Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 10-05
COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
Minutes of Meeting
October 13, 2005
The Coordinating Board for Higher Education met at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 13, 2005 at Ozarks Technical Community College in Springfield:
Members present were:
Lowell C. Kruse, Chair
Martha Boswell
Diana Bourisaw
Marie Carmichael
Jeanne Patterson
Duane E. Schreimann
Kathryn Swan
Gregory Upchurch
Earl Wilson, Jr.
Presidents or their representatives attending the meeting were:
Aaron Podolefsky, Central Missouri State University
Constance Bowman for Henry Givens, Jr., Harris-Stowe State University
Carolyn Mahoney, Lincoln University
Julio León, Missouri Southern State University
James Scanlon, Missouri Western State University
Dean Hubbard, Northwest Missouri State University
Ken Dobbins, Southeast Missouri State University
Frank Einhellig for Michael Nietzel, Missouri State University
Barbara Dixon, Truman State University
Stephen Lehmkuhle, University of Missouri-Kansas City
John Carney III, University of Missouri-Rolla
Edward Jackson, East Central College
Don Doucette for Jackie Snyder, Metropolitan Community Colleges
Terry Barnes, Mineral Area College
Evelyn Jorgenson, Moberly Area Community College
Norman Myers, Ozarks Technical Community College
John McGuire, St. Charles Community College
Carla Chance for Henry Shannon, St. Louis Community College
Larry Kimbrow for John Cooper, Three Rivers Community College
Donald Claycomb, Linn State Technical College
CBHE Chair Kruse called the Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE) meeting to order. A list of guests attending the meeting is included as Attachment A.
The presence of a quorum was established with a roll call vote.
Chair Kruse acknowledged the new presidents and chancellors who have joined Missouri's higher education institutions since the last CBHE meeting:
Dr. John Carney, Chancellor, University of Missouri-Rolla
Dr. Edward Jackson, President, East Central College
Dr. John Neal, President, Maryville University
Dr. Michael Nietzel, President, Missouri State University
Dr. Aaron Podolefsky, President, Central Missouri State University
Chair Kruse congratulated Harris-Stowe State University, Missouri Southern State University, Missouri State University, and Missouri Western State University on the institutions' recent name changes.
Chair Kruse thanked Dr. Norman Myers, Ozarks Technical Community College president and the staff of Ozarks Technical Community College for their work and hospitality in hosting the CBHE and the presidents and chancellors of Missouri's higher education institutions. He also congratulated Dr. Myers on his impending retirement.
Dr. Myers welcomed everyone to the meeting and provided brief comments about the history of OTC.
Presidential Advisory Committee
Discussion of Proposed Higher Education FY 2007 Budget Recommendations
Dr. James Scanlon, Chair, Presidential Advisory Committee outlined the two items on the PAC agenda and asked Commissioner Greg Fitch and Ms. Donna Imhoff, MDHE Budget Analyst, to provide a brief overview of the FY 2007 higher education budget recommendations.
Commissioner Fitch provided a summary of conversations that have taken place with the presidents and chancellors of Missouri's two- and four-year public institutions, as well as the CBHE members and representatives from the Office of Administration, Division of Budget Planning during the development of the FY 2007 budget request, regarding the creation of the proposed funding model.
Undoubtedly, higher education has weathered challenging fiscal conditions during the past several years. Despite encouraging state revenue projections, higher education can expect continued financial challenges. Based on budget instructions from the Division of Budget and Planning, MDHE staff began development of the FY 2007 budget request based on two key expectations: there should be no requests for core budget restoration and any requests for new funding should focus on institutional mandatory expenses.
Clearly, the funding request before the CBHE today is quite large. Some suggest "sticker shock" is the appropriate term for the size of the request. However, the concept is that CBHE must be an advocate for higher education and communicate that higher education is a key driver of economic development in Missouri. Additionally, despite stay even funding, which the institutions received in FY 2006, higher education will be challenged to continue to provide the same level of services to an increasing student body and meet the demands of business and industry.
Although this budget request will move forward to the governor and General Assembly, there is a broader message that this request reflects the true needs of higher education in the state in order to be capable of meeting the demands and performance expectations of the state's policy leaders and citizens.
Commissioner Fitch provided an overview of the funding model. Mandatory expenditures such as health care and retirement benefits, utilities, information technology-related costs, and costs for other services continue to increase. Institutions have a limited ability to control these types of expenditures, requiring institutions to shift funds away from other areas and services in order to meet the demands of escalating mandatory costs.
Ms. Imhoff provided the following information regarding average increases in fixed costs experienced by the institutions from FY 2004 to FY 2005:
4 % Health insurance
6.5% Retirement benefits
4.5% Utilities
14 % IT
4 % Supplies & service
33 % FY 2007 recommended increase from FY 2006 core appropriation for mandatory expenditures
Should additional funding become available that could be applied to mandatory expenditures, in turn institutions should be able to redirect funds previously committed to these areas at the same percentage and apply them toward other priority areas identified in the budget request or in the performance measure category.
Dr. Kenneth Dobbins suggested breaking out the mandatory column of the model to show what the mandatory expenditures are, which may more accurately depict the types of fixed costs for which institutions must budget.
The second column contains figures specific to the institutions based on their missions, and regional commitments. Column three contains subsequent priorities identified by the institutions. The benefit of those two columns is to outline projections into the future and funding needs in those areas.
The fourth column in the model contains the performance component. Inclusion of this element is based on calls from state leaders that Missouri's higher education system needs increased accountability. The CBHE and the presidents and chancellors seek an active role in the identification of performance measures. If institutions are to be held accountable for system wide performance measures, that is, two or three measures applied to the system as a whole, the system needs to be part of the identification of those measures. Institutions should have the opportunity to identify benchmarks and set targets for improvement in these areas and then indicate what costs would be associated with continued improvement in those areas. Additional individual institution specific, mission related, performance measures would also be identified.
The concept of performance funding is not new to Missouri. Missouri was a pioneer in performance funding, as the second state in the nation to launch a funding formula based on performance measures, Missouri's Funding for Results was a program other states looked to as a model. As Missouri reexamines the emphasis placed on performance funding, the framework that evolves will be based on lessons learned from Funding for Results, as well as input from key stakeholders and policymakers.
In concluding his remarks, Commissioner Fitch emphasized that no one realistically expects this budget recommendation to be fully funded. The FY 2007 budget cycle will be a planning year, working with the presidents and chancellors, the legislature, and the governor's office to build support and consensus toward adequately funding higher education in the long term.
Dr. Scanlon believes this funding approach will help those outside higher education understand the mandatory increases institutions face, which are not accommodated through the current state funding model. Depicting these increases to mandatory expenses gives a more complete picture of the fiscal challenges facing higher education institutions.
Chair Kruse said that communicating the intent of this funding request to both legislators and business leaders is important. Building support for adequately investing in higher education is critical. At first glimpse such a large funding request is overwhelming, so it will be critical that the board, staff, and presidents and chancellors communicate the intent of this long term approach, as well as make clear that there is not an expectation that the model will be fully funded in FY 2007.
Dr. Bourisaw cautioned against delivering the message that higher education is different. There is a perception among legislators that higher education is arrogant, that we claim we are different, but do not help them understand the differences and the unique needs of the system.
Dr. Scanlon emphasized the need to communicate a unified message to legislators; taking the opportunity to visit with local legislators individually about the goals of this funding model. Additionally, to the degree presidents and chancellors offer testimony, they should be prepared to communicate the importance of state support for higher education, particularly as it relates to mandatory expenditures, as well as institutions' commitment to performance assessment and continuous improvement of outcomes.
Ms. Carmichael suggested inviting local legislators to CBHE meetings, inviting them to participate and ask questions of the board and presidents and chancellors.
Future of Higher Education-Governance
Commissioner Fitch provided a status of activities related to the Missouri State Government Review Commission. The Commission has concluded its deliberations will be forwarding a final report, along with a set of recommendations to the Governor for his consideration.
Three key recommendations relating to education include: creation of a secretary of higher education, appointed by the governor; creation of a secretary for education, appointed by the governor; reconstitute the membership of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, to be composed of seven presidents and chancellors and two lay people appointed by the governor.
Informal feedback received from various sources indicates that there is stronger support for the recommendations relating to the creation of secretary level positions than for the revamping of the Coordinating Board. Formal reaction from the governor's office is expected in late November or early December.
Dr. Scanlon noted that comments made during testimony before the Commission by Dr. Barbara Dixon, President, Council on Public Higher Education (COPHE) and Ms. Carla Chance, President, Missouri Community College Association (MCCA) did not find place in the final recommendations of the Commission. Some feedback relating to COPHE's position indicates a perception that the group is in favor of maintaining the status quo. Dr. Barbara Dixon stated that is unfortunate because everyone is interested accountability measures, first and foremost providing the best education for our students. The presidents truly believe that keeping the current structure of the CBHE is in the best interest of the state.
Dr. Bourisaw expressed concern about the recommendations. She has heard strong support for the current commissioner and the strengthening of the CBHE from many constituents. The CBHE is a bipartisan board that supports the institutions, attempting to resolve issues within the state system, doing so in a way that is in the best interest of the citizens of Missouri. A commissioner hired by a bipartisan board, removed from politics is able to serve in the best interest of the citizens of Missouri. Dr. Bourisaw does not believe these recommendations will be healthy for our goals of increasing affordability and access to higher education for students, unless there is someone to support those goals at the state level. The current governance model needs to be strengthened, not destroyed.
Ms. Jeanne Patterson suggested the board challenge itself to collectively develop a vision statement around what higher education is intended to do in Missouri. If the board can articulate to the governor's office why the board should exist, that may drive an outcome within the governor's office. Ms. Patterson also suggested that each board member take an opportunity to host a summit within their districts, meeting with local legislators and explaining to them the intentions, design, and long term goals of the FY 2007 funding model.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Earl Wilson, Jr. moved that the minutes of the June 9, 2005 CBHE meeting be approved as printed. Ms. Kathryn Swan seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Ms. Marie Carmichael moved that the minutes of the August 11, 2005 CBHE retreat be approved as printed. Dr. Diana Bourisaw seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Dr. Bourisaw moved that the minutes of the September 26, 2005 CBHE Executive Committee conference call be approved as printed. Ms. Swan seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Final Amended Bylaws
Dr. Jim Matchefts provided an overview of the proposed amendments to the current CBHE bylaws. The board's bylaws are a significant document in that they establish ground rules for how the CBHE conducts its business and organizes its affairs. The existing bylaws have not undergone comprehensive review since 1987. Thus, earlier this year the board directed the commissioner and staff to review the bylaws, best practices relating to bylaws among similar organizations, as well as the CBHE's customs and practices, and recommend appropriate changes to the bylaws.
At the August board retreat, a draft set of revised bylaws was presented to the board, with additional revisions suggested as a result of that discussion. Those changes have been incorporated into the current draft revised bylaws. Based on additional discussion during the board's work session on Wednesday, October 12, particularly Article IV, Section 3, relating to absences at meetings, additional revisions will be made to the bylaws. Revisions suggested at yesterday's meeting have been incorporated into the recommendation being considered by the board today.
Ms. Patterson made a motion that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education adopt the revised amended bylaws as printed with the exception that Article IV, Section 3 shall be amended to prohibit board members from failing to attend any three regularly scheduled meetings in any calendar year; to change the reference to a summer retreat to an ?annual retreat;? and to change the reference to Article IV.A to Article IV, Section 4.A. These amended bylaws shall immediately replace all existing bylaws and shall serve as the fundamental set of guidelines for the conduct of business by officers and members of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education. It is further recommended that the chair direct the commissioner to have the amended bylaws copied and distributed to each board member, as well as make additional copies available to other interested parties. Mr. Schreimann seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Process for the Evaluation of the Commissioner
As Commissioner Fitch completes his first year as commissioner, it is the board's intention, to engage in an annual review process of Commissioner Fitch. This process will provide the board and Commissioner Fitch with an opportunity to revisit goals achieved during the past year and achievement of overall performance expectations, as well as setting goals and developing strategies for success during the coming year.
The CBHE Executive Committee met with Commissioner Fitch and Ms. Martha Davis, the consultant who assisted the board in the search process, to discuss the process for the evaluation of the commissioner. The CBHE Executive Committee recommends to the full board the adoption of the review instrument and the process for the review of the commissioner. The format for the review will include a 360° review component, a component that will be completed by Commissioner Fitch, and finally a meeting on December 8 with the board and Commissioner Fitch to complete the review.
Ms. Patterson made a motion that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education accept the process for the annual performance review of Gregory G. Fitch, Commissioner of Higher Education. It is further recommended that the Chair instruct Ms. Martha Davis to distribute the performance evaluation instrument to the list of identified participants requesting a response by November 1, 2005. Ms. Swan seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Higher Education FY 2007 Budget Presentation
Recommendation for Adjustments to Public Institutions Operating Appropriations
Ms. Imhoff provided a brief summary of the genesis of and ongoing discussions with respect to the development of the higher education funding model.
Board members requested that it be made clear that this is a starting point, a long range plan for adequately funding higher education, with no expectation that the request be fully funded in FY 2007.
Ms. Swan made a motion that the Board approve the CBHE FY 2007 appropriation request, which includes $282,390,624 in mandatory expenses, $114,094,903 in new core decision items and $12,835,938 in performance funding, as presented, for submission to the Governor and General Assembly. Dr. Bourisaw seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Recommendations for Public Four-Year Institutions Operating Appropriations
Ms. Imhoff provided an overview of the FY 2007 request for public four-year operating appropriations. The request includes the additional $352 million for adjustments to the institutions operating appropriations that was previously discussed. In addition, the request also includes the tax refund offset program, which is a way for institutions to collect unpaid debts from students by intercepting Missouri income tax refunds of those students. The request also includes the University of Missouri related programs; increases to the programs are increments to continue.
Mr. Schreimann made a motion that the Board approve the FY 2007 four-year institution appropriation request including University of Missouri Related Programs, as presented, for submission to the Governor and General Assembly. Ms. Carmichael seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Recommendations for Linn State Technical College Operating Appropriations
The request includes the additional $4.5 million mentioned previously as part of the new funding model, as well as the tax refund offset program.
Ms. Swan made a motion that the Board approve the FY 2007 Linn State Technical College appropriation request, as presented, for submission to the Governor and General Assembly. Ms. Patterson seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Recommendations for Public Community College Operating Appropriations
The community college request contains $52 million additional funding relating to the funding model discussed previously. The request also contains language asking that the community colleges' core appropriations be rolled into one line item in the house bill. This has been requested during the previous two legislative sessions, it is hoped that this request will move forward during this budget cycle.
Mr. Wilson made a motion that the Board approve the FY 2007 community college appropriation request, as presented, for submission to the Governor and the General Assembly. Ms. Carmichael seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Recommendations for MDHE Operating Appropriations
Ms. Imhoff highlighted key points relating to the FY 2007 MDHE request for operating appropriations. Specifically, the IT consolidation and transfer to the Office of Administration will be completed in FY 2007. As a result of the ongoing IT consolidation process, fund transfers between MDHE and OA, as well as an FTE transfer to MDHE from OA is necessary.
The Midwestern Higher Education Compact (MHEC) raised dues payments in FY 2006; however, Missouri was unable to fulfill that obligation. We are requesting the increase in FY 2007.
Ms. Carmichael made a motion that the Board approve the CBHE FY 2007 internal appropriation request, as presented, for submission to the Governor and General Assembly. Mr. Upchurch seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Recommendations for State Student Financial Assistance Programs
The appropriation request includes the seven state student financial aid programs currently administered by MDHE. The Advantage Missouri Program is being phased out, thus no funds are being requested for the program in FY 2007. The FY 2007 appropriations request for the other six state student financial aid programs remain at the FY 2006 level.
Mr. Wilson made a motion that the Board approve the CBHE FY 2007 Student Financial Assistance appropriation request, as presented, for submission to the Governor and General Assembly. Ms. Carmichael seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Recommendations for Public Four-Year Institutions' and Linn State Technical College's Capital Improvements
After the board materials were distributed, the University of Missouri requested changes in their capital request relating to the Benton/Stadler Halls project on the campus of the University of Missouri-St. Louis. The revised capital request reflects an additional $24.6 million to fund an expansion of the original project. (The board book materials maintained on the MDHE website have been updated to reflect the change.)
Commissioner Fitch noted that MDHE will be working in conjunction with the institutions to develop detailed criteria for the prioritization of capital project requests, as well as examining options for considering community college capital requests.
Mr. Upchurch made a motion that the Board approve the FY 2007 capital improvement recommendations for the public four-year institutions and Linn State Technical College for submission to the Governor and General Assembly. DHE will work with the Community Colleges to create a future plan for capital requests. Due to the lack of state revenue for this purpose over the last several fiscal years and the increasing infrastructure needs on campuses, the Board further recommends the Governor and General Assembly consider the issuance of state bonds, if necessary, to fund public higher education capital improvement projects recommended by the Board. Dr. Bourisaw seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.
Consent Calendar
Items place on the consent calendar are recurring issues or are a routine part of the CBHE's and the MDHE's operation. Any or all items may be withdrawn from the consent calendar by any member of the board, if further discussion is necessary.
The board acknowledged the hard work of the CBHE Committee on Transfer and Articulation for their ongoing efforts in improving enhanced transfer policies in Missouri.
Dr. Robert Stein noted two changes relating to the academic program actions board item. A correction has been made to page 11, item 4. The current program is a Ph.D. in mathematics, not applied mathematics as printed in the board book.
Additionally, a new program was approved after the distribution of the board book took place. The new program is at Southeast Missouri State University and is a BS in Human and Environmental Studies, with an option in Child Development. ( The board book materials maintained on the MDHE website have been updated to reflect the changes.)
Mr. Wilson moved that items found behind Tabs J, K, L, M, N, O, and P on the consent calendar be approved as printed. Ms. Swan seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Update on Student Loan Group Restructuring and Other Activities
Dr. Matchefts provided a brief update of the Missouri Student Loan Program and activities associated with the program.
Dr. Matchefts specifically addressed rumors that have emerged that the Missouri Student Loan Program may be moved out of the Department of Higher Education. MDHE staff has yet to identify the source of the rumors. Versions of the rumors include legislation that would move the MSLP to the auspices of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), a quasi-state government entity.
Some critics of the current structure of the Missouri Student Loan Program contend that the loan program is hamstrung in two respects. First, MSLP is required to go through the state appropriations process to spend federal money on the activities of the loan program. Secondly, MSLP is required to adhere to the state procurement process when hiring contractors necessary to carry out the duties and functions of the program. Thus, the assumption is that moving the MSLP to a quasi-state government entity such as MOHELA that is not required to adhere to these state processes would allow the MSLP could better compete in the student loan industry.
Dr. Matchefts responded to this argument that the loan program statistics and program results refute the assumption described above. Participation in the MSLP continues to grow; for the current fiscal year the MSLP will guarantee approximately $1 billion in student loans. The program's outstanding guarantees will approach $4 billion. Lending context to those figures, the most recent figures shows that the MDHE guaranteed about 42% of the federal student loans made in Missouri, making the MSLP the most significant guarantor in the state.
In addition to the increased business, the MSLP also administers a successful default prevention program. As a result, the MDHE cohort default rate continues to fall. In federal fiscal year 2003 (most recent data available) the MDHE cohort default rate was 3.6 percent, not only a drop from the previous year's default rate, but also well below the national average of 4.6 percent.
Most importantly, students and financial aid administrators want to participate in the MSLP. The MSLP is able to offer significant borrower savings in cooperation with MOHELA, making postsecondary education more affordable and accessible.
Finally, by adhering to the state appropriations process and the state procurement process, the MSLP remains accountable to the governor, the General Assembly, and the citizens of Missouri.
Mr. Upchurch asked about advantages and disadvantages to the students faced with a shift of the location and administration of the MSLP.
As the designated state guarantor, the MDHE is proud to serve all students. In addition to a large segment of the four-year institutions, MSLP serves virtually all of the community colleges and a great portion of the proprietary institutions. Other guarantors doing business in Missouri are not particularly interested in serving sectors of the student population that are considered high risk.
Proposed Recommendations of State Student Aid Program Task Force
Mr. Dan Peterson provided an update on the work of the State Student Aid Program Task Force. The committee was established in March and began meeting in May. Initial meetings were devoted to establishing a mission statement and reviewing and analyzing data. During subsequent meetings, the task force has worked to identify short term and longer term issues that need to be addressed in order to improve and simplify the state aid program process. The final report of the task force is due to the board in December.
Mr. Peterson referred the board to Attachment B of the board item which contains the initial draft report containing draft recommendations of the task force. The task force met subsequent to the distribution of the board materials. The last meeting resulted in the following additional recommendations:
- Reallocate existing merit funds into need-based programs
- Consolidate the two existing need-based programs into one need-based program, allowing for the streamlining of qualification criteria, as well as allowing the state to leverage additional funds from the federal Leveraging Education Assistance Partnership (LEAP) Program. If additional funds are appropriated to state need-based programs, additional federal funds could become available through LEAP.
- The task force is expected to come forward with a recommendation for increased funding in the state's need-based programs. These programs have maintained the same funding level funding since FY 2003.
- The task force is expected to recommend that the task force remain intact and continue its work beyond December to address more complex issues.
Mr. Peterson noted that on October 10, 2005 he had an opportunity, along with Commissioner Fitch to testify before the Interim Committee on Student Based Funding Models. Mr. Peterson provided the committee with a progress report on the task force. The feedback from the committee was positive and requested that the task force maintain their focus on simplifying the state student financial aid process.
Ms. Patterson suggested that the CBHE Student Loan/Financial Aid Committee should review the report prior to action by the full board.
Report of the Commissioner
Commissioner Fitch summarized initiatives and activities that are ongoing within the department:
- A tremendous amount of time and effort has been invested by MDHE staff, the higher education budget analyst within the Division of Budget and Planning, the presidents and chancellors, and the institutions' business officers in the development of the FY 2007 budget request
- During the summer, a number of committees expressed interest in the work of the department and asked for testimony and materials from the department. MDHE staff responded by providing appropriate materials, research, and data to support the position of strengthening the CBHE; investing in the state system of higher education; and providing accessible, affordable postsecondary education opportunities to Missouri's citizens.
- Legislative support appears to be building for the authority of the board and the work of the department. Two legislators have sought department assistance in developing language that will be included in separate bills related to higher education that will be introduced during the next session.
- Commissioner Fitch expressed his appreciation to the presidents and chancellors for their thoughts, input, and support relating to the various projects and initiatives relating to state higher education policy.
There being no further business to come before the board, Dr. Bourisaw made a motion for adjournment, Ms. Swan seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Coordinating Board for Higher Education meeting adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brenda Miner
Executive Assistant to the Commissioner
Roster of Attendees
Coordinating Board for Higher Education
October 13, 2005
Name - Affiliation
Martha Albin - Central Missouri State University
Constance Bowman - Harris-Stowe State University
Jeanie Crain - Missouri Western State University
Cliff Davis - Ozarks Technical Community College
John Ganio - St. Louis Community College
Donna Imhoff - Missouri Department of Higher Education
James Kellerman - Missouri Community College Association
Leroy Kemp - Harris-Stowe State University
Paul Kincaid - Missouri State University
Craig Klimczak - St. Louis Community College
Steve Koehler - Springfield News Leader
Brian Long - Council on Public Higher Education
Mary Beth Luna - Office of the Governor
Jim Matchefts - Missouri Department of Higher Education
Michael McManis - Truman State University
Marianne Mills - Office of Administration
Brenda Miner - Missouri Department of Higher Education
Marty Oetting - University of Missouri
Ann Pearce - Central Missouri State University
Dan Peterson - Missouri Department of Higher Education
David Roling - Ozarks Technical Community College
Vicki Schwinke - Linn State Technical College
William Shoehigh - University of Phoenix
Robert Stein - Missouri Department of Higher Education
Rochelle Tilghman - Harris-Stowe State University
Tom Vansaghi - Metropolitan Community Colleges
Laura Vedenhaupt - Missouri Department of Higher Education
Phil Wright - Central Missouri State University
