Welcome to the Missouri Department of Higher Education Website (MDHE)

Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 02-05

COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
Minutes of Meeting
February 10, 2005

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education met at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 10, 2005, at the Truman State Office Building in Jefferson City, Missouri.

Members present were:

Sandra Kauffman, Chair Pro Tem
Diana Bourisaw
Marie Carmichael
Kathryn Swan, Secretary Pro Tem
Earl Wilson, Jr.
Mary Joan Wood

Others attending the meeting included:

Gregory Fitch, Commissioner of Higher Education
Trudy Baker, Administrative Assistant, Educational Policy, Planning, and Improvement Center
Becky Brennecke, Legislative Liaison, Fiscal & Legislative Affairs
Scott Giles, Director, Missouri Student Loan Group
Donna Imhoff, Budget Analyst, Fiscal & Legislative Affairs
Janelle Jaegers, Director, Administration
Joe Martin, Deputy Commissioner
Jim Matchefts, Assistant Commissioner and General Counsel
Susanne Medley, Director, Communication and Customer Assistance
Brenda Miner, Executive Assistant to the Commissioner
Dan Peterson, Director, Financial Assistance and Outreach
Renee Riley, Public Information Specialist, Communications and Customer Assistance
Teala Sipes, Research Associate, Educational Policy, Planning, and Improvement Center
Robert Stein, Associate Commissioner, Academic Affairs
Victoria "Y" Wacek, Research Associate, Academic Affairs
John Wittstruck, Director, Educational Policy, Planning, and Improvement Center
Wei Zhou, Senior Research Associate, Education Policy, Planning, and Improvement Center

Chair Kauffman called the meeting to order. Mrs. Swan, secretary pro tem, established the presence of a quorum.

Dr. Bourisaw moved that the minutes of the December 2, 2004 CBHE meeting be approved as printed. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Chair Pro Tem Sandra Kauffman explained that Chair Kruse was unable to attend the CBHE meeting this month. In addition, Mrs. Dudley Grove, the board's secretary, was recently replaced on the board. In accordance with procedures established in Robert's Rules of Order, 10 th Edition, in the absence of officers, the board elected a temporary chair and secretary at its work session Wednesday, February 9. The board unanimously agreed that Mrs. Sandra Kauffman would serve as Chair Pro Tem and Mrs. Kathryn Swan would serve as Secretary Pro Tem for the duration of the work session and board meeting on February 10.

Chair Kauffman welcomed everyone to the CBHE February meeting and extended a warm welcome to Dr. Carolyn Mahoney the new president at Lincoln University.

Commissioner Fitch recognized Lisa Anderson's passing as a great loss to the Missouri Department of Higher Education (MDHE). She had been a GEAR UP regional coordinator since 2001. With assistance from Dr. Henry Givens, Jr., president, Harris-Stowe State College, and also the college, a scholarship fund in memory of Ms. Anderson has been established.

Commissioner Fitch explained that the new agenda format supports the CBHE's social compact, in regulating the board's actions and establishing a method whereby the public can determine if they wish to attend or participate in the meetings. The agenda includes a call to order, identification of a quorum, identification of action items, presentation of the consent calendar, and the report of the commissioner.

The intent of the consent calendar is to recognize and review a group of pertinent issues which can be discussed or approved as individual or multiple items. The board motions, seconds, and votes on these individual items, or the group, as a whole. Topics related to these issues would be supported by board information in the agenda.

State Student Financial Aid Program Processing Report and Recommendations

Commissioner Fitch stated that this item was initiated by the board based on the governor's interest in providing more Missourians with access to higher education. It also provides a means for higher education institutions to best respond to students' financial needs. Ideally, the higher education community should ensure the needs of first-time students entering higher education institutions are met, while continuing to serve presently enrolled students dependent on financial aid, in a manner that will allow for not only the sustainability of the program, but also the expansion of the state student financial aid program.

Mr. Dan Peterson produced different Missouri College Guarantee Program simulations applying different financial aid bases, formula applications, fund distributions, and in this capacity, how students could best be served. With this information, Commissioner Fitch, Mr. Joe Martin, and Mr. Peterson met with representatives of the Council on Public Higher Education (COPHE) and the Missouri Community College Association (MCCA). These meetings resulted in a proposal for a two pronged effort:

Freeze the Missouri College Guarantee Program at its present level, allowing time to review the programs within a period coinciding with students' financial needs as they apply for financial aid in April 2005, and support the financial aid officers with scheduling issues involving this information.
With a consensus of all partners presently within the public institution sector, Mr. Peterson will establish an expanded committee of members from the State Aid Program Improvement Project Team, COPHE, MCCA, Independent Colleges (ICUM), the Governor's office, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and MDHE staff. This committee will examine the impact of all financial aid programs statewide on all sectors represented, including the state.

Mr. Peterson added that the State Aid Program Improvement Project Team began to address the consolidation and restructuring of the state aid programs. It presents an opportunity for higher education, being aware of the important information of early awareness and outreach for students and families, to develop a proposal which will be presented to the board for their consideration in October 2005.

Dr. Bourisaw moved that based on consultation with MCCA, COPHE, and preliminary and ongoing discussions with ICUM representatives, it is recommended that the staff use its 2004-2005 maximum cost of attendance ($13,935) and maximum annual award ($6,200) for processing the Missouri College Guarantee Program awards for the 2005-2006 academic year. It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Higher Education appoint a statewide task force to study and develop a proposal regarding state student financial aid. Mr. Earl Wilson, Jr. seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Appointment of a Nominating Committee for Selection of CBHE Officers

Chair Kauffman read a memorandum from Chair Kruse regarding the appointment of the CBHE nominating committee, included as Attachment B. The nominating committee is composed of Sandra Kauffman (serving as chair), Marie Carmichael, and Earl Wilson, Jr.

Chair Kauffman noted that the nominating committee will begin its work by asking board members their thoughts on key leadership qualities necessary to fulfill the duties as board officer. The resulting will be criteria used by the committee in the selection of a slate of officers. The responses will be compiled, a profile developed, and a process developed for selecting individuals to fill these positions.

Consent Calendar Items

Ms. Swan moved that the Consent Calendar be approved as indicated. Mr. Wilson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Report of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee

Dr. James Scanlon, chair, Presidential Advisory Committee, reported that the presidents and chancellors discussed the following topics earlier that morning:

State Student Financial Aid Program Processing Report and Recommendation
FY 2006 Budget Update
Summary of Proposed Legislation Related to Higher Education
Process for Accrediting Teacher Preparation Programs
Joint Leadership Statement on Commitment to Transfer

Presidents and chancellors discussed student financial aid and generally support the short- and long-term approach proposed by MDHE staff. Dr. Scanlon commended Commissioner Fitch and MDHE staff for expanding the conversations to include planning for the future of financial aid, particularly need-based financial aid.

Mr. Martin provided the governor's recommendations for the higher education budget. Presidents and chancellors feel that, in the current economic circumstances, flat funding is an appropriate recommendation from the governor, and demonstrates his commitment to higher education. With a clear understanding of the current fiscal environment, presidents and chancellors are supportive of the legislature and appreciate the confidence the governor has placed in them with his recommended levels of funding for FY 2006.

A thorough review of proposed legislation related to higher education by Mr. Martin was of special interest to presidents and chancellors as it involved name changes, scholarships, and tuition. Certain approaches to tuition caps would create difficult circumstances for institutions to serve their students in the traditional manner with the focus on quality and student success. There is concern about the limitations that were suggested to be placed on the University of Missouri, restricting its flexibility in using its resources.

Conversations on the process involved in re-accreditation of teacher preparation programs focused on the desire that presidents and chancellors share for accountability without excessive bureaucracy and involvement with the CBHE, MDHE, and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) in the re-accreditation process. Presidents and chancellors believe that because of their work with the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the (NCATE) protocol, the CBHE, MDHE, and colleges and universities should work in partnership to guarantee the quality of teacher preparation and its outcomes.

COPHE and MCCA presented a joint agreement, in the best interest of students and their success in higher education, regarding student transfer, scholarships for students completing community college associate degrees while pursuing four-year degrees, and some residual transfer issues. The Joint Leadership Statement on Commitment to Transfer was signed by presidents of the public two-year and four-year sectors during the Presidential Advisory Committee meeting. This achievement was made possible with the collaboration of presidents and chancellors who are committed to continue working together on important issues along with the CBHE, MDHE staff, and the private sector.

Research Update

Commissioner Fitch stated that the benefits of research provide an economic driver that will help the research and technical components at the four-year institutions, as well as helping the community colleges and proprietary schools in preparing the workforce to address particular needs in their communities.

Commissioner Fitch introduced Dr. Michael Douglas, associate vice chancellor and director of the Office of Technology Management, who works with faculty of all schools within Washington University, to evaluate discovery and to develop invention disclosures and license technology.

Dr. Douglas gave a PowerPoint presentation on "Connecting Technology to the Community: The University Interface." The presentation is included in its entirety as Attachment C and addresses Washington University as an institution with a teaching and research mission that serves as an economic development engine for the region and the state. Through the efforts of its faculty, Washington University generates large quantities of intellectual property and research discovery which is captured and commercialized. These discoveries can be licensed to a variety of different companies, creating wealth for the region.

Washington University generates substantial research funds, over $500 million, and is a nationally respected research institution; a key competitor in securing federal research dollars, representing a rate of increase greater than the national average over the last 10 years. The university ranks second in the country in receiving NIH awards to medical schools. Missouri ranks tenth in the country in the amount of federal resources received by Washington University due largely to other universities in Missouri and Washington University.

Missouri, however, is not translating those dollars commercially as well as it should. The St. Louis region has great research potential, but lacks strong commercialization efforts.

Dr. Douglas closed with these final points on building communities around the university:

It is necessary to understand that universities are tremendous economic development engines;
Washington University serves as a resource for the management of investment capital and technology; and
Washington University 's serves a leadership role in regional economic development and early stage opportunities for the formation of companies.

The relationship between the business community and research and development is one in which:

Businesses do not have a firm understanding of the opportunities available within the university that could help develop manufacturing companies around the state.
Informing businesses and involving business owners should be addressed.
The sectors of the non-technology-based economy, i.e. engineering, manufacturing, and process design work should be addressed to advance them aggressively o those communities.

Washington University is working with other institutions in Missouri through The Research Alliance of Missouri (RAM) on a two-fold project:

Pooling all technologies among the universities of Missouri into a database, analyzing those ideas that have a combination of synergy and opportunity to create a real opportunity; and
When faculty is approached by individuals or companies, looking for specific technologies, knowing that consulting the database allows (RAM) to address the situation.

The university also participates in an offset program with Boeing, assisting in providing a set of services at a reduced cost to close contracts with foreign countries. It provides an opportunity to move products from Missouri into the world economy.

Dr. Bourisaw commended Dr. Douglas for his work, noting it was economic development at its best.

Chair Kauffman noted that it is important and exciting to understand how research institutions have learned to use their discoveries to benefit themselves and the world at large. She commended Dr. Douglas and others at Washington University for responding to this need.

Chair Kauffman thanked Dr. Douglas for taking time to make this informative presentation today.

Dr. Stephen Lehmkuhle, vice president for academic affairs, University of Missouri System reiterated that the Research Alliance of Missouri (RAM) is a collaboration of research institutions in the state that allows them to be more competitive. The University of Missouri responded to their cultural challenges by initiating the Technology Transfer Showcase, which provides an opportunity for the University of Missouri and the business community to recognize the entrepreneurial efforts of faculty members who have been awarded patents. Exciting research is occurring at the University of Missouri-Columbia, but other campuses in the Missouri University system would welcome the opportunity to describe the research activities at their campuses. Dr. Lehmkuhle thanked Commissioner Fitch for the opportunity to talk about the research enterprise.

Commissioner Fitch introduced Dr. James Coleman, vice provost for research and professor of biology at the University of Missouri-Columbia.

Dr. Coleman stated that the University of Missouri-Columbia is a comprehensive research institution, drawing on expertise in agriculture and geological and animal sciences, and a complement to Washington University. His presentation is included as Attachment D.

Research and education are not competing missions; they are extremely integrated:

Research provides students with necessary skills to find solutions to problems, and to fill the workforce in a knowledge-based economy.
Research leads to innovations and technologies.
Research leads to new companies, bringing money into Missouri 's economy.
Grants for research act as a major source of financial aid for students.

A cursory analysis completed last year by the University of Missouri - Columbia revealed that every $200 million in research impacts the state by $360 million and supports 8,000 jobs. One of the special aspects of the University of Missouri-Columbia is that it is one of the most comprehensive campuses in the country. It is one of five institutions nationwide with schools of medicine, veterinary medicine, agriculture, engineering and law on one campus. It has the diversity of having the world's best journalism school as well as the largest university research reactor. By working across all disciplines, the University of Missouri-Columbia demonstrates much expertise. In complement to Washington University 's human medical research expertise, the University of Missouri-Columbia uses its expertise in agriculture and animal sciences in its work in medicine.

In the late 1990s, The National Science Foundation rewarded universities excelling in integrating teachers of research. The University of Missouri-Columbia received nearly $4 million in support. Graduate students receive approximately $7 million to $9 million. Student tracking reveals that 70 percent of these students remain in Missouri after graduation and are the workforce that will grow the workforce ? the life sciences economy in Missouri.

Washington University and the University of Missouri-Columbia are among the 62 "best" universities according to the Association of American Universities. The culture on the campus of the University of Missouri-Columbia is one of increasing and competitive research. Washington University and the University of Missouri-Columbia combined produce 84 percent of the research occurring in Missouri, and when including the other three campuses of the University of Missouri System, produce nearly 95 percent of all research and development in the state.

Dr. Coleman noted other national achievements of the University of Missouri-Columbia:

Ranked fourth in life sciences research and development expenditures;
Ranked in the top 25 universities by the National Science Foundation (NSF);
Ranked second in federal growth;
Ranked first in plant research last year;
Ranked second in elementary and secondary math education;
Ranked first in an animal-based exercise physiology program; and
Ranked number one producer of radiopharmaceutical drugs.

Dr. Coleman presented many nationally recognized examples of the life science research conducted at the University of Missouri-Columbia and their potential benefit to society. They are described in his presentation found in Attachment D.

The Coordinating Board, realizing the enormous benefits these discoveries provide to the economy of the state, was concerned how the University of Missouri could sustain and increase its development of research. Dr. Coleman explained that after a new drug is licensed, the first one-third of the income goes to the inventor. One-third pays for the patent costs, with the remaining income invested back into the technology and research enterprise, the office dealing with commercializing technology; and into new research technologies and infrastructure. The last one-third is invested by the departments into their infrastructure.

Approximately $1.5 million is reinvested in research enterprises at this time. That amount will, however, triple when one of the newly invented drugs goes public this year. The licensing agreements contain a provision that the University of Missouri-Columbia receives a percentage of product sales. This is evidence that the investment of research dollars in the University of Missouri-Columbia grows and is leveraged back into the university ? a good reason to invest in research.

Researchers are extremely entrepreneurial. In the last five years, the research office has invested $5 million into matching grants, which has leveraged $80 million in grants, and combined with other grants, leveraged $120 million.

Chair Kauffman noted that the general public knows so little about the research conducted in this state and there is very little understanding or appreciation of its value in the legislature. She described how Kansas legislators learned about research by visiting a research institution and asked if the University of Missouri-Columbia could take a leadership role in allowing Missouri legislators to have an opportunity to learn first hand about the research pursued in the state. The process could then be continued, informing the legislators of the research accomplishments in the private and independent sectors. She encouraged Drs. Coleman and Lehmkuhle to discuss a procedure for accomplishing this, stating it is a valuable experience and would be most meaningful perhaps during the period between adjournment of the legislature in mid-May and its reassembly in January 2006.

FY 2006 Budget Update

Mr. Martin noted the major changes in the governor's budget recommendations:

The Coordination Administration budget contains reductions in funding and FTE.
The IT consolidation will reallocate the IT resources of the Department of Higher Education to the control of the Office of Administration.
Reductions to two scholarship programs ? Vietnam Survivor Program and Advantage Missouri Program
Continuation of funding for the Telemedicine program at the University of Missouri from tobacco settlement proceeds ? these one-time funds will be used to continue operating the program through FY 2006
$2.9 million reduction to MOREnet
Elimination of the Alzheimer's research funding
A reduction of $459,970 in the Institute of Mental Health funding
One-time funding of $1.1 million for four institutions, in the current recommendation, is not recommended for FY 2006

Summary of Proposed Legislation Related to Higher Education

Mr. Martin provided an overview of legislation related to higher education. He stated that there are several bills similar in nature that relate to name changes, scholarship programs for certain military dependents, proposed limitations on tuition increases, and research and cloning issues.

For the record, the Coordinating Board agreed that there would be a committee of three people (proposed) that would seek a meeting with the governor to discuss the future of the Coordinating Board and the viability of the department in the face of potentially drastic budget cuts.

Proposed Training Program for the Coordinating Board for Higher Education

Dr. Bourisaw noted that at the April work session, the board will invite Dr. Larry Walker, who provides board training, to make a presentation regarding policy governance. Following this initial presentation, the board will determine whether or not to pursue additional training. Alternative funding, outside MDHE's general revenue, will be sought to support board training opportunities.

Report on the Process for Accrediting Teacher Preparation Programs

Dr. Robert Stein stated this agenda item relates to students, student success, quality of teachers in K-12 schools, and the colleges and universities that prepare those teachers. Earlier discussions raised the question, "What is the role of the Coordinating Board and how can it be more engaged and more involved in the state's accountability for teacher preparation?" Reiterating Dr. Scanlon's earlier message, Dr. Stein stated there is more value in working collaboratively in partnership than in working independently.

Options for the Coordinating Board to be more actively engaged in the accountability issues associated with teacher preparation programs are presented in the board book, along with other states' experiences. Although the board has some leverage and control, certain options would create extensive burden and additional layers of bureaucracy on the institutions and the state.

The intent of this item is to initiate conversations to create a better partnership with the State Board of Education and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, who have statutory responsibility for re-approving state teacher education programs. For the record, MDHE staff was informed yesterday that the state protocol for the review of existing teacher education programs has already been renewed through 2011.

Mrs. Carmichael commented for the record, as a member of the board, that the system of teacher preparation program review at present is antiquated and needs to be adjusted, but adjusted in a way that is streamlined and less burdensome ? a better system. She noted that the various commissions that have been formed to improve the quality of teacher education programs developed their recommendations in conjunction with the State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Department of Higher Education, and K-12. Their recommendations should be a part of the discussion.

Dr. Stein read the amended recommendation that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education direct the Commissioner of Higher Education to work with the Commissioner of Education, and with Presidents and Chancellors of Missouri institutions, with teacher preparation programs in redefining Missouri's procedures for the review of existing teacher education programs to include a more engaged role for the Coordinating Board for Higher Education. Additionally, commission reports that address ways in which teacher education programs may be strengthened should be examined as part of this discussion. The board further recommends that all revisions be completed in a timely fashion, and reported as an update to the Missouri NCATE Protocol Agreement. Dr. Bourisaw moved and Mrs. Wood seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Report of the Commissioner

Commissioner Fitch reiterated the idea of the social compact by saying that during Wednesday's board work session, board members discussed ways of regulating themselves and ensuring that the board not only has full access to internal information, but also that the information provided externally for the general public is available and we maintain accountability for the information we distribute. The board has addressed in their work session that staff will examine Administrative rules that relate to the CBHE and the department, as well as the board's bylaws in regard to how the board operates.

Based on a recommendation from Commissioner Fitch, the board will establish an executive committee that will be comprised of board officers. With the environment of the past few years, and particularly the charge with the responsibility and accountability for state dollars, the board will also establish an audit committee to review and insure that there is accountability associated with the expenditure and use of funds in this state through the Coordinating Board. The audit committee will be directed to the activities of the MDHE, will not audit individual campuses, but will audit internal department activities in regard to procedures, how it functions, and how it deals with grants directly related to the CBHE or the MDHE. MDHE staff will ensure provisions of the state open meetings laws are met in the establishment and operation of these committees.

The board added to Mr. Wilson's earlier mention of pursuing an audience with the governor. It is the intention of the board to use the opportunity in which the governor may share his visions concerning higher education in Missouri and working with the Department of Economic Development and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, all the facets and roles that Higher Education plays in this state, and to forge a partnership with the governor's office in working toward those visions he may have for higher education.

There being no further business to come before the board, Mr. Wilson moved that the meeting adjourn. Mrs. Swan seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m.

Attachment A

Roster of Guests
Coordinating Board for Higher Education
February 10, 2005

Name- Affiliation

Jeanie Crain - Missouri Western State College
Michael Douglas - Washington University
Henry Givens, Jr. - Harris-Stowe State College
Charles Gooden - Harris-Stowe State College
Carolyn R. Mahoney - Lincoln University
John McGuire - St. Charles Community College
Michael McManis - Truman State University
Norman Myers - Ozarks Technical Community College
Marty Oetting - University of Missouri System
Bobby Patton - Central Missouri State University
Ann Pearce - Central Missouri State University
Jim Scanlon - Missouri Western State College
Gary Thomas - University of Missouri - Rolla
Rose Windmiller - Washington University

Attachment B

TO: The Coordinating Board for Higher Education

FROM: Lowell C. Kruse, Chairman

DATE: January 19, 2005

SUBJECT: Appointment of CBHE Nominating Committee

I would like to appoint a nominating committee in preparation for the election of CBHE officers at our meeting on June 9, 2005. The nominating committee shall be composed of Marie Carmichael, Sandra Kauffman, and Earl Wilson, Jr. Ms. Kauffman will serve as chair of the committee.

Based on the success of the profile we developed in preparation for hiring a new commissioner, I believe it is worthwhile for the nominating committee to spend time developing a similar profile (perhaps an abbreviated version of a leadership profile would be appropriate) for the board's officers. With that in mind, in carrying out their duties as a committee, I would like to ask the committee to query the board regarding key leadership traits, skills, and preparation they believe are crucial in conducting our current business in a rapidly changing environment, as well as planning for the future of higher education.

Based on feedback from board members regarding key leadership qualities officers should possess, the committee will offer its nominations at the June 9 CBHE meeting and we will then elect officers for the upcoming year.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding this process, please contact Sandra Kauffman, chair of the nominating committee.