Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 02-08

COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
MINUTES OF MEETING
February 7, 2008

Approved April 10, 2008

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE) met at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, February 7, 2008, at ITT Technical Institute in Earth City.

Chair Kathryn Swan called the meeting to order.  A list of guests is included as an attachment.  The presence of a quorum was established with the following roll call vote:

Chair Swan advised attendees that Ms. Martha Boswell had resigned from the Coordinating Board due to family commitments.  The Board appreciates the passion and commitment to education that Ms. Boswell provided during her term with the Coordinating Board.

In other announcements, Chair Swan announced that Mrs. Doris Carter had been formally confirmed as a member of the Coordinating Board by the Senate; Dr. Bruce Speck is the new president of Missouri Southern State University and is attending his first Presidential Advisory Committee meeting; Mr. Gary Forsee is the new president of the University of Missouri System and will officially start his term on February 18th; Dr. Zelema Harris has been named the Chancellor of St. Louis Community Colleges; Dr. John Cooper from Three Rivers Community College is back with the PAC after an absence for health reasons; Dr. Carolyn Mahoney from Lincoln University received an award from the American Association of University Professors on Shared Governance; and Dr. Don Doucette will be leaving Missouri to take the position of Provost of Ivy Tech in Indiana.

Chair Swan introduced Ms. Karen Finkenkeller, Director of ITT Technical Institute, and thanked Ms. Finkenkeller for her hospitality in hosting the Coordinating Board and Presidential Advisory Committee.  Ms. Finkenkeller welcomed the Board and PAC and advised that ITT provides educational services at more than 90 campuses across the country.  The Institute is very proud to serve its students and adheres to the philosophy of quality, compliance, customer service, and satisfaction.

Ms. Finkenkeller announced that after 25 years she is retiring as Director and as a member of the CBHE Committee on Transfer and Articulation (COTA).

Committee Reports

Audit Committee

Mr. Duane Schreimann stated that the Committee had no new audits to report.  Ms. Zora AuBuchon provided a final update on the State Auditor’s report regarding the security of the department’s FAMOUS system.  The department has updated the system and is now in full compliance with the report.

Ms. AuBuchon invited questions from Presidents and Chancellors about request for information from the Auditor’s office regarding institutional severance packages, retirement plans and other post employment benefits that may have been offered.

Student Loan / Financial Aid Committee

Chair Swan advised that this committee had not met; Mr. Leroy Wade would provide an update on the Access Missouri program later in this meeting.

Strategic Planning Committee

The Strategic Planning Committee met via conference call on January 30, 2008 to discuss the Coordinated Plan as revised based on feedback from institutions and the Coordinated Plan Advisory Committee.  Mr. Paul Wagner will provide an update on the new Coordinated Plan later in this meeting.

Presidential Advisory Committee

FY 2009 Budget Update

Mr. Wagner advised that the Governor recommended the following funds for higher education:

• 4.5% operating budget increase (2nd year of 3 year commitment)
• $13.4 million for Preparing to Care Initiative (one-third of CBHE recommendation)
• MDHE internal budget for FTE and funds
• $600,00 for the MSSU distance dental hygiene program
• LCDI projects for UMC and UMKC
• $500,000 for advanced placement training institutes at Truman State University  and Southeast Missouri State University
• Additional $27 million for the Access Missouri program
• $10 million for the vehicle and power center at Linn State Technical College
• $750,000 study for expansion at the UMKC dental school
• $5 million for the Thompson Center for Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disorders at UMC
• Other smaller items for MHEC dues, the Missouri TELEHEALTH program, and the State Historical Society
• FY 2008 supplemental - $500,00 for Missouri State University and the Missouri University of Science & Technology for a cooperative engineering program

Dr. Ken Dobbins clarified that the advanced placement funds would be used for seminars throughout the state to qualify additional faculty to teach AP classes and would not be used solely at the Kirksville and Cape Girardeau campuses.

The House Subcommittee on Appropriations has held several hearings.  Discussing includes reducing the total recommendation for Access Missouri from $100 million to $85 million.  One option that a portion of the remaining funds may be used for is to increase funding for MOREnet.

Mr. Wagner reported that the state is facing serious budget crisis for FY 2010.  If the current FY 2009 budget recommendation is passed and the state’s revenues cannot cover the expenditures, the state is looking at a shortfall of up to $450 million.

Mr. Greg Upchurch asked if there were likely to be budget shortfalls before FY 2010.  Mr. Wagner advised that the revenue estimate has been revised downward once, an action that does not typically occur.  However, if the revenue decline continues, it is possible that the projections may be further reduced.

The Senate Appropriations Committee will meet next week; Senator Nodler has asked Presidents and Chancellors to be present.

Coordinated Plan Update

Mr. Wagner briefed attendees on the Coordinated Plan.   The Strategic Planning Committee and the Coordinated Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) received and reviewed feedback from institutions and incorporated suggestions into the current document.  Mr. Wagner expressed his appreciation for everyone’s assistance in crafting the document, especially the CPAC writing subcommittee.

The latest draft of the Coordinated Plan is titled Imperatives for Change: Building a Higher Education System for the 21st Century.  The document focuses on three strategic issues: Increase Educational Attainment, Develop a 21st Century Society and Global Economy, and Enhance Resources through Increased Investment, Stewardship, and Responsibility.  Each issue is supported by various strategies and action steps.

The Plan is supported by a background and rationale document with additional context.  The Plan was drafted deliberately to be short and concise, easy to skim and outlined for the lay public.

Changes that will be incorporated based on feedback include a revised vision statement to acknowledge that postsecondary education is a public as well as a private good, and an additional action step to provide an explicit acknowledgement of the importance of mission review and the integrity of institutional missions.

The rationale document has also received feedback and will be revised to reflect additional suggestions for background and context in support of the Coordinated Plan.

Any substantive concerns regarding the Coordinated Plan document should be brought forward during this discussion.  The rationale and background document remains a flexible document and there will be further opportunity for comment on that document.

Mr. Upchurch recommended that the Coordinating Board evaluate the feedback of presidents and chancellors during the Presidential Advisory discussion of the coordinated plan.  Unless the board believes substantive issues remain it is further recommended that the board replace the draft coordinated plan approved in October 2007 with Imperatives for Change as a foundation for further work in establishing a fully developed coordinated plan.

It is further recommended that the Coordinating Board reaffirm its directive to the Commissioner of Higher Education to continue working with the CBHE Strategic Planning Committee and with the presidents and chancellors of Missouri’s colleges and universities in the development of draft operational measures, baseline data, target goals, timelines, and assigned responsibilities to be reported to the board at its April 2008 meeting for review and action.

It is further recommended that the Higher Education Funding Task Force ensure that the priorities identified in its proposed funding policies are aligned with the goals expressed in the Coordinated Plan.

The motion was seconded by Mrs. Carter, and the motion passed unanimously.

Higher Education Funding (HEF) Task Force Update

Due to the Governor’s announcement that he would not seek a second term, higher education cannot count on the third year commitment for operating increases nor for additional funding for Preparing to Care, especially in light of potential budget shortfalls.  Therefore, it is more important than ever for higher education to have coherent, defensible policy-driven funding requests.

Since the last HEF meeting, the HEF Technical Advisory Committee (HEF-T) has been working to perfect and put additional data into the five strategic initiatives noted in the board item.  The first attempt to place dollar amounts with specific institutions in each initiative was distributed to HEF on Tuesday.  There remain several issues with the data, but this initial draft should offer a general idea of how the process is developing.

One issue that remains is a perceived tension between supporting base budgets, strategic initiatives, or performance funding.  The way that the strategic initiatives have been produced shows that there are not black and white distinctions between the three options.  If higher education continues to think along those lines rather than requesting money strictly for base or equity, we will be more successful in crafting a budget request that is well received by the Governor and the General Assembly.

HEF-T also discussed performance funding options.  Senate Bill 389 requires the development of three statewide performance indicators and two institution-specific indicators.  HEF-T has suggested that the three statewide indicators be graduation rates, retention, and student success and satisfaction.  Some feedback was received about the appropriateness of the National Survey on Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CSSE) as statewide measures and the lack of utility of these surveys as comparison tools between institutions.

HEF is continuing discussions on the further development of the performance measure piece and building consensus within the sectors about base and adequacy issues and the internal distribution of funding within sectors.  The Task Force will meet on these issues after the Coordinating Board adjourns.

Mr. Schreimann asked that HEF recognize that comparing public support for higher education in Missouri to support of other states is an important factor.  However, we must make the case that if the state provides funding to close that gap then there are additional things that higher education will be able to accomplish.  Our argument cannot simply be that we are behind as a state.

Chair Swan thanked HEF for its work and asked the Presidential Advisory Committee to help identify the components of a compelling case for investment in higher education.

Dr. Brady Deaton stated that we need to provide leadership and direction for the future.  Whatever plan Missouri designs will have to look better than those of the surrounding states if we want to be competitive.  More of the same will not move Missouri forward.

Dr. Don Claycomb suggested that the more higher education contributes to the state’s economic growth, the more likely we are to win support from the legislature.

Dr. Aaron Podolefsky added that the point should be made that investment in higher education can add quality as well as quantity.  Investing in higher education may mean increasing the amount of funding per student, but it may also mean increasing retention rates, increasing faculty salaries, and reducing class sizes.

Mr. David Cole asked if Missouri does retain students, has higher paid faculty, and has smaller class sizes, what happens then?  Why do those outcomes justify greater investment?  What do we get as a state?  Those are the questions we have to be prepared to answer.

Mrs. Carter expressed her appreciation to the presidents and chancellors for engaging in this discussion.  Her recent experience at the Capitol showed her that there remains a strong perception among legislators that higher education is always asking for more money with nothing to show for the increases except higher paid administrators and additional staff.  We need to come before them with very specific benefits and reasons as to the benefits students and the state will receive.

Mr. Schreimann concurred, stating that a recent editorial cartoon in a local newspaper depicted a university president on a throne, surrounded by bags of money, asking for additional money from the legislature.  He stated he was flabbergasted at the enormous misunderstanding of higher education funding in some circles.

Ms. Mary Beth Luna agreed that the perception lingers on and that whatever language we are using in our argument for increased funding does not appear to be working.  We need to come up with a different way to tell the story of what is really happening with funding.  That is why the HEF Task Force work is so important.  We need to communicate on a different level.

Dr. McGuire acknowledged that our challenge has been laid before us and expressed his appreciation to HEF and its subcommittees for their efforts.

Summary of Proposed Legislation Related to Higher Education

Ms. AuBuchon updated attendees on the status of bills that are making their way through the legislative process.

There are several higher education bills that address issues such as the employment of illegal immigrants and illegal immigrants being admitted as students.  Institutions have been generally supportive of some of the broader goals of these bills but are trying to encourage the legislature not to hamstring institutions on admissions or financial aid.

One positive change in a bill that was voted out of committee is that it would be unlawful to enroll illegal immigrants in courses and programs.  This would still be a challenge but would be easier to implement than barring admissions if the bill is passed.

There are numerous bills on grants and scholarships.  Bright Flight faces a change that addresses the cut score for eligibility.  Many legislators were contacted by constituents after the change last year impacted many students who had anticipated receiving the scholarship.  There may also be a fiscal impact as the scholarship may be limited by imposing a grade point requirement.

Several bills have been filed to expand the A+ or Completers Scholarship.  There is awareness that the state has limited funds and that these scholarship bills can be very expensive.

The intellectual diversity bill, also known as the “Emily Brooker” bill was re-filed in the House.  The original bill was very broad-reaching, but the new version has been toned down.  Students who spoke against the bill made compelling points on the need for free exchange of ideas and the support they receive from faculty members.

Omnibus Bill Update

Ms. AuBuchon updated attendees on the progress made in implementing the components of the omnibus higher education bill.  The department is maintaining the implementation matrix on the website.  The most significant progress since the last board meeting is in the area of curriculum alignment.  Department staff, the Curriculum Alignment Steering Committee, and faculty workgroups continue to progress in the development of entry- and exit-level competencies.

Commissioner Stein stated that he meets periodically with superintendants regarding this initiative.  They understand and are in agreement that higher education is responsible for defining higher education competencies and K-12 is responsible for defining K-12 competencies.

The MDHE and DESE are working together to pay for a gap analysis of competencies between K-12 and higher education, especially in mathematics.  The analysis will be used to inform both sectors’ processes.  When asked by K-12 if higher education will use DESE’s end-of-course exams as evidence of competencies, the Commissioner responded that the question could not be answered until we know the competencies, see assessment instrument, and have evidence that instrument measures the competencies that higher education adopts.

Ms. AuBuchon reported that no institutions submitted a request for a tuition increase waiver by the February 1, 2008 deadline.  The department will continue to work with institutions as they consider tuition for the upcoming year.

Dr. McGuire thanked the department and the board for the opportunity to provide input into each of these initiatives.

Federal Default Fee

Ms. Leanne Cardwell advised attendees that the MDHE made the decision to pay the federal default fee on behalf of borrowers for students at Missouri institutions whose loans the department guarantees.  The department will commit to subsidizing these borrowers for the 2008-2009 academic year.

The fee is required to defray student loan defaults and may be charged to students if lender or guaranty agencies do not provide this benefit.  Federal cuts and the recent credit market disruption caused a number of lenders to eliminate this benefit for borrowers.

Ms. Cardwell explained that MOHELA had not officially dropped the benefit but due to the market, the Authority would probably have had to cease paying the default fee in order to appease investors and to maintain solvency.

Commissioner Stein stated that the Executive Director of MOHELA had indicated his intent to bring the issue to the March board meeting.  The MDHE decided to be proactive on this issue.

Ms. Cardwell stated that the loan program can offer the benefit this year with no impact to other programs but may not be able to continue support indefinitely.  The department will need to keep a close eye on its finances so as not to risk doing damage to other programs.

Access Missouri Financial Assistance Program

Mr. Leroy Wade provided an update on the Access Missouri program.  As of February 4, 2008, the program has served approximately 38,000 students and distributed $53.6 million.  The program is in its third week of the spring certification cycle and the numbers continue to change each day.

Award levels changed at beginning of year from 70 percent to 85 percent of the statutory maximum.  We may or may not see an increase every year, but the possibility remains until we have more historical data for our decision-making processes.  The department has begun to identify some research questions to assist with improving our predictive models and to measure the program’s performance.

Mr. Schreimann asked how the program might be affected if the economic situation in 2010 requires budget reductions or withholdings.  Mr. Wade responded that legislators are typically very supportive of financial aid programs, and the programs are not usually a target for cuts during lean fiscal times.  However, an economic downturn might impact the program’s ability to fund students at the statutory maximum.

Mr. Wade reported on the status of the Bright Flight program, which requires supplemental funding for this year.  A record number of students are enrolled in the program.  Even though the cut score was raised, data indicate that will not result in a huge decline in eligible students for next fiscal year.  This is in part because the program funds renewal students as well as the newly eligible.

Commissioner Stein stated that entitlement programs such as Bright Flight and Access Missouri are still vulnerable to cuts.  It would be in the best interests of our students to ensure we have the kind of data we need to demonstrate the positive outcomes of these programs.

Action Items

Minutes of the December 6 Meeting and the December 18 Conference Call

Mr. Schreimann made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 6 and December 18, 2007 Coordinating Board meetings.  Mr. Upchurch seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

CBHE Public Policies

Examination of the CBHE Public Policy manual found several policies that either needed updating or that could be eliminated.  MDHE staff reviewed each policy and identified those that no longer reflect current board policy.  The full body of current public policies is available on the MDHE website.  As changes are made, the site will be updated, and we will clarify during meetings if board action is to be taken as policy.

Two areas may require clarification: the Bootheel Education Consortium and the Sikeston Area Higher Education Center.  The board’s Site Survey policy adequately replaces the policy regarding the Bootheel.  The Sikeston Area designation as a 1456 site does remain and is noted in the current manual.  The rest of the Sikeston Area policy will be replaced with the Site Survey policy.

Most of the other policies marked for elimination as noted in Attachment B will be replaced by HEF policies or the Coordinated Plan.

Dr. Ken Dobbins stated that he understands why some policies may be eliminated, but the 1456 policy is different than a policy merely requiring submission of data.  Designation and reporting requirements are two different things.

Mr. Cole recommended that the Coordinating Board rescind the policies listed on the attached Proposal to Eliminate and Update Policies and direct MDHE staff to update the remaining policies as needed for review and adoption by the board at future CBHE meetings.  Mrs. Carter seconded the motion.

Mr. Schreimann made a motion to amend the recommendation to remove the Sikeston Area Higher Education Policy from the list of policies to be rescinded.  Mr. Upchurch seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Cole motioned to approve the recommendation as amended.  Mrs. Carter seconded the amended recommendation, and the motion carried unanimously.

Draft Policy on Penalties for Willful Disregard of CBHE Policy

While the CBHE has long had the authority to control certain institutional funds, the authority really applied only to community colleges.  Senate Bill 389 expanded the board’s ability to take action for willfully disobeying board policy.  In response, MDHE staff in collaboration with institutions developed the draft policy in Attachment B so that institutions would have an idea of the procedure the department would use should this authority ever be invoked.

In the interest of fairness, institutions will have the opportunity to appeal to the CBHE should a decision of the commissioner in regard to this policy be deemed unfair.  Institutions will be provided with adequate notice; timelines for payment of monies; and how long before the department will return monies to the General Revenue fund.

Some comments received require additional clarification:

• Is it the department’s intent to permit fining an institution for the same violation year after year?
  • Yes, the law permits the department to proceed to fine for continued disobedience.
• Is a one percent fine enough?
  • The CBHE may withhold a greater portion of funds from two-year institutions, but the board can only go by what is in statute, and that is one percent of the current year operating appropriation.  It may be considered by some as a slap on the wrist, but with tight budgets, it is a significant amount, especially over a number of years.

Finally, the department will work with legislative leaders to establish the mechanics of fines and withholdings by creating a line item in budget to receive and release funds.

Commissioner Stein reinforced that it is not the department’s or the board’s intent to fine institutions.  It is the hope of the legislature to avoid public bickering between institutions and between institutions and the CBHE.  The damage sustained by public battles is much higher than one percent.

Mr. Upchurch stated that there is a natural reluctance on the part of the board to fine institutions because ultimately it is the students who have to pay the price.

Mr. Schreimann reiterated that the policy if for willful disregard of board policy.  Accidental or unintentional violations are not subject to this policy.

Mr. Cole recommended that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approve the final draft policy on penalties for institutions that willfully disobey or disregard board policy.  Mr. Schreimann seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

Consent Calendar

Mr. Schreimann moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar.  Mrs. Carter seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

Items for Discussion, Consideration, and Possible Vote

Homeland Security Advisory Council

Commissioner Stein reported that the Higher Education Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Advisory Council was officially appointed in January 2008.  The Commissioner chairs the committee, and the appointees are listed in the attachment.  The MDHE and the Department of Public Safety worked together to achieve a balance of campus safety personnel, police, administration, faculty, and student appointees to the Subcommittee.
 
The first meeting of the Subcommittee was held on February 5, 2008, and the appointees were very engaged in the issues discussed.  They are dedicated to moving the recommendations of the Campus Security Task Force to the next level.  The Subcommittee made a commitment to conduct a needs analysis on security; institutions can expect to receive a questionnaire in the near future.

The Subcommittee is considering the development of a website specifically for higher education security issues and is talking about statewide symposia and workshops to pursue best practices.  There is interest in helping Missouri understand niches and opportunities for developing programs for future careers in homeland security at all levels.  There were also questions raised about things that all undergraduate students should have exposure to regarding campus security.

We are continuing to explore the idea of higher education becoming a part of the Missouri Alert Network.  Currently, the Network is used by K-12; it sends a test message every month and is capable of communicating vital information in moments.  Presidents and chancellors will be hearing from me as we proceed with that initiative.

Distribution of Carl Perkins Vocational Funds

Mr. Wagner and Dr. John Ganio briefed the board on the Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Educational funds.  These block grants are awarded to each state for the development of academic, vocational, and technical programs.

The community colleges have been in discussion with DESE for several months regarding the formula used for distribution of these funds between K-12 and higher education.  The community colleges do not feel the distribution is equitable and postsecondary institutions have not had adequate input into the state plan.  The institutions have been unable to reach a satisfactory resolution with DESE.

Commissioner Stein stated that he had met with Commissioner of Education Kent King and had sent the Commissioner a copy of the board item on this issue.  Commissioner King provided Commissioner Stein with the following statement:

“The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is in the process of working with community colleges on their enrollment data for the last fiscal year.  DESE plans on sending back to the colleges the enrollment data that was submitted on the unduplicated enrollment forms.  DESE will then ask the colleges to certify that the data are correct, or if not, resubmit the data based on their records (must be auditable).  DESE will review the revised data to determine the effect on the split of funds.”

In talking with community colleges and with Commissioner King, it is apparent that there may be a strain on the system as both the community colleges and DESE feel strongly about this issue.  The MDHE felt it was important to bring this information before the board so there will not be a surprise should tensions arise over the next few months.

Mr. Schreimann asked if it was a routine nationwide that the secondary education agency was the administrator of these funds.  Dr. Ganio responded that it is typical but that the distribution of funds within each state varied.  Each state had to designate the responsible agency, and Missouri selected the State Board of Education.  To change the administrative agency in Missouri would probably require legislative action.

P-20 Council Update

Chair Swan briefed the board on three outstanding items regarding the P-20 Council.

First, the Governor has appointed chairpersons for the seven P-20 regions, and three of those are well into the planning stages for their summits – the St. Louis region, which will have a heavy emphasis on METS, the Northwest region (April 15th), and the Southeast region (April 8th), which will be working with WIRED grant personnel who have done research on the gaps and needs in southeast Missouri.

Next, the Council has been in discussions with the Coordinating Board for Early Childhood to add the “P” to the P-20 Council.

Finally, the Council has been engaged in dialogue regarding remediation.  The Curriculum Alignment Initiative and the upcoming gap study of competencies will provide information the Council needs in order to proceed on this issue.

Report of the Commissioner

Commissioner Stein expressed gratitude and appreciation to the staff of the Department of Higher Education.  We hope to grow after July 1 if the budget and FTE requests go through.

We know we are going to have turnover in the administration.  We are making tremendous progress in the development of the Coordinated Plan and the HEF Task Force.  It is to our advantage to get as much of this in place as possible prior to the election.  It is important over the next few months to bring the ideas of the HEF and Coordinated Plan committees together to ensure those two tributaries converge.

We ask that you share information over the next months on which legislators are returning next session and who are the candidates for empty seats.  We need to work on a plan of action to grab the attention of the candidates on both sides of the aisle.

We are working weekly with the Governor’s office to fill vacancies on the Coordinating Board.

The plan for a needs analysis for the Cape Girardeau area is moving forward.  The funds have been raised and now we will pull together to get the word out and hire someone to come in and do the needs analysis in the region.

The Committee on Transfer and Articulation (COTA) sponsored a statewide transfer conference at the end of January, which saw a 20 percent increase in attendance over last year’s conference.  A report on the outcomes of that conference will be provided at the April meeting.  COTA will be refocusing on dual credit over the next year.

The Commissioner expressed his gratitude to the board for their dedication and determination to maintain a quorum even under difficult circumstances so that we can move forward with our business.

Adjournment

Chair Swan thanked Karen Finkenkeller for the hospitality shown by ITT Technical Institute, and thanked the presidents and chancellors for their input on the issues.

Mrs. Carter made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Mr. Cole seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 11:00 am