MINUTES OF A RETREAT MEETING June 17, 2005

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF A RETREAT MEETING June 17, 2005 The Arizona Board of Regents met in Retreat Session at the Kilted Kat in the Equestrian Estates in Flagstaff, Arizona, June 17, President Christina Palacios called the meeting to order at 9 AM. PRESENT: ABSENT: Regent Fred Boice Regent Robert Bulla Regent Ernest Calderón Regent Lorraine Frank Regent Chris Herstam Regent Jack Jewett Regent Wesley McCalley Regent Christina Palacios Regent Benjamin Graff Regent Gary Stuart Governor Janet Napolitano Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne Also present were: President John Haeger, Dr. M. J. McMahon, Dr. Pat Haeuser, Dr. Elizabeth Grobsmith, Ms. Christy Farley, and Dr. Patty Moore, Northern Arizona University; President Peter Likins, Dr. George Davis, Ms. Edith Auslander, and Dr. Ron Marx, University of Arizona; President Michael Crow, Dr. Milt Glick, and Dr. Christine Wilkinson, Arizona State University; Dr. Roy Flores, Pima Community College; Dr. Terry Calaway, Central Arizona Community College; and Dr. Rufus Glasper and Dr. Maria Harper-Marinick from Maricopa Community College; Darcy Renfro, Office of the Governor; Executive Director Joel Sideman, Board Counsel Paulina Vazquez-Morris, Ms. Stephanie Jacobson, Dr. Art Ashton, Ms. Cathy McGonigle, and Ms. Anne Barton, Central Office Staff. Others in attendance included Dr. Tom Jordan, President of Coconino Community College; Dr. James Zaharis from Greater Phoenix Leadership; Sherry Anne Rubiano from the Arizona Republic, and Eric Swedlund, Arizona Daily Star. All lists, reports, summaries, background materials, and other documents referred to in these minutes can be found in the June 17, 2005, documents file. President Palacios opened the meeting with introductions and an overview. She indicated that the theme for the day s discussion would be, Moving Forward with Changing Directions and Redesign; and she told the Board that members have the opportunity to consider the next steps required to implement their Redesign initiatives. Other agenda items were highlighted, including the process of setting tuition and fees, studying a tuition cap for continuing students as mandated by SB 1517, and studying the policy framework relative to special undergraduate class and program fees.

2 The major topic for the day, a review and discussion of the status of Arizona university/community college current and prospective partnerships and national community college trends, was announced as well as the final agenda items of an overview of university finances, reviewing both the Draft Public Awareness Action Plan for and the Draft Action Plan. Cathy McGonigle presented a list of strategic questions for implementing Redesign that can be the basis for subsequent university reporting in September. They dealt with mission differentiation, student enrollments, undergraduate education, community college partnerships, diversity, research, resources, and accountability. Regent Palacios, hearing no objections, said the Board would proceed with this approach for reporting on implementation of Redesign. She pointed out that the individual university s plans related to this framework will be presented to the Board at the September meeting. President Palacios discussed the requirements established in SB 1517 during this year s legislative session, including a report to state government on the advisability and options for implementing a tuition structure that limits tuition increases for continuing students to no more than inflation, studying the policy framework relative to special undergraduate class and program fees, and examining the advisability of setting tuition and fees at a single Board meeting in the spring. She proposed establishing a tri-university work group, led by a Regent and consisting of central office and university staff, to prepare recommendations on the previously mentioned topics, keeping in mind student needs and on-going university funding requirements. The work group recommendations are to be considered by the Board in a study session at the September 29-30, 2005 meeting. Regent Bulla asked what economic modeling would be done. He observed that the bill s language reminds him of a wage and control issue and that sophisticated modeling will be required to arrive at potential solutions. He suggested that the universities have experts, such as Dennis Hoffman at ASU, whose expertise could be utilized. Executive Director Sideman agreed, saying a number of models, in addition to the work group efforts, would be needed. Mr. Sideman presented some history related to Board decision-making on tuition and fees. He recalled the changes to the tuition-setting process that have come about over the years, including the statutory language that now specifies certain requirements. He indicated that in the late 80 s, the Board began holding public hearings on tuition and hearings and now the hearings are conducted with universities interactive television equipment, providing an opportunity for interested students and others to participate from various locations around the state. Mr. Sideman said that until recently, all recommendations on tuition and fees went into one Board meeting, with the primary focus being on undergraduate residential tuition and less attention to non-resident and graduate tuition and fees. With this in mind, the Board initiated a process of deciding all tuition at one meeting and all program and special class fees at the next meeting.

3 However, separating the Board s deliberations into two meetings may compromise the context for the Board as it deliberates rate-setting that will affect a significant number of students. One alternative, Mr. Sideman told the Board, would be to have one session perhaps in the morning of the March meeting as a study session, and follow that with the public hearing at the March meeting. The Board could then call a special meeting to consider tuition and fees perhaps between the March and April meetings. This would allow for more concentration on the dual process of deciding tuition and fees. Regent Stuart replied that the Board is setting tuition at the wrong time of the year. It is in the middle of the legislative session and near the end of the academic year. He would prefer to do this in the fall. Mr. Sideman said following such a schedule would be complicated for the current year since the legislature has mandated a December deadline for the Board s report on capping tuition and the expectation may be that the legislature would have the opportunity to respond to the report before the next Board action. Regent Stuart suggested that the Board invite legislative participation. Regent Bulla asked how late the decision could be made and still make it effective in the fall. He indicated that six months of history would be lost by deciding new rates in the fall. Also, by going to a fall schedule the Board would not have information on how much would be available to universities in state funding. Regent Graff felt that the notice of new rates in the fall would be welcome, but having six months of evaluation of the current year s tuition results might not be enough time to make the needed adjustments if any were needed for the new year. President Crow said the Board should consider linking new rates, by colleges, to the tuition in comparable universities colleges. For example, arrive at a decision for tuition in the UA English department by comparing it with peer universities English departments. Dr. Glick was asked his opinion and he replied that ASU could deal with either a spring or a fall timeline, but the issue of legislative decision-making is important. President Palacios added that another year would be better to begin setting tuition in the fall because doing it this year would look like the Regents are trying to preempt legislative caps. Regent Stuart repeated that he would want the Board to work with the legislature, and that the reporting requirements are not sufficient reason to stay with the same cycle. Regent Jewett felt that it is not good that the two-step process leaves students wondering about what their fees will be at the time tuition is set. Whatever can be done to align the process would be helpful.

4 Regent Jewett commented that it s important to avoid legislation that would set an arbitrary tuition cap. He also believes that setting rates in the fall would make it difficult to get the national comparison of Arizona s tuition and fees to other states if the timing changed to the fall. He added that the issue of when to set tuition could be mitigated by having legislators sit with the Board and discuss the Board s target tuition for the new year. Following those discussions, the Board could arrive at a reasonable policy that could then be communicated to the full legislature. Regent Stuart replied that it is difficult to get the attention of legislators during the session, and it would be better to decide tuition in the fall for that reason. Regent Boice said the current timing is not good and the Board needs to combine its decision on tuition and fees in one meeting. President Likins told the group that the complexities of the issue are increasing as presidents and the Board adopt differential tuition rates. He said the Board could consider scheduling two meetings for setting tuition and fees one to decide the rates for undergraduates (in March) and the second to determine tuition and fees for graduate students (in April). He agreed with Regent Stuart in the abstract that setting tuition and fees in the fall is better for students, but he s not sure how the Board gets there. President Palacios said more legislative input is needed, regardless of the timing. Regent Frank told the Board that most of the questions she had regarding this year s decisions had more to do with fees than with tuition. She felt people objected most to the Board s setting fees at a separate meeting. Regent Calderón told the Board he agreed with everything that had been said. This has to be a multi-stage process. Referring to legislation from the last session, he said a tuition cap bill would have passed if one Regent had told legislators it would be all right. He supported Regent Graff s comments about working with old data, but the Board can t wait to discuss tuition caps. The Board must get back to the legislature with something by December. Dr. Crow suggested that a three-step process be followed to set tuition and fees: (1) This fall, the Board solicits presidents thinking, (2) By end of fall, Regents give policy guidance to presidents, and (3) Presidents come back in early spring with final recommendations. Dr. Haeger said the universities are already planning next year s budgets, and the tuition-setting process should go along with that. The earlier the Board gives policy guidance, the better. President Palacios said she understands that any transition to a new process may be painful. She said that the work group, with the guidance of the Board s discussion today, should consider changing the timing for setting tuition and fees and be sure to include possible unintended consequences. The next item on the agenda was a discussion of the status of university/community college programs. Regent Palacios said she has a sincere desire, as does the entire Board, to better

5 understand community college issues. She invited representatives from the community colleges to join the Regents at this retreat in order to take a first step in improving the working relationship between the Board and the state s community colleges. Dr. Ron Marx presented some background and national policy issues related to community colleges. He said that although he is the dean of the UA College of Education, his purpose was not to be an advocate but rather to provide a context for the day s discussion. Dr. Marx said community colleges across the nation traditionally serve as an access point for poor, minority, and older students. They offer career education, adult education, and economic viability for the community. Their policy issues are access, quality, and cost. Older students are more highly represented at community colleges. They employ fewer full-time faculty than do universities, and the costs of a community college education are less than they are at an institution that offers upper-level and graduate education or at a research institution. Dr. Marx added that the goals of a community college will typically reflect the missions of job training and other local community needs. Many students are not enrolled in transfer courses with the goal of completing a degree. He cautioned that one cannot use a community college s existing cost per full-time-equivalent student to discover how expensive it would be for a community college to begin offering one or more baccalaureate degrees. This is because the community college might need to add full-time faculty and make other adjustments that would make such a calculation inadequate. Dr. Marx concluded by telling the group that it is very important that Arizona has a series of routes for poor students into the university system to be successful. Universities and community colleges in Arizona must have a strong working relationship. Dr. Milt Glick discussed the current articulation process between community colleges and universities. He said Arizona has a great model, but the measure of success is to create more graduates. He said there are currently 40 articulation task forces in place, with members from the community colleges and universities. Of those, 38 are discipline specific. Regent Stuart mentioned that there is little knowledge about the existence of the Joint Conference Committee (JCC) where so many of the articulation issues are resolved. It is appalling how little the legislature knows about the efforts of the JCC. The same is true of the ARU, Arizona Regents University. Perhaps it should be renamed. Dr. Glick described some specific committees that contribute to the articulation effort. For example, the AGEC is a 35-hour block of credits that empowers community colleges to put their own imprint on the degree. If a student has a 2.0, he or she is known to have fulfilled the required general education units and is automatically accepted in the state universities. Regent Jewett asked how real the use of AGEC is. Stephanie Jacobson from the Central Office responded that there were 3,500 students who completed this block of credits last year, and more results will be available later on this.

6 Regent Jewett asked about the extent to which community colleges are marketing this opportunity. Central Arizona College President Terry Calloway responded that it is being addressed. Originally there was some encouragement by universities for students to transfer before their junior year. His college is doing more to market the idea to students, and he expects a dramatic increase is ahead in the number of students who take advantage of the provisions of AGEC. Pima Community College President Roy Flores agreed that a big change is ahead as community colleges increase their marketing of the AGEC. Dr. Crow and Dr. Glasper agreed that students don t always have the GPA required for their major, and this necessitates taking more courses this is the case for community college transfers as well as for those who start at the university. Provost Glick commented that major-specific AGECs have been designed now to improve the students chances of taking the correct lower-division courses for their major. Dr. Glick said ASU maintains the data base, Arizona State System for Information on Student Transfer (ASSIST) that students across the state can use as an on-line guide to plan their courses of study. This is a very powerful tool for students. There are 1.1 million community college students and 400,000 university students (with their identify disguised) in this data base. In answer to Regent Frank s question, Stephanie Jacobson told the group that the information has been in the system long enough now that universities are beginning to see how many students are completing. In another six months, staff should be better able to tell the Board how students in the system are doing. President Likins began his presentation by saying that as UA admissions become more selective, more students may want to begin their study at the community college and transfer as juniors. He talked about the capacity to grow at UA South that is designed to be a partner with Cochise Community College. He said UA knows that they need the community colleges as partners. Further, with the growth in Southern Arizona, especially in the Hispanic population, the UA must become more diverse. This goal will be served in large part through the pipeline from Pima and other community colleges. Dr. Likins also raised the issue of Tucson s high tech economy, saying the area requires a trained workforce. Dr. Roy Flores agreed. He added that Pima Community College has wonderful partnerships in place with UA and NAU but what is required is to go beyond the traditional partnerships. Under current agreements, it makes no difference to the students where they re enrolled. However, for staff there is a difference. For example, the community college faculty must look at what is required for the students in their junior and senior years, and with that approach, the community college faculty do not own the curriculum.

7 Dr. Flores went on to say that it is time to redefine the university-community college relationship. Universities need to say how effective the community colleges are with respect to students success. The community college has to know what the universities majors require. Dr. Likins commented that is very unusual for a community college to ask how their students are doing. One concern is that students must have adequate math preparation, and Dr. Flores said that is a concern within his institution as well. As Dr. Haeger started his portion of the presentation, he indicated 6,000 students are enrolled in NAU distance learning programs currently, with about 4,000 in Phoenix and 1,000 students in Tucson. Many of those students are in graduate programs. To illustrate examples of the cooperative relationships between NAU and community colleges, he said NAU opened their residence halls to full-time Coconino Community College students. He reminded the group that the Arizona Western-NAU partnership is a national model of higher education delivery. Dr. Calloway commented he that he considers NAU their primary partner, although they are geographically located between ASU and UA. He pointed out that the rural areas have unique higher education challenges although his community is fast becoming mid-size rather than a rural/small institution. He estimates that by , enrollment at his college could reach 50,000 students. He indicated that he and President Haeger s leadership team have recently had some rich discussions on the future of their partnership and that ASU representatives visited CAC yesterday. In light of these positive discussions, Dr. Calloway stated that at this time he does not believe they need to offer baccalaureate degrees at his community college. In particular, he mentioned getting some very positive comments on how Central Arizona College s doctorally prepared faculty could eventually receive joint faculty appointments with NAU. President Haeger said NAU already does this with some faculty at Pima Community College. Dr. Crow told the group that University of California, Berkeley, is admitting only 4T of California s graduating seniors. In contrast, Dr. Crow is striving for a non-elitist model of higher education. He considers the community colleges to be a part of his family. He added that both Maricopa Community College District and ASU are immensely complex organizations but he and Dr. Glasper agree that they must enhance quality baccalaureate degree offerings. In response to Dr. Crow s comment that issues of quality are sometimes raised, Regent Frank asked whether the ASU University College is planned as a catch all. Dr. Crow explained that it is important to make sure that this isn t the case. He is recruiting top-quality people and will continue to be sensitive to that perception. Dr. Glasper described how Arizona is different from the national trends described by Dr. Marx. He said the average age of students in his district has dropped from 34 to 28.