Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Conference Call

COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
MINUTES OF CONFERENCE CALL
December 18, 2007

Approved February 7, 2008

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE) met at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 via conference call.  The call originated at the MDHE offices in Jefferson City.

Chair Kathryn Swan called the meeting to order.  The presence of a quorum was established with the following roll call vote:

Representatives from the two- and four-year institutions, the Missouri Community College Association (MCCA), the Council on Public Higher Education (COPHE), and the MIZZOU Flagship Council were present on the call.

Policy on Waivers for Tuition Increases

Ms. Zora AuBuchon briefed the members on the draft policy as well as the feedback received both during and after the December 6, 2007 CBHE meeting.  Ms. AuBuchon will outline each pending issue within the policy and the concerns raised by staff and institutions.  At that point, the board and audience would be invited to discuss the issues, which will then be followed by a vote of the CBHE.  Ms. AuBuchon requested that individuals identify themselves before providing comments.

Issue 1 – Include Off-Site and Distance Education Programs in Tuition Calculation

Ms. AuBuchon reported that inclusion of these programs in the calculation would be overly cumbersome and that the data collected was unlikely to have a significant effect on average tuition or to affect a critical mass of students.

In response to a question from the board, Dr. Hal Higdon advised that distance education programs are currently more expensive for institutions to offer than traditional classes.

Mr. Duane Schreimann moved that the draft policy be amended to eliminate Sections 3(O)(a) and (b).  Ms. Doris Carter seconded the motion, and the motion carried with the following votes: Doris Carter – aye; David Cole – aye; Lowell Kruse – aye; Jeanne Patterson – abstain; Duane Schreimann – aye; Kathy Swan – aye.

Ms. Patterson moved that the draft policy be amended to direct the MDHE to annually collect data on the number of students enrolled in off-site and distance education programs as well as the tuition and fees charged.  The CBHE will review the data at a future meeting to determine if there is a need to revise the policy.  Mr. Schreimann seconded the motion, and the motion carried with the following votes: Doris Carter – aye; David Cole – aye; Lowell Kruse – aye; Jeanne Patterson – aye; Duane Schreimann – aye; Kathy Swan – aye.

Issue 2 – Negotiation with the Commissioner Prior to Official Notification of Tuition Change

Mr. Greg Upchurch joined the call.

Ms. AuBuchon reported that the staff opinion was that such negotiation would create a scenario whereby the Commissioner of Higher Education would be setting tuition for institutions.  Feedback from institutions states that the colleges and universities would prefer the Commissioner to review an initial draft of an institution’s tuition decision before an official submission.  However, the current draft policy does not preclude institutions from discussing tuition issues with the Commissioner.

Dr. Nikki Krawitz advised that “negotiation” was probably not the right word for what the institutions would like to see with this section of the policy.  Dr. Krawitz stated that there could be multiple reasons that could merit tuition increases above CPI and that governing board decisions could be based on “extraordinary circumstances”, as noted in Section 173.1003.5. RSMo.  However, there is no definition of “extraordinary circumstances” in the policy.

Ms. AuBuchon acknowledged that as this is a policy and not a regulation that implementation would be problematic.  It would be nearly impossible for the CBHE and MDHE to develop a catalog of circumstances that could be considered extraordinary under the law.   Depending upon the circumstances noted in the notice of tuition change, however, the Commissioner may elect not to fine an institution at all.

Mr. Lowell Kruse stated that higher education must work together on funding and tuition and encourage responsible trusteeship.  The board and the department should be seen as partners, not gatekeepers.

The CBHE did not make a motion regarding this issue.

Issue 3 – Return to CPI If Tuition Increase Not Sufficiently Justified

Ms. AuBuchon reported that there was a lack of consensus among MDHE staff regarding this issue.  There is concern that such a policy will eliminate any disincentive to institutions to submitting a notice of tuition change that exceeds CPI and that may or may not be sufficiently justified.  Staff concerns include the time and expense required to review each notice and justification and to determine an appropriate fine. 

Dr. Michael Nietzel stated that he supported the option of returning to the increase level permitted by law.  Dr. Barbara Dixon agreed and stated that there needs to be a degree of trust that the institutions will not abuse the policy.

Mr. Upchurch asked if the statute requires such an option.  Ms. AuBuchon responded that such an option does not go against the statute but may be seen as inconsistent with the intent of the legislature.  If the option becomes problematic, the CBHE may revise the policy.

Dr. Nietzel asked if an institution, whose initial notice of tuition change was deemed not sufficiently justified, could propose a revised tuition increase that is lower than the initial notice yet higher than CPI.

Ms. AuBuchon stated that the policy would not support that as it would set up a negotiating mechanism whereby the Commissioner would be setting tuition.

Dr. Krawitz asked if a notice of tuition increase was deemed not sufficiently justified, would the Commissioner provide the reason why the increase was not warranted.  Ms. AuBuchon acknowledged that the department would provide rationale as to why a notice was not deemed sufficiently justified.

Mr. Schreimann asked if it would create an undue burden to consider revised proposals.  Commissioner Robert Stein stated that it would be difficult to determine the burden at this time.  It would likely bury the department if there is an option to return to the level of CPI because institutions would have nothing to lose by submitting a revised proposal.

Commissioner Stein reiterated that this is a policy and not a rule; therefore, the policy can be revised if deemed necessary by the board.

Dr. Jeanie Crain stated that inequity in the system may develop if some institutions submit a request for a waiver while others do not.

Mr. Paul Wagner stated that decisions to award waivers for tuition increases are clear cut in some cases but not in others.  Commissioner Stein reminded the board that institutions are beginning to make tuition decisions and a policy needs to be in place for guidance.

Mr. Schreimann moved that the policy be amended to include a provision whereby an institution whose notice of tuition change has been deemed not sufficiently justified by the Commissioner will have the right to resubmit a reduced request or revert to CPI.

Ms. AuBuchon stated that the notice of tuition change should include language that the notice reflects the decision of the institution’s governing board.

Commissioner Stein advised that the motion would add another layer onto this process and the timeline for reviews and responses would need adjustment.

Mr. Schreimann amended his motion to include a ten day window for institutions to submit a revised proposal.  The timeline in the current draft policy for an initial submission will be repeated for the revised proposal.  Mr. Kruse seconded the motion, and the motion carried with the following votes: Doris Carter – aye; David Cole – aye; Lowell Kruse – aye; Jeanne Patterson – aye; Duane Schreimann – aye; Kathy Swan – aye; Greg Upchurch - aye.

Mr. Kruse stated that it would be important to hold a public hearing on tuition issues to include information on the funding problems facing students and institutions, why Missouri’s tuition is often higher than peer states, and to identify what board members should know in order to make informed decisions regarding tuition.  Commissioner Stein agreed that it would be wise to hold a seminar with experts to help everyone better understand Missouri in a national context of tuition and state support.

Issue 4 – University of Missouri

Ms. AuBuchon reported that the way the statute is written, the four campuses are considered as one institution.  Mr. Schreimann stated that the statute has decided the issue for the board.

The CBHE did not make a motion regarding this issue.

Mr. Schreimann moved that the Coordinating Board adopt the Policy on Higher Education Student Funding Act Implementation as amended.  Mr. Kruse seconded the motion, and the motion carried with the following votes: Doris Carter – aye; David Cole – aye; Lowell Kruse – aye; Jeanne Patterson – aye; Duane Schreimann – aye; Kathy Swan – aye; Greg Upchurch - aye.

Commissioner Stein expressed his appreciation for the work of the MDHE staff, presidents and chancellors, and the CBHE.  The Commissioner vowed the department would give its best efforts in implementing the policy.

Mr. Paul Wagner advised that the information on average tuition would be distributed to the institutions and that the CPI information would be provided by January 15, 2008.

Other

Mr. Wagner advised that the Governor has announced his support for the second third of the three year operating budget increase for institutions.  The department has not seen the exact dollar figures, but the numbers should match 4.4%.

The Governor is also recommending support of $13.4 million for the Preparing to Care Initiative.  Mr. Wagner stated that the unification of institutions behind this initiative was key to winning the support of the governor’s office.

Support is also being provided for additional Access Missouri funds.  Should funding be approved by the legislature and signed by the Governor, awards may be able to be funded for the maximum amounts permitted in statute.

Although the Governor is supporting a three percent pay increase for state employees, the governor’s office has not provided information regarding the department’s operating budget request.

Chair Swan asked if the board should make a statement in response to the Governor’s recommendations.  Mr. Wagner stated that it would be appropriate and provided language that may be used in the statement.

Ms. Patterson moved that the Coordinating Board direct the Commissioner of Higher Education to send the Governor the following message of support:

The CBHE expresses its deep appreciation to Governor Blunt for his FY 2009 budget commitment to increase institutional operating budgets by $40 million dollars to rebuild institutional core budgets, to add an additional $27.5 million for Access Missouri to make full awards possible, and for recommending $13.4 million to support the Preparing to Care initiative, which will result in an increased number of graduates for health care professions.  The commitment of the governor for these crucial initiatives in addition to his ongoing support of capital construction through the Lewis and Clark Discovery Initiative demonstrate the governor's leadership and vision for a quality higher education system that will grow and thrive.

Ms. Carter seconded the motion, and the motion carried with the following votes: Doris Carter – aye; David Cole – aye; Lowell Kruse – aye; Jeanne Patterson – aye; Duane Schreimann – aye; Kathy Swan – aye; Greg Upchurch - aye.

Mr. Schreimann moved to adjourn the conference call.  Ms. Patterson seconded the motion, and the motion carried with the following votes: Doris Carter – aye; David Cole – aye; Lowell Kruse – aye; Jeanne Patterson – aye; Duane Schreimann – aye; Kathy Swan – aye; Greg Upchurch - aye.

The meeting adjourned at 10:30 am.