborhoods in relation to problem students who live off campus. She said the problem involves the university, the Tucson City Council, and the local police jurisdiction. She detailed the problems faced by neighborhoods when students live there. She asked the Regents to direct the university to help solve the problem.

Kathi Hart, Tri-University Classified Staff Executive Board, spoke in support of tuition assistance for employees and their families.

Amanda Brobbel, UA Graduate and Professional Student Council President, spoke on behalf of graduate student health insurance. She said the cost of the current plan and the fact there is no prescription plan is of concern. She asked that other options be considered.

Robert Young, had a concern with the definition of ‘international” within the Arizona university system, the issuance of a medical insurance policy without his knowledge or agreement, and the resulting transfer of personally identifiable information to a third party, and the extreme difficulty he had faced in attempting to resolve those issues.

President Likins introduced Dr. Keith Joiner, Dean of the UA College of Medicine. Dr. Joiner presented a synopsis of the development of the UA College of Medicine since its establishment in 1961. The first class started in 1967 with 32 students at a cost of $7M and was complimented rapidly with the completion of university hospital in 1971. The current class size is 110. He described the evolution of the College of Medicine and the Health Sciences Center and the planned new buildings. There are currently 422 students in the Arizona Health Sciences Center.

He explained the organization and the income of the health sciences at the UA. He explained the clinical, educational, research, and outreach missions of the College of Medicine and the time necessary to “make a doctor.”

Dr. Joiner said there is a need for change, including educating physicians as part of interdisciplinary health care teams, evidence-based approaches, utilizing informatics throughout the curriculum, and utilizing competency-based approaches. Until recently, diseases have been treated when symptoms appear. It is now possible to understand who is at risk for diseases and intervene before symptoms occur. This is a more economical way to treat patients. In academic health centers (a medical school and their affiliated hospital), the core mission is education, clinical care, and research.

The Institute of Medicine has called for change within academic health centers. Academic health centers need to support innovation, design new structures and new mechanisms, focus on translational research that takes basic science and moves it into patients, and use information technology as a central part of this.

Dr. Joiner said the UA College of Medicine has started a process of revising its curriculum to train physicians for the 21st century.

Items on the Consent Agenda, which are marked in these minutes with an *, were considered as consent maters and were adopted upon the motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla. There was no discussion of these items.

The Board adopted the August 19 and 20, 2004, Executive Session, September 30 and October 1, 2004, Regular Meeting, and the October 19, 2004, Special Meeting minutes.

The Board granted Project Approval to Arizona State University for the Decision Center for the New Arizona project. Total project cost is $4,750,000. Approximately 11,620 sq. ft. of the Orchid House, part of the Brickyard Building in downtown Tempe, have been set aside for the Decision Center for the New Arizona. ASU is using Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) for the construction delivery method. The cost estimate from the architect/engineer and the CMAR Guaranteed Maximum Price are both within the approved budget.

The Board authorized ASU to finalize an agreement with the National Science Foundation, #SES-0345945, for support of a Department of Geography, College of Liberal Arts and Science, and the Center of Environmental Studies research project. The proposed amount of the award is $6,899,996 federal funding.

The Board authorized ASU to finalize an agreement, #S359B040078, with the U.S. Department of Education for an Early Reading First Program. The proposed amount of the award is $2,491,777 federal funding.

The Board authorized ASU to accept an amendment to an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, #U282U300014, for support of a Department of Education Graduate Studies, College of Teacher Education and Leadership-ASU West instructional-research project. The proposed amount of the amendment is $1,038,872 for a new total award amount of $1,782,284 federal funding.

The Board authorized ASU to finalize an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, #P336B040017, for support of a Department of Elementary Education, College of Teacher Education and Leadership-ASU-West instructional-research project. The proposed amount of the award is $1,904,280 federal funding with $482,320 cost sharing from non-federal sources.

The Board authorized ASU to accept an amendment to an award with the National Science Foundation, #DEG-0114434, for support of a Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, College of Liberal arts and Sciences research project. The proposed amount of the amendment is $246,240 for a new total award amount of $2,664,163 federal funding.

The Board authorized the University of Arizona to enter into a Multiple-Year Employment Contract with David C. Rubio according to the terms and conditions as summarized in the Executive Summary. The agreement is for the period January 2, 2005, through January 1, 2008, and the proposed contract salary is $87,000 per annum. In addition to salary, Coach Rubio will receive additional compensation equal to 1/12 the annual salary for specified athletic accomplishments. He may also receive, annually, additional compensation for specified academic achievements. He will receive use of one motor vehicle and tickets for specified athletic events. The contract contains termination and liquidated damages clauses.

The Board authorized the University of Arizona to enter into a Multiple-Year Employment Contract with J. Michael Candrea according to the terms and conditions summarized in the Executive Summary. The agreement is for the period December 1, 2004, through June 30, 2009, and the proposed contract salary is $95,000 per annum. In addition to salary, Candrea will receive additional compensation equal to 1/12 his annual salary for specified athletic accomplishments. He may also receive, annually, additional compensation for specified academic achievements. He will receive use of one motor vehicle and tickets for specified athletic events. The contract contains termination and liquidated damages clauses.

The Board authorized the University of Arizona to retain Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P. for bond counsel with the alternate firm of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. through June 30, 2009, subject to approval of all documents by University Counsel. Five firms responded to the request for proposals for bond counsel. Selection was based upon review and analysis of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria.

The Board approved the appointment of Frederick M. Hurst as Vice President of Extended Programs and Dean of Distance Learning at NAU, effective upon Board approval, at his current salary of $135,316.

The Board was provided with a written summary of the Fall headcount and full-time equivalent enrollments for the Arizona university system. Overall, Arizona university system headcount enrollments increased .7%, from 113,450 in fall 2003, to 114,235 in Fall 2004. Undergraduate headcount enrollments increased 1.7%, from 86,927 in Fall 2003 to 88,371 in Fall 2004. Graduate headcount enrollments decreased 2.5%, from 26,523 in Fall 2003 to 25,864 in Fall 2004. ASU and NAU reported increases in total headcount enrollment. The UA reported a decrease in headcount enrollment.

Overall, FTE increased 2.2%, from 102,461 in Fall 2003 to 104,685 in Fall 2004. Undergraduate FTE increased 2.4%, while graduate FTE increased 1.3%. Increases in FTE were reported by ASU (1,608), NAU (405), and the UA (211).

Ms. Kathy Bedard, Athletic Directors Gene Smith, ASU, Jim Fallis, NAU, and Jim Livengood, UA, and Associate Athletic Directors Sandy Hatfield Clubb (ASU) and Rocky LaRose (UA) joined the meeting for this discussion.

Regent Jewett reminded the Regents they had conducted a series of study sessions on intercollegiate athletics (ICA) encouraging academic improvement and fiscal reform in the Arizona universities’ intercollegiate athletic programs. One of the outcomes was to invite the athletics directors to join the Board once a year to present an update on NCAA reforms efforts, student athlete welfare, and the financial condition of the ICA programs.

President Likins, a member of the NCAA Executive Committee and the NCAA Division I Board of Directors, said he had been asked to join the Knight Commission. The Knight Commission categorized issues of concern to academic performance of student athletes, student athlete well-being, and fiscal reform. He said the NCAA had some new metrics to measure how the universities and teams were accomplishing academic objectives with student athletes. The academic progress rate measures the percentage of the achievable points that an individual team and an individual university can accomplish by each student athlete each semester.

Dr. Likins said the NCAA also has a new graduation success rate. The definition includes, in the population being studied, those who transfer in and excludes those who transfer out in good academic standing. They are also moving to a requirement of 16 academic credits for freshman eligibility. Continued eligibility will require specific progress toward a degree, not just units taken and grades received. The Committee on Academic Performance has been established to monitor and implement these changes as there are sanctions for failing to meet the thresholds.

It turned out to be more difficult to make progress in student-athlete welfare because in some instances you are trying to protect students from themselves. They want to practice more hours a week as that is how they get to the Olympics. However, recruiting athletes will now be done in the same manner as recruiting any student for a campus.

Dr. Likins said fiscal reform will be the hardest problem to solve because the Sherman Anti-Trust Act prevents universities from working together to control cost growth. ICA departments across the country have experienced a percentage annual growth in expenditures roughly twice that of universities total budgets in the last five years and that is not sustainable. This is especially hard for universities with a high debt level. Many stadiums were built in the 20's and 30's and are physically deteriorating.

ASU Associate Athletic Director Sandy Hatfield Clubb reported on student-athlete welfare. Prior to August 2004, a student athlete’s maximum financial aid limit included tuition, fees, room, board, books, and course-related fees. New legislation permits a student athlete to receive outside financial aid that may include an athletic criterion as well as other financial aid up to the “cost of attendance.” In the Arizona schools, this is an additional $2,000 to $3,000. This award cannot be subsidized by the athletic department. The benefit is that students are able to accept an award they would have had to decline in the past.

Ms. Clubb said, beginning in the Summer of 2002, men’s and women’s basketball players were permitted to accept financial aid for summer school prior to their first semester of enrollment. Recently the NCAA Board of Directors approved a motion that provides institutions the autonomy to develop specific non-athletically related criteria to use for identifying prospective student athletes that would benefit from summer school prior to their first-time enrollment, provided this criteria had an academic nexus and there was an open process. These student athletes may not participate in organized athletic activities during this summer session. The Board also suggested the conference offices play a significant role in monitoring this process.

Ms. Clubb said need-based and academic financial aid will no longer count in team limits if the proposal now under consideration passes. Student athletes who participate in more than one sport can no longer double up on the amount of hours they can participate in practice. They will only be allowed to participate 20 hours per week in season and 8 hours out of season, even if they are in season in two sports.

Prior to August 1, 2004, coaches were required to provide student athletes a minimum of 1 day off in their out-of-season practice sessions. Now they are required to provide a minimum of 2 days off in out-of-season conditioning. Currently under consideration, as a result of the student athlete welfare task force chaired by former ASU athletic representative Jerry Kingston, is legislation that would adjust the permissible number of contests to minimize the commitment a student athlete has to sports during the academic year. Also, there is a proposal to no longer allow the travel day before and after a sporting event to be considered a day of rest.

With regard to health and safety, a rule was adopted that athletic departments could pay for medical costs for injury or illness that is non-athletically related as long as it is necessary for a return to competition. In July 2004, the Task Force on Recruiting provided recommendations to the Board of Directors that included guidelines for creating an institutional recruiting policy that were adopted as emergency legislation. Institutions are now required to have their policy in place and signed by their president by December 1, 2004. The three Arizona schools were in the process of forwarding their policies to their presidents.

President Likins introduced UA Athletic Director Jim Livengood. Mr. Livengood explained the UA Annual Intercollegiate Report. It is intended to give a snapshot of the Athletic Department. He said the current system for funding athletics does not work. The current report shows $21.5M that has been raised through fund development. Another $12.5M is raised through other means such as television contracts and receipts. The UA is projecting they will have in the neighborhood of $1.692M at the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. Livengood said the UA Athletic Department had a 65% graduation rate; in the 2003-2004 academic year, 149 of the student athletes had a GPA of 3.0 or better and 15 student athletes had a 4.0 GPA. The UA had 339 student athletes engaged in 1,875 hours of community service.

President Haeger introduced Mr. Jim Fallis, NAU Athletic Director. Mr. Fallis said NAU ICA ended the year with a balanced budget. He described the difference between Division 1A and 1AA athletic programs, especially noting Division 1AA programs have much smaller budgets.

Mr. Fallis said rising fuel prices and rising tuition prices are part of the reason athletic costs are increasing. Division I schools receive 85% of their support from external sources versus Division IAA institutions who receive 38% of their revenue from external sources. NAU receives 7% of its funding from NCAA/Conference support. He said 8% of NAU’s support comes from guarantees and without the support of ASU and UA on the football field, their guarantees would not be as high as they are.

Mr. Fallis said NAU’s funding goals for 2005-2006 are to increase ticket sales, alumni giving, corporate sponsors, and endowments. In order to accomplish this, they have focused some of their staffing on the external areas.

Mr. Fallis said NAU was extremely proud that 85 out of the 405 student-athletes earned Big Sky Conference All-Academic Awards and that 128 were Golden Eagle Scholar Athletes having a GPA of 3.00 or higher. The student-athlete cumulative GPA was above a 3.00 GPA for the eleventh time out of 12 semesters and 44 student-athletes graduated in May 2004.

Mr. Fallis summarized the athletic accomplishments for 2003-2004, including NAU men finishing 1st in the Big Sky Conference All-Sports trophy. He noted the diversity among undergraduate athletes, the gender equity accomplishments, and graduation rates for undergraduate student-athletes which is second highest in the Big Sky Conference. He said the Big Sky Conference has used the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund for degree completion, summer financial aid, computer rental fees, and Student Athlete Advisory Committee enhancement programs. NAU has $42,651 available from this fund for 2004-2005.

President Crow introduced Mr. Gene Smith, ASU Athletic Director. Mr. Smith pointed out the financials listed in the Sun Devil Competitor that described the FY 2002, 2003, and 2004 revenues and expenditures. Each year, with the exception of FY 2004, ICA has operated in the black. ICA plans to eliminate the deficit that has existed since FY 2000 in FY 2005.

Mr. Smith agreed with President Likins that new ways need to be found to fund ICA. Currently, programs rely on years with a spike in ticket sales to make up deficits. He told the Regents 61% of all student athletes earned a 3.0 GPA last year, with 42% having a cumulative GPA of 3.0. Over 1300 hours of community service were provided by Sun Devil athletes.

Regent Jewett thanked all the panel members for their work in intercollegiate athletics. Regent Calderón said he also appreciated the other two universities fitting NAU into their schedules as it really helps NAU’s financial picture. He expressed concern over the low graduation rates from the men’s basketball programs from all three universities. He was told men’s basketball is a small program and those that leave for another school or for professional basketball are counted against the university, even if they leave in good academic standing. The new standards will make a difference in this statistic.

Regent Boice said he hoped the Student Athlete Opportunity Fund would be carefully monitored as some schools might abuse the fund. He asked how much the universities would benefit from TV revenue from conference teams participating in the bowl games and was told UA and ASU would each receive $1.4M. Regent Boice said he did not believe people know how much it means to the teams to have a conference team in bowl games. President Likins said the NCAA agreed with Regent Boice concerning the fund for academic needs of athletes. Reporting accountability has been established so the Division I Board can provide oversight of these funds.

Regent Graff asked if the ICA departments were helping the adaptive sports programs. Mr. Livengood said the UA ICA was very active with the adaptive program. At the end of the basketball season, the team plays a benefit for adaptive sports. Mr. Smith said ASU does not have a program like the UA. They periodically provide use of facilities, but that is all. Mr. Fallis said he was not aware of an adaptive sports program at NAU, but it would probably be through the club sports program and would be a student sponsored program.

Regent Herstam chaired this portion of the meeting. Ms. Mary Jo Waits joined the meeting for this discussion. Ms. Waits reported the Study is still in the information gathering stage. There are three subcommittees working on data collection and one is looking at future needs and demands. Future market demand is being considered as well as the issue of educational attainment. She said NAU has done some GIS mapping as to where the educational demand will be around the state. One subcommittee has been collecting data from other states concerning educational demands. The third subcommittee is evaluating criteria that will be used to evaluate the proposals.

Ms. Waits said they are close to finishing the data gathering stage. A more detailed report is expected to be given at the January meeting.

Ms. Waits said a list of the stakeholder groups and their meeting dates was provided to the Board. Regent Herstam and other members of the Work Group have attended some of these meetings. It has been an enlightening process for both the stakeholders and the Work Group members.

Regent Herstam said it was hoped the data gathering could be concluded by mid January so the results could be provided to the Board at the January Board meeting. The data and criteria would be applied to the proposals in February and March and some options could come forward in the March-April time frame with possible recommendations in May.

President Stuart said he would like to see a report in January. He asked if the data continues to show there will be a need for higher capacity in the universities and was told the data is showing an even greater need than was originally anticipated. Regent Herstam said the time frame is an estimate, but it is possible that a new proposal that will most likely be a combination of the proposals submitted would come out of the Work Group process in February or March. In addition to the review of the proposal by the university presidents, there will be meetings all over the state allowing public input.

Regent Calderón asked if individual Regents would be able to offer amendments to the plan when it came to the Board and was told it would be up to the Regents what to do with the plan when it was proposed. It could be adopted, changed, or rejected. President Stuart said it needs to be a transparent process and it has always been assumed the Regents could change the proposal in any manner up to the time the proposal is adopted or rejected.

Regent Bulla said the substantial items reviewed by the ARU/IT Subcommittee were on the Agenda, so he would forgo his oral report on these items.

Mr. Ted Christensen and Mr. Fred Hurst joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Bulla reminded the Regents they had heard reports from consultants at the last meeting concerning the future operation and management of ARU and the Board decided to ask NAU for a proposal to transfer the operational elements of ARU to NAU. The Subcommittee spent over an hour examining the proposal and voted to bring to the Board a recommendation to enter into a definitive agreement with NAU for the administration of ARU. However, it is hoped the other universities will still be important players with the distance learning process and programs.

President Haeger said the NAU proposal is about taking responsibility for managing ARU in the service of all three institutions and the students of Arizona. NAU believes it can expand ARU with one of the best technology delivery systems in the country. With the current investment NAU has in delivery systems, it will be possible to open up degrees and programs from all three institutions in a much broader fashion than is currently done. This is a piece of the broader proposed redesign as students do access higher education in a wide variety of modes, including distance learning. The expansion of ARU would allow students to participate at any of the three universities in a different cost structure. Dr. Haeger said NAU is excited about working with the other two universities to build ARU to a new level.

Regent Bulla said there are currently approximately 1900 individual distance learning courses involving around 40,000 students. To move to a new level, new services must be provided. Regent Boice said he agreed with the recommendation and asked for a business plan for the implementation of the program. Regent Bulla said a business plan would quickly follow the Memorandum of Understanding. Regent Frank asked if someone could do all the course work for a degree from distance learning and was told yes.

Upon motion of Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board authorized the Executive Director to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with NAU regarding management of Arizona Regents University (ARU) consistent with a plan to be finalized in full consultation with the ARU/IT Subcommittee.

Dr. Art Ashton joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Bulla said there had been a Tri-University effort, financed by $100,000 from the Regents’ innovation fund, for a security analysis. The universities have been working on security gaps. They now would like to follow up on the progress made. The Subcommittee examined the project and recommends the follow-up security assessment of the universities’ networks for weaknesses, which will be performed by Cisco System Corporation, be authorized.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Palacios, the Board approved spending up to $100K of Regents Innovation Funds for a Second Tri-University Security Assessment.

Dr. Art Ashton joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Bulla said the Subcom-mittee had throughly discussed ASU’s request to construct two distance learning classrooms for expansion of the Fulton School of Engineering online degree and professional development programs to be managed and operated by the Fulton School of Engineering Center for Professional Development at a five-year total cost of $840,000. The Subcommittee recommended approval to the Board.

Upon motion of Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board approved the construction of two new classrooms designated for distance learning classrooms to be managed and operated by the Fulton School of Engineering’s Center for Professional Development.

Dr. Art Ashton joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Bulla said the Board had approved ASU’s request for funding of the Application for Technology-Based Learning and Support (ATLAS) - ASU Online System as a decision package at the last meeting, subject to the ARU/IT Subcommittee’s approval of the project. The Subcommittee considered the request and recommended the Board’s approval. President Crow introduced Ms. Kimberly Loui, Executive Director of the Office of University Initiatives, who had made the presentation to the Subcommittee.

Regent Boice said he had concerns about initiatives of this size that are singular to a particular institution and he would like there to be more collaboration among the three universities. Upon motion of Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Frank, the Board approved the ATLAS content management system pending legislative approval of the $24M decision package.

Mr. Bruce Wright joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Bulla said this was a request from the University of Arizona for a revision of the UA Science and Technology Park Master Plan. He reminded the Regents that Regent Jewett had asked at the first reading for reassurances, in writing from a number of entities, that the plans were consistent with their understandings.

Regent Jewett said the City of Tucson letter recommended the university pursue planned area development for this area and asked if this was being done as universities do not usually participate in these kinds of plans. Mr. Wright said the City’s remarks were in anticipation of a possible annexation agreement between the City of Tucson and the university to bring the Science and Technology Park into the City of Tucson. The City would like a planned area development as part of the annexation agreement which would codify the standards and growth related to the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base Joint Land Use Study.

Regent asked if the letter from the Air Force could be interpreted and was told the Air Force was indicating the university had met the terms and conditions of putting the Science and Technology Guidelines into conformance with the Joint Land Use recommendations. Mr. Wright said the Air Force has consistently said, not withstanding the recommendations, they wish there was not any development within the entire flight paddle.

Upon motion of Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board approved the proposed revision to the University of Arizona Science and Technology Park Master Plan.

The meeting recessed at 4:07 p.m. and President Stuart reconvened at 9:25 a.m. on Friday, November 19.

President Stuart introduced Dr. Keith Joiner, Dean of the UA College of Medicine, Dr. David Young, Vice President and Dean of the ASU College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Dr. Jeffrey Trent, President and Scientific Director of TGen, Mr. John Murphy, President and CEO of the Flinn Foundation, Mr. Jaime Molera, Consultant with the Molera-Alvarez Group, Mr. Fred Karnas, the Governor’s Policy Advisor for Urban Affairs and Community Development, Ms. Sheryl Sculley, City of Phoenix Assistant City Manager, and Mr. Dave Harris, Arizona Biomedical Collaborative Senior Project Manager.

Dr. Joiner said there is a health care crisis in Arizona and the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the Expansion of Medical Education and Research in Phoenix (MOU) is the beginning of an attempt to eliminate this crisis.

Dr. Joiner said medical schools differ from most professional schools as they are linked to hospitals and practice plans in an integrated series of joint ventures. Because of shrinking margins from clinical revenues, flattening grant funding, and smaller dollars from the federal government, it has become increasingly difficult to manage this integrated system. The hospitals, the medical school, and the practice plans will have to work together in an open, collaborative spirit in planning from the strategic and financial point of view in order to be successful in this new endeavor.

Some obstacles to running an effective enterprise are competing interests, tunnel vision, and lack of board engagement. The first guiding principle of the UA College of Medicine needs to be the overall enterprise rather than self-serving parochial interests. However, the other partners also need to follow this example.

Dr. Joiner explained what had happened since the MOU was signed in August. Academic and research planning has begun. The Phoenix Historic High School buildings will be the site for the first class. The Liaison Committee for Medical Education (LCME), the accrediting agency, will make a site visit in a few months to lay out a road map that must be followed to start a class. The rehab of the buildings begins in the Spring and the admissions process for a class starting in 2006 should begin in about ten months. A site visit is scheduled by the LCME for the Tucson and Phoenix Medical School in January of 2006. It is hoped the School will be completed by May of 2006 and the first class of 24 students will begin in July of 2006, a very tight time line.

Dr. Joiner gave a brief presentation on the footprint, design, faculty, and collaboration possibilities of the new campus in Phoenix. He said the College of Medicine would have a major focus in three areas: Cancer, Human Neurosciences, and Diabetes. He described the economic impact and described the working group that is putting the College of Medicine in place.

Mr. Murphy provided a brief history of the Flinn Foundation. In 1986, the Flinn Foundation began looking at the role of the College of Medicine in Phoenix and expanding that role. It commissioned a study to look at geographically separated campuses, how they flourished across the country in recent years, and different configurations from the standpoint of shared curriculum, faculty, organizational governance structure, and financing.

Four years ago the Flinn Foundation Board decided to shift its focus in the health care sector to the biomedical research arena to see what the Foundation could do to help position the state competitively in the biosciences sector. The Flinn Foundation is committing $60M to move in this direction. This, however, means the Foundation will be discontinuing some projects that have been supported over the years historically such as preventive programs in teen pregnancy, support programs for victims of domestic abuse, and support of health education programs in schools.

This shift in focus allowed the Flinn Foundation to assist with the planning of TGen. Simultaneously, the Foundation commissioned the Battelle Memorial Institute to do an inventory of the assets of Arizona in the biosciences to see where the state is compared to bench mark sites of other regions and states and what it would take for Arizona to become more competitive. That resulted in the “Arizona Biosciences Road Map.”

It was learned the central component of those successful sites has been a top medical school with the rich diverse education and research responsibilities and programs. Mr. Murphy said the issuance of the MOU was an affirming moment for the Flinn Foundation because it signaled recognition and commitment to Arizona’s future in terms of advancing it to the forefront of the national biosciences economy.

The Battelle study states the winner in the competitive biosciences sector will be the community and set of institutions that pool resources. The greater Phoenix area has been handicapped in the competition for federal research and training funds in the past by the absence of a medical school. Mr. Murphy believes the Phoenix area now will be able to draw upon the expertise that exists here in the hospitals, teaching hospitals, and the biomedical field such as TGen. There will be an opportunity to broaden the participation of the two universities. There is the potential interaction between the clinical research faculty at the medical school and the basic sciences that are being recruited by the biomedical facilities. This will be a rich opportunity for diversity of educational experiences.

Mr. Murphy said the Flinn Foundation was approached by the Governor to help her staff and advance the Arizona Commission on Medical Education and Research. Her interest was in following the success that had taken place in advancing the planning effort for TGen. In that effort, a number of constituent groups from throughout the state participated as well as an experienced out-of-state consulting team. The Foundation is now trying to identify a consultant who can perform the same function for this
Commission. The consultant would identify needs, a structure to meet those needs, and provide projected costs.

Dr. David Young talked about ASU’s capacity for making contributions in the area of research, its capacity in respect to curriculum development, and where ASU is headed in respect to the charge in the MOU to develop a Department of Biomedical Informatics. Biomedical research is going to change in the future with increased emphasis on linkage of basic clinical and preventative research. There will be a need to develop large interdisciplinary teams of researchers focused on a problem and to translate this research knowledge into practice. He listed many ASU faculty who have been invited to participate in the development of the new curriculum.

Dr. Young discussed the development of the Phoenix Biomedical Campus of the Arizona University System (PBCAUS). ASU has an internal planning group to decide what the department might look like before input is solicited from other members of the working group that will include faculty from ASU, people from TGen, hospital personnel, and faculty from the UA College of Medicine. They focused on Biomedical Informatics, Clinical Informatics, and Public Health Informatics. He explained the timberline of developing the new department and stated it is hoped it can be launched in the summer of 2006. He demonstrated how Informatics can link all the basic research and science as well as clinical research and initiatives.

Dr. Jeff Trent talked about the opportunity to create the vision of excellence in bio-medicine for the 21st Century. He said the value of genetic medicine is just beginning to be considered. Medical education and training must transform itself to equip clinicians and researchers with state-of-the art tools, experience, and expertise to tackle 21st century medicine. The current curriculum base has not led to an increase in the confidence level of physicians in providing genetic counseling or usiing genetic tools in the practice of medicine.

Dr. Trent said the opportunity would be missed if this chance is not used as an agent of change to be part of the transformation of the education and training of the next generation of physicians. It is the greatest need. The universities and TGen’s expertise must be linked to accelerate the establishment of this critical mass of research across the state. There needs to be a strong Phoenix-based leadership to augment the College of Medicine here in a way that integrates with key leaders across the state. The opportunity to attract increased clinical capacity is also a critical component.

Dr. Trent said TGen’s aims intersect with the College of Medicine in its vision of personalized medicine, the goal of developing and providing more effective diagnostics and interventions to patients in an accelerated manner, and the strategy of leveraging TGen scientific and technology expertise with cumulative research expense and resources across the state and nationally. TGen faculty could play a role in the education and training of these students by serving on the faculty as mentors and teachers and providing input in developing curriculum modules. TGen is already providing clinical experience for medical students in early phase clinical trials and laboratory rotations for medical students.

Dr. Trent said there needs to be some aspect of local governance in the day-to-day leadership. Receiving information and feedback to show how this project can be designed and implemented from the January consulting visit by the LCME Committee will be exceedingly important.

President Stuart said the purpose is to build and expand the College of Medicine; not to build or expand a hospital. However, a hospital is critical to the ultimate success of the project. Mr. Jaime Molera is engaging in this part of the process.

Mr. Molera said this process, because of its magnitude, is similar to the passage of Proposition 301. That initiative was successful because there were a number of different interests and they worked together as a team on the initiative. Currently, there is a need to expand the College of Medicine because Arizona is behind and this is critical to the advancement of the health care system.

There is a need for strong leadership and the Governor’s Commission to design the framework is necessary as this project is risky. This Commission will bring the key players together to help answer the question of why this is needed. Legislators and others will also be interested in the cost. As the project comes together, it will be very important to emphasize the importance of the project to the health care system of Arizona.

Mr. Fred Karnas said the Governor believes the State of Arizona is blessed with great academic institutions and an excellent medical school. The opportunity to bring all these pieces together is exciting and an unparalleled opportunity. Ultimately, the Governor believes the Medical School belongs to the State and people of Arizona. That is why it is important that the Governor’s office and the state be involved in the process. The financial investment and the integration of everything the state wishes to accomplish and the importance of the outcome means it is important to do this project correctly.

The Commission was charged with the specific goals of developing a plan to implement the principles outlined in the MOU. It is to be a collaborative effort guided by the consultants mentioned by Mr. John Murphy. It is the Governor’s intent to include more than the people on the Commission in the process. It needs to be a transparent process. The goal of the Commission is to have some preliminary recommendations in place by March 30. It is intended to be a forum, an opportunity for collaborative effort. Mr. Karnas said he spoke on behalf of the Governor when he said they were looking forward to working with all the people in the room to make the project a success.

Ms. Sheryl Sculley said she would like to talk about context and the large scale investment in downtown Phoenix for the TGen Headquarters development as the anchor to the campus, and the importance of PBCAUS in downtown Phoenix in creating a highly successful biomedical center for the State of Arizona.

She displayed a map showing the development in downtown Phoenix and explained current and planned projects. A master plan that provides linkages for all of the major investments is in the process of completion with substantial community input. This is to help design the future commercial and retail opportunities as well as housing.

Ms. Sculley said the City of Phoenix decision to commit land and financing for the IGC/TGen headquarters building was a bold move. They have approved the issuance of debt for up to $46M or the design and construction of that building plus an additional $12M for assistance in the first five years of operating expense to support the IGC/TGen. The leases are structured so the City subsidizes the early years but TGEN and IGC will begin making rent payments after they have stabilized as new organizations.

The National Institutes of Health program for diabetes and kidney research that is now at the Indian Hospital on Indian School will be relocated to the TGen Headquarters. Current negotiations are taking place with a private research entity to occupy space in the building. Things are happening more quickly and abundantly than was envisioned.

Ms. Sculley displayed a rendering of the IGC/TGEN Headquarters facility, the Phoenix Biomedical Center at the Copper Square Site Area, and the Phoenix Biomedical Center Site Plan. The City is in early discussions with two hospitals regarding some research and clinical research facilities on the campus. They are also in discussions with private companies.

Ms. Sculley explained the PBCAUS steering committee which began in September shortly after the MOU was signed. She and President Stuart co-chair the group that includes Dr. Joiner, Dr. Poste, Dr. Young, Mr. Karnas, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Joel Sideman, and a host of other UA and ASU staff that are helping in the endeavor. The City’s role is to provide the site and facilitate the development of the project components. Ms. Sculley said the Phoenix Mayor and City Council members are deeply committed to the Biomedical Center in downtown Phoenix.

President Stuart said he was amazed how many different elements of the statewide community are starting to come together around these steering groups. Mr. Dave Harris said it hoped the July 2006 deadline can be honored. He said a public/private partner for the project has been selected and thanks to Ms. Sculley and her staff, there is a reservation for new market tax credits for the historic buildings which will have the impact of reducing construction costs in the area of $3M to $4M. Mr. Harris described the possible uses of the historic buildings in the future.

President Likins said he believed there is a prospect in the State of Arizona of accomplishing such a dramatic breakthrough in the domain of health care education, research, and practice that the state could move from laggard to leader. The most competitive advantage that Arizona currently has is that it is acting as a state. This process has been going on as four years ago it was decided biomedical areas should be emphasized. Proposition 301 has provided some funding in this area and TGen has made a major contribution toward this beginning. He said it will be difficult to bring together so many different people to share in the collective enterprise that has such consequences. Telemedicine will play an important part in linking the state in this enterprise. He emphasized this is a statewide collective commitment as there are also partners in northern Arizona.

President Crow said this is one of the top projects he is focusing his energy on in the context of the entire advancement of ASU. It is a project that will be difficult as it advances. He said it is not an accident that Arizona is not yet in the game for what will most certainly be the bio century or that it is a state of 6M people growing to 10M people or more with only one emerging medical school or that metro Phoenix is the largest city in North America without a research grade medical school. The reasons for this are parochialism and limited thinking and these two reasons must be defeated.

This partnership will require immense amounts of focus and energy to be successful as the rest of the world is moving ahead with these projects as well. President Crow said ASU is thoroughly committed to this endeavor.

Regent Bulla thanked everyone involved for the task that is being undertaken. He said he knows how difficult this project will be and said it is important to make sure all the players are together. He also said there was a huge deficit in the number of doctors that are practicing in the state and it will get worse if nothing is done.

Regent Frank asked if there was any expectation for any kind of connection with the Mayo Clinic. Dr. Joiner said he had discussed the issue with the Mayo Clinic and there is desire to work together, but it has not yet been determined how that could be accomplished. They do not have the same academic or financial need to be affiliated as some other hospitals.

Regent Graff said the students had presented a list of questions to be answered as the project develops. He asked how the students could be involved in the planning, specifically if students could be involved with the work groups. Dr. Joiner said there are students on the curriculum work groups. The steering committee has now reached a point where students could also be included. Regent Graff asked for a forum for medical students where their questions could be answered. Dr. Joiner said he has met with medical student representatives and has tried to keep them currently briefed as much as possible. President Stuart asked Regent Graff to organize a student forum on both the ASU and UA campuses.

President Stuart said NAU is vitally involved in the Arizona Biomedical Collaborative. They have faculty that will play a role. President Haeger said NAU had capacity in certain areas of bioscience and biotechnology, but does not have an involvement in medical education. It will partner when asked.

President Stuart agreed there is a great need to defeat parochialism and to make sure thinking is unlimited and expansive. He said the Commission would meet at least twice prior to the January ABOR meeting and will engage the consultants. He believes the Commission will be expanded and its role will be sharpened. The ongoing process for determining curriculum and faculty and how it all will work has been in place and is being expanded. The hospital piece is under discussion and funding efforts and funding strategies are being developed. Funding will involve private, legislative, and structural funding as the amount required is staggering. The statewide integration of the College of Medicine is an emerging concept. All of this needs to take place under a tight time frame. President Stuart said he would report to the Board in January on how the project is proceeding.

UA Vice President for Research Richard Powell, NAU Vice Provost for Research Carl Fox, ASU Provost Milt Glick, and Ms. Kathy Bedard joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said the Board was being asked to review and approve the universities’ plans relating to the second five-year cycle of the Technology and Research Initiative Fund or Proposition 301 funding.

Dr. Powell gave a detailed report on the University of Arizona’s two-tiered approach for administering its TRIF funding, both for evaluating its projects for the first three years and for developing the new proposals for the next five-year cycle. These evaluations incorporate the metrics in the business plans approved by the Regents for the projects, how the projects have met the overall intent of Proposition 301, and how the projects help implement the three Battelle Road Maps for the state. These draft reports will be submitted to the Board in April for comments. They will be revised and returned to the Board in June for adoption.

Dr. Glick gave a detailed presentation on ASU’s TRIF fund evaluation. He said ASU was in the second phase of its five-year planning because when Dr. Crow arrived at the university, he reconceptualized the plans to focus on the Biodesign Institute and capacity building in related areas such as information technology, advanced materials, and wireless technology. The Morrison Institute conducted interviews with members of the business community, members of the Arizona state government, and other key players in the economy to determine what results or outcomes they expected from Proposition 301 funding, and started its evaluation with a blueprint designed by these people. It will also involve an evaluation based upon a set of metrics the Morrison Institute designed that have been widely praised nationally as a new approach to measuring such initiatives.

After review by the appropriate administrators and faculty, including President Crow and Provost Glick, the draft reports will be brought to the Board in April and the final reports for approval in June. ASU has already decided that proposals for the next five years will break down into the same two broad categories, the Biodesign Institute and a series of smaller scale, shorter term, capacity building efforts. Dr. Glick explained the requirements the new requests would have to meet to be recommended for funding.

Dr. Fox gave a detailed presentation on NAU’s TRIF fund evaluation process. He said NAU’s evaluation is similar in structure to the University of Arizona’s plan. There is a Proposition 301 Executive Committee composed of NAU administrators and the outside business community. There are also advisory committees chaired by the directors of the initiatives and participation from faculty and the outside business community for each initiative. The three-year evaluation will look at each initiative in terms of a self-evaluation based on the goals and objectives set forward in the business plans and an analysis of the metrics and what the impact has been on the state in meeting the objectives of Proposition 301.

The plans for the next five years will also be reviewed. The Executive Committee will look at new documents that have come out since the first proposal was written, such as the Battelle Road Map and the recommendations of the Governor’s Council on Innovation and Technology, and prepare a document that will define the rational for NAU in terms of what is considered important for addressing the spirit of Proposition 301. If the current initiatives are continued, NAU will ask each of the directors to develop new proposals based on the business plan format. If new initiatives need to be put forward, NAU will put out a call and review those proposals before bringing them to the Board for consideration in June.

Regent Boice said he was glad to hear everyone was continuing with the business plan format as he believes that makes it easier for the Regents to evaluate the projects. He noted the sales tax revenues are up, so there should be a few more dollars for the projects. He asked the universities do everything they can do to leverage the funds. He would like the reports to be succinct and understandable when they come to the Board.

Regent Palacios asked if there were common points among the projects so the Regents could evaluate which best meets the criteria. She was told they each have their own metrics, but there are common points across the projects. There are also general categories, such as Work Force Development and Technology Transfer, where each one may be slightly different, but the overall categories are similar across the initiatives.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent McCalley, the Board approved the plans of Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, the University of Arizona, and the Central Office for evaluating the first three years of their TRIF-funded projects and for developing FY 2007-2011 TRIF budget proposals, as presented in the Executive Summary.

Mr. Bob Norton and Mr. Ted Gates joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said NAU was requesting authority to refund all or a portion of NAU System Revenue Bonds, Series 1997, Series 2002, and Series 2003. Mr. Norton said NAU was asking for authority to advance refund all its current debt that is eligible for refunding. Today they are specifically asking for the 1997 issue which is $25.3M that will drop from 5.25% interest to an average of 4%. The 1997 Series is the only one that is available for refunding at this time. They were looking for global authority to refund the other series to have flexibility in the market if other opportunities appeared in the next 2 to 24 months.

Regent Bulla said he had a problem with the blanket approval rather than one for a specific series. He said he preferred the motion only be for the 1997 Series. Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent McCalley, the Board granted Northern Arizona University authority to refund all or a portion of the NAU System Revenue Bonds, Series 1997 as presented in the Executive Summary.

Mr. Ted Gates, Dr. Mernoy Harrison, and Dr. Juan Gonzales joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said ASU was requesting approval to purchase 2.74 acres of land at 615-617 East Apache Boulevard in Tempe. This purchase is in connection with ASU’s South Campus Academic Village master plan, which received Capital Development Plan approval in January 2004.

Dr. Harrison said this is the first purchase of land associated with the South Campus Academic Village which is part of the ASU Comprehensive Development Plan. The property currently contains the Oasis Apartments and ASU has been attempting to purchase this property for the last several years as it fits between two of its existing housing properties. The property has been appraised at $5,515,000 and the owner has agreed to sell at appraised value.

Dr. Gonzales said ASU would like to have the capacity to have all freshmen and some upperclassmen be able to live on campus. He described future projects to move in this direction. President Crow said the root of the South Campus project is an effort to secure sufficient residence hall space to drive up graduation rates by creating a living and learning environment.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted Arizona State University approval to purchase the land at 615-617 East Apache Boulevard in Tempe, Arizona, as described in the Executive Summary.

Dr. Mernoy Harrison and Mr. Ted Gates joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said ASU was requesting approval to sell lease purchase Certificates of Participation not to exceed $13.9M to finance the Interdisciplinary Science and Technology Building III Research Infrastructure project at the East Campus.

Dr. Harrison said this project had already received Project Approval and Project Implementation approval. This is one of the research infrastructure projects, a research facility at the ASU East Campus, and has received Joint Conference Committee Review approval. Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Bulla, the Board granted Arizona State University approval to sell lease purchase certificates of participation in an amount, not to exceed $13.9M, to finance the Interdisciplinary Science and Technology Building III Research Infrastructure project as presented in the Executive Summary.

Dr. Richard Stanley and Mr. Ted Gates joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Boice said ASU was requesting approval to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Phoenix relating to development of the ASU Downtown Campus. Dr. Stanley said this IGA is in regard to the City of Phoenix’s activities to acquire property to benefit the development of the ASU Downtown Campus. The primary aspects of the proposed IGA are pledges of support to Phoenix’s activities by confirming our mutual desire to create a campus, pledging to work together with Phoenix to identify specific properties for the development of that campus, and indicating a willingness on the part of ASU to seek separate approval from the Board of Regents if other actions are needed to help to accomplish the acquisition of the properties by the City of Phoenix.

Dr. Stanley offered an amendment to the requested approval which would clarify the item. On the second page, the first bullet has been amended to state: “The IGA contemplates the reasonable and good faith cooperation of ASU officials including the commitment to seek action by the Arizona Board of Regents if necessary to accomplish the purposes of the agreement, although it is currently understood that the Arizona Board of Regents has made no financial commitment to acquisition or construction at this time or approved specific projects.

Upon motion of Regent Boice, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board authorized Arizona State University to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Phoenix relating to the development of the ASU Downtown Campus as presented in the amended Executive Summary.

Regent Calderón presented this report. He said the Joint Conference Committee (JCC) is composed of representatives of the university system and the community college system. The first meeting of the academic year was held on October 20.

The JCC provides high-level oversight to statewide academic articulation between the community colleges and universities. It also provides a key forum for communication and for identifying issues before they emerge as problems. The membership is comprised of 3 Regents and a university president--Regent Calderón, Regent McCalley, Regent Stuart, and President Haeger–2 community college presidents and two district trustees.

Regent Calderón said the last meeting had centered on the redesign of the university system with a presentation by Ms. Mary Jo Waits. The focus of the discussion following that presentation centered on accessability to the university system. One of the universities’ priorities is to have as much a seamless articulation with the community colleges as possible. Hopefully, the redesign will enhance articulation. The JCC asked one of its subcommittees to begin working in this area.

Dr. Frances Bernat said the Arizona Faculties Council (AFC) believes flexibility is crucial to the various discussions underway. The AFC is looking at how shared governance structures facilitate university processes.

She said all the universities in Arizona have a commitment to improve salaries and that is one of the issues the AFC is looking at in terms of data. They believe this should be an issue for staff and academic professionals as well. The campuses and universities have different ways of administering the limited dollars, and the AFC would like to have a understanding of the policies used so faculty who get a small portion of limited money will not feel demoralized. Salary is just one of the ways faculty can be rewarded for their service.

The AFC would like to continue to work with the provosts to get accurate data for the Regents to look at compression within the colleges across campuses, inversion, and equity concerns, and to understand how rewards, retention and university culture contribute to stimulation of an engaged faculty. Secondly, the AFC would like to identify creative solutions to the critical issues that we are facing and help provide general principles on how shared governance responsibilities can effectively address the various processes effecting universities. The aim of the AFC is to provide feedback to create and maintain a work place that enables the recruitment, retention of faculty, academic professionals, and staff.

President Stuart asked how the faculty viewed the proposed performance funding approach. Dr. Bernat said faculty members would say there should be some form of performance measures. The difficulty is when dealing with very small percentage raises. Providing clear guidance so faculty understand how these decisions on merit and performance based measures are allocated would help as there is a wide variance in the definition of performance or merit on the various campuses. One of the concerns is providing a sense of competition for small amounts of money. There needs to be a sense that when you are meeting your performance objectives according to your university and department missions, you will be equally rewarded with what money is available for your department.

Ms. Stephanie Jacobson, Dr. Mark Denke, Mr. Dan Anderson, Dr. Milt Glick, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, Mr. John Nametz, Dr. Juan Garcia, and Mr. Rick Kroc joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Frank said the Board had approved a new set of accountability measures designed to report on the outcomes of the Changing Directions initiatives. These include both unique measures for each university and a set of seven system-wide measures. At the June meeting, university measures and goals were approved, along with the system-wide measures.

Ms. Jacobson, the Provosts, Financial Aid Directors, Institutional Researchers, Enrollment Management Personnel, and Central Office staff developed goals for the proposed system-wide measures. Ms. Jacobson presented the proposed system-wide goals that address the following three areas: access and participation, student success, and affordability. There are two measures that address access and participation. The first measure addresses eligible Arizona high school graduates who enroll in an Arizona public university within one year of graduation. The recent high school eligibility study showed 41.7% of qualified students entered a university within one year of graduation. The proposed goal is to raise the percentage to 43% by 2009. Due to expected growth in high school enrollment, the universities will need to increase the number of these freshmen by 22% system-wide over the next 5 years, or by about 2200 students, to achieve this goal.

The combined access measure draws a broader circle around access. It includes students who delay entering the universities up to 4 years after high school graduation. Currently, 29.1% of these students enroll within 4 years of graduation. The goal for this measure is for each university to maintain this level of enrollment by 2009. Again, because of growth, the universities will need to increase the numbers of the students in this group by 27% or nearly 3500 students over the next 5 years.

There are 2 success measures. The first is the 6-year graduation rate for freshmen. The standard measure is based on students who begin at one university as a freshman and graduate from that institution 6 years later. The added new dimension, taking advantage of a relatively new state-wide data base called ASIST, allows the capture of those students who transfer from one of the sister institutions and still graduate in 6 years. Using this data, the system graduation rate is raised to 57.8%, up from 54.5% under the standard measure. This becomes a system graduation rate. The proposed goal for this system-wide measure is to increase the graduation rate up to 61.2% by 2009-2010. This will represent a 50% increase in numbers of graduates from the baseline year of 2003-2004 or about 2,000 more students.

The second success measure requires information that has not been captured by the universities historically, such as high school graduation dates for transfer students. In order to have adequate data, the earliest this measure will be reported on will be 2008.

The next 3 goals address affordability of higher education, particularly as they relate to students with unmet need. This measure addresses the funds allocated to Pell Grant recipients from the Regents 14% tuition set-aside. The proposed goal is for the universities to allocate no less than 50% of this set-aside for full-time Arizona resident Pell eligible students, effective Fall of 2005 and thereafter. When the Regents increased the tuition by $1,000 and the tuition set-aside to 14%, the universities were directed to initially keep these neediest Pell students unharmed from these increases and the universities have done so for the past 2 years. The following year, to keep these students protected from the increase, 64% of the set-aside funds were awarded to Pell students. Pell recipients make up 33% to 38% of students with unmet need. In order to continue to address the financial support for these neediest students but insure that funds are available for the 60% to 65% of other students with unmet need, the universities are recommending this measure.

Measure 6 looks at the average amount of debt for resident full-time undergraduate students with subsidized loans and Measure 7 looks at total unmet need of all resident full-time undergraduate students with a cost of attendance not met by the family estimated contribution, grants, scholarships, subsidized loans, etc. The university has little control over these factors; however, it is important to monitor these amounts from year to year. Measure 6 and 7 are being recommended as tracking measures that will be reported annually. In addition, the institutions will apply interventions where possible to maintain or minimize the levels for each.

Regent Frank asked if there was an idea of how many needy students there are who are not receiving Pell grants. Mr. Nametz said there are around 2,000 high needy students who are not Pell Grant recipients. If students chose to work to minimize their loans, they also minimize their Pell Grants. Our university system tries to cover those students and in the last few years, has increased grant eligible students financial benefit by approximately $300.

Regent Palacios asked if it would make sense to measure the number of students who use loans as well as the size of their loans. Mr. Nametz and President Likins said the loans for college students these days are unlimited; so students can qualify for those based on need for a subsidized loan or non-need for unsubsidized loans. Many times these reflect student choice as well as student need as many times the parents decide the most effective way to use the family’s money is to borrow and pay the low interest rate. President Likins said the loan figures cannot stand by themselves to understand how many students are needy. He believes it is more important to understand the financial situation before the decision to get the loan.

Regent Palacios said there might be a need for another measure to help the Regents understand the total amount of unmet student need. President Likins said there is only data for those students who apply for financial aid. Many students who chose to work their way through college don’t apply for financial aid; so the universities do not have that data.

President Stuart said these are all system-wide goals and he is interested in the process by which the goals were selected. Mr. Anderson said work groups of university representatives were brought together from the institutional research and academic offices to look at what the institutions had done over the last few years, what was going to be happening in the future with the flow of high school graduates into the system, what the historical success had been in enrolling and graduating students, and what a reasonable goal would be that would be a stretch to make the universities perform at a high level. President Stuart asked if the likelihood of a change in the mix of under-graduate students and the likely variation of resident and non-resident students had been considered. Mr. Anderson said many of those variables had been considered as well as the change in minority population.

Regent Bulla asked if any graduation number changes due to the AIMS test were considered and was told they did not as it is difficult at this time to quantify that number. He asked if changes in admission requirements were considered and was told yes. Regent Bulla asked if unmet need could be figured by taking the average unmet need and multiple it by the number of students to determine the unmet needs. Mr. Nametz said the unmet need is based on the number of students who actually apply for aid and that may depend on a lot of factors such as families who chose to borrow money and students who chose to work rather than apply for financial aid. Regent Bulla said he believed there is a great unmet need and he would like to see more data than what is presented.

President Stuart asked the Regents to remember the accountability measures when tuition and financial aid are discussed in the Spring. The number that stands out for him is the system-wide affordability measure where the universities will allocate no less than 50% of the Regents’ set aside for full-time undergraduate Pell eligible Arizona residents. When tuition was increased substantially 2 years ago, it was done on the promise from the universities that no Pell Grant student would be impacted by that substantial increase and now this has been changed to no less than 50% of the money will be used for these students. This should be revisited in the Spring with consideration of what the 14% set-aside is, what the tuition increase will be, and what the anticipated Fall 2005 enrollment will be.

Regent Calderón said he would like the universities to reflect on a suggestion by Regent Boice at the last tuition discussion about having a system that would allow students to know what their tuition would be for four years when they arrive as freshmen.

Dr. Glick said the universities do believe they can meet the standard of no Pell recipient with unmet need being disadvantaged by tuition increases in the foreseeable future at ASU, but he does not want to downplay the importance of the highly subsidized loans. Of all the loans people use in their lifetime, there are few that have the return on investment as the loans to further their education. He is more concerned about the number of hours students work and believes a subsidized loan is a better choice than work impacting study time.

President Likins said he agreed with Provost Glick. He asked if the 50% of aid that was reserved for resident students was from 50% of the resident student set-aside or from all the set aside money. He was told it was 50% of all the set aside money generated by all students. There is a much higher proportion of resident students that are Pell eligible than non-resident students.

Dr. Bernat asked if there was a relationship between the students who are working and those who receive aid and the 6-year graduation rate. Dr. Glick said he was sure the working students take longer to graduate, but there is no data on that now. President Crow said many students work to advance their career by being an intern in their chosen field. He said there needed to be a way to have the state fund more financial aid. President Likins said the number of hours students work and where they work makes a difference.

Regent Frank asked for a description of the strategies that would be used to maintain or minimize the level of debt or level of unmet need. Mr. Kroc said the factors contributing to the increase would need to be considered, such as the amount students can borrow, the amount of time they are working, or other factors.

Upon motion of Regent Frank, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board approved the goals for the system-wide Regents Accountability Measures as presented.

Mr. Craig Fennell, Mr. David Bousquet, Dr. Mark Denke, and Mr. John Nametz joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Frank said this was the annual presentation on the financial aid plans of the universities for the next fiscal year.

Dr. Denke said Board policy requires the universities to submit annual financial aid plans. to give a general picture of estimated amounts and broad goals for the use of financial aid resources and to insure they are in compliance with Board policies and guidelines. These plans for FY 2006 show the estimated amounts of financial aid, the set-aside for need-based aid, total financial aid as a percentage of tuition and fees, and compliance with policies for need and merit-based aid. Estimated financial aid for FY 2006 for the system totals $185.1M, an anticipated increase of $22.6M or 13.9% over FY 2005. The estimated amount of tuition revenues to be set aside by each university for this year meets the requirement for the 14% set aside for need-based aid. The total set aside for the university system is $43.8M for an increase of $1.3M. The university plans also show they will be in compliance with long-standing Board guidelines for the distribution of aid to students with need and on the basis of merit. All three universities will exceed the 50% threshold for aid to students who demonstrate need and the 30% threshold on the basis of merit. The Financial Aid Report is scheduled for the January Board meeting and will give a much more detailed picture of actual amounts.

Upon motion of Regent Frank, seconded by Regent McCalley, the Board accepted the FY 2006 Financial Aid Resources Plan.

Dr. Milt Glick, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, and Dr. Juan Garcia joined the meeting for this discussion. Dr. Glick said ASU was requesting a Master of Legal Studies degree that does not produce a lawyer but rather an informed consumer in the medical and other professional areas. ASU is requesting the establishment of University College which will consolidate a number of services, many of which are in undergraduate academic support, and will service all the campuses, but will not change admission standards. It will be physically located downtown, but will provide services where the students are located. It will also give the Bachelor of Inter-disciplinary Studies degree and will include the ASU-Community College alliance. ASU is requesting the establishment of a Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety to study crime and how it can be prevented. ASU is requesting the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes to bring together scientists, policy makers, and philosophers to deal with what are the outcomes of science. ASU is requesting the establishment of the International Institute for Sustainability which will have international partners from at least 8 countries.

Regent Graff asked if students who are undecided or who have not declared a major would have to go to University College and was told no, but they will receive their advising from University College.

Upon motion of Regent Frank, seconded by Regent Palacios, the Board authorized ASU to implement the Master of Legal Studies degree in the College of Law, establish University College, and concurrently disestablish the Division of Undergraduate Academic Services, establish the Center for Violence Prevention and Community Safety, establish the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, and establish the International Institute for Sustainability and concurrently disestablish the Center for Environmental Studies.

Upon motion of Regent Frank, seconded by Regent Herstam, the Board authorized NAU to change the Ed.D. degree in Educational Psychology to a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology.

Regent Bulla said he had concerns about the lack of medical technology professionals in Arizona and was troubled about the disestablishment of the School of Health Professions and the major in Medical Technology. He would like to hear about options to this programs.

President Likins said there is an acute need for medical technologists and technicians, but this program was recommended for disestablishment as part of the UA plan to maintain its standard of excellency. This program would need a substantial investment to improve its facilities and equipment and it is a small program. Students have not been admitted to the program and staff members who were teaching that program are no longer employed at the UA. Dr. Likins said there are 2 kinds of people in this field, those who have a bachelors degree and are technologists and those who have an associates degree and are technicians. Pima Community College will receive the equipment from the UA and they have put together a program for medical technicians.

Dr. Likins said the UA had attempted to finance the program through hospitals and laboratories that use the technologists and were not successful as they were with the nursing program. In addition to the medical technician program with an associate degree, Pima is developing a medical technician program for people who already have a bachelors degree. The University of North Dakota has a clinical laboratory distance education program that requires a local sponsor and UA South would be very pleased to play that role, working in collaboration with Pima Community College. Also, the Clinical Laboratory Science Bachelor degree program has always been offered by ASU.

President Crow said the ASU Polytechnic Campus will provide bachelors degrees and masters degrees in technology degrees. The technology degree is on the Main Campus but it is intended to move it to the Polytechnic Campus. Regent Frank moved the Board authorize the University of Arizona to establish the Arizona Center for Judaic Studies, to disestablish the School of Health Professions, to transfer the major in physiological sciences to the Department of Physiology and change the name to physiology, and to disestablish the major in medical technology. The motion was seconded by Regent Boice.

Upon motion of Regent Bulla, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board voted to uncouple the issue of the disestablishment of the major in medical technology from the rest of the motion. Upon motion of Regent Frank, seconded by Regent Jewett, the Board voted to establish the Arizona Center for Judaic Studies.

Regent Frank moved to disestablish the Major in Medical Technology. The motion was seconded by Regent Calderón and passed with Regents Herstam, McCalley, Palacios, Boice, and Stuart voting yes and Regents Jewett, Calderón, Frank, and Bulla voting no.

Upon motion of Regent Frank, seconded by Regent Palacios, the Board authorized the University of Arizona to disestablish the School of Health Professions, to transfer the major in physiological sciences to the Department of Physiology and to change the name to physiology.

Ms. Paulina Vazquez-Morris and Ms. Cathy McGonigle joined the meeting for this discussion. Regent Palacios said this was an update on the election results and some activities related to the legislative advocacy and media communications outreach. Ms. Vazquez-Morris said 72 members of the legislature would be returning and 18 are newly elected, with 8 members moving from one chamber to the other. The legislative session will begin on January 10. She reported on the House and Senate leadership and said the Board had invited legislators to participate in round tables in order to strengthen working relationships and discuss critical higher education policy issues. The meetings will be held November 30 in Tucson, December 1 in Phoenix, and December 2 in Flagstaff.

President Stuart said the Board was being asked to establish the status of President Emeritus for Dr. President Manuel Pacheco, former president of the University of Arizona.

President Likins said the UA was honored to recommend to the Regents that former President Pacheco be designated President Emeritus. He said Dr. Pacheco had been a force in advancing the interests of undergraduates at the UA. The integrated learning center had been named after him.

Upon motion of Regent Calderón, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board honored Manuel T. Pacheco by designating him “President Emeritus,” effective November 19, 2004, in recognition of his years of service, dedication, and achievement.

Regent Stuart said this was a request to endorse a Vision Statement developed by the Center for the Future of Arizona that establishes a set of interrelated goals by which the State of Arizona will become one of the best places in the nation to live a rewarding and productive life.

Upon motion of Regent Stuart, seconded by Regent Boice, the Board endorsed the Vision Statement prepared by the Center for the Future of Arizona.

The University of Arizona staff and President were thanked for their hospitality. Regent Jewett said he still supported President Likins’ Focused Excellence, but the university system still had a lot of work to do in the health professions. Regent Boice believes there is a great need for a medical school in Phoenix and the Regents need to convince the citizens of the state of this desperate need. President Stuart was thanked for his long hours working to make the medical college in Phoenix become a reality. President Haeger and staff and Mr. Ted Christensen were thanked for their work in furthering the Arizona Regents University. Regent McCalley thanked Ms. McGonigle and Ms. Vazquez-Morris for their help in establishing a student government affairs group.

Contact us
Arizona Board of Regents
2020 N. Central Ave., Suite 230
Phoenix, AZ 85004-4593
Telephone: (602) 229-2500 / Fax: (602) 229-2555

	MINUTES

MINUTES