Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 12-07

COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
MINUTES OF MEETING
December 6, 2007

Approved February 7, 2008

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE) met at 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, December 6, 2007 at the Rickman Center in Jefferson 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 welcomed the newest Coordinating Board member, Mrs. Doris J. Carter. Ms. Carter retired in June 2003 from the St. Louis Public School District after serving forty years as a classroom teacher, Instructional Coordinator, Assistant Principal, and Principal of Carver Elementary School. She co-owns a home-based travel agency business in Florissant and is an active member in the community.

Committee Reports

Audit Committee

Mr. Duane Schreimann reported that the BKD audit of the Missouri Student Loan Program found no problems and the minor adjustments recommended were being implemented. The State Auditors single audit began in October 2007; the committee expects to receive the audit results in late March or early April 2008. The department continues to implement the recommendations from the previous audit.

Ms. Zora AuBuchon reported that the department was tracking progress toward meeting audit obligations. The recommended upgrade of the FAMOUS system is on track for completion by the end of December 2007.

Student Loan / Financial Aid Committee

Mr. Leroy Wade stated that the committee had no business to report.

Strategic Planning Committee

Chair Swan stated that Mr. Paul Wagner will update the CBHE and the Presidential Advisory Committee on the status of the Coordinated Plan.

Presidential Advisory Committee

Coordinated Plan Update

Mr. Wagner said that the plan’s framework, originally adopted at the October meeting, has since undergone revision based on extensive feedback from individuals and the CBHE’s Strategic Planning Committee. The main areas of feedback included concern over the focus on undergraduate education and paid little attention to graduate and basic and applied research.

The new draft has been narrowed to three strategic areas: barriers to access, preparing an engaged citizenry to support a global workforce, and diversifying, increasing, and maximizing resources. In addition, the vision, mission, and value statements have been further fleshed out. A draft of the revised plan, in outline format, was distributed for review.

Mr. Wagner advised that the Strategic Planning Committee would continue to seek feedback and to work on fleshing out the remaining areas. The revised plan will be forward-thinking and will consider issues of preparation, all education levels, and employment. The plan will also actively promote collaboration and will emphasize the roles of technology and innovation in new initiatives related to higher education. The plan should also be responsive/anticipate the needs of future generations.

Dr. John McGuire expressed appreciation for the process the CBHE and MDHE has used in the development of the coordinated plan as well as development of the policies and rules to be discussed.

Commissioner Robert Stein stated that the timeframe for completion of the coordinated plan is being revised. First estimates had a deadline of January 1st, but in order to ensure full ownership throughout the committee and the higher education community, the planning committee intends to come forward with a draft by the February 2008 board meeting.

Dr. Gordon Lamb appreciated the changes made to the original draft plan and the direction of the new plan outline. Dr. Lamb was concerned about language regarding K-12 and “lack of rigor”. Mr. Schreimann encouraged the committee to keep K-12 on the radar in further iterations. Higher education has to share the burden.

Dr. Brady Deaton added that the previous draft did seem to point the finger at K-12. Higher education is responsible for creating teachers, and we have our own challenges even when students are adequately prepared.

Commissioner Stein acknowledged that social issues may result in problems preventing access and that the plan needs to be an umbrella for best practices and innovative ideas. The Strategic Planning Committee and the MDHE will seek additional writing and revision assistance from a subgroup of institutional representatives over the next two months.

Higher Education Funding (HEF) Task Force Update

Mr. Wagner updated the board and PAC on the progress of the HEF task force. Since the October 2007 meeting, a technical advisory group (HEF-T) has been appointed to assist in identifying the likely funding needed to implement the ideas of the task force.

The task force has also identified a three-pronged funding plan based on strategic initiatives, performance funding, and equity/adequacy. The November HEF meeting focused on brainstorming strategic initiatives that would make sense for higher education to pursue: economic development, METS, access and success for at-risk students, and evolving market needs such as increasing the number of graduates from health related fields.

Dr. McGuire stated that feedback on the work of HEF shows a growing concern that the progress on a funding policy or policies is not adequate if the task force intends to present its recommendations by the deadline. Suggestions for increasing progress included HEF meeting more frequently, meeting more frequently with consultant Brenda Albright, and meeting with the consultant at a one- or two-day retreat. This concern will be on the agenda for discussion at the December HEF meeting. Rushing through the process will not best serve higher education.

Mr. Wagner said that the first piece of the policy – strategic initiatives – was near completion. The second piece – performance funding – would be addressed at the December meeting. The final piece – equity/adequacy – would be discussed at the January meeting. This issue was held for the end as that seems to be the most challenging to reach consensus.

Mr. Wagner added that it is important for institutions not to fight among themselves for funding or higher education will not receive additional support from the legislature. HEF must come forward with recommendations that work for the whole system.

Commissioner Stein advised that Brenda Albright was in town on December 3rd to address key policymakers. Dr. Albright also met with MCCA and COPHE. Representative Robb had advised that meeting Dr. Albright helped him to gain additional perspective on the issue of funding.

Chair Swan suggested holding a public meeting regarding higher education financing to give the public a better understanding of how it benefits the state. Mr. Wagner closed his update by saying the future of the state is dependent upon the investment made today in higher education.

Omnibus Bill Update

Ms. AuBuchon provided an update on the status of implementing elements of the omnibus higher education bill. Implementation continues fairly smoothly, and the department continues to update the matrix on the website.

The Curriculum Alignment Initiative (CAI) is moving very quickly; feedback on the entry-level competencies is being received and workgroups have started developing exit-level competencies, which are due in January 2008. There remains tension between K-12 and higher education, and the CAI Steering Committee as well as the MDHE will work to better explain the process and to re-engage K-12. Commissioner Stein stated that there is some discussion among lobbyists to change the law. The department has made it clear that K-12 is welcome to continue to join in the process. The underlying frustration among K-12 educators is that DESE has already developed assessments that will need to be retrofitted to meet the entry-level competencies.

The final draft on consumer information regulations was filed with the Secretary of State’s office and published in the December 3rd Missouri Register. The regulations are in the public comment period. The department received information that the community colleges have developed a common survey for use in meeting the requirements regarding faculty evaluations.

Draft policies on waivers for tuition increases and dispute resolution and draft regulations on out-of-state public institutions will be discussed individually at this meeting.

The department is working on a draft policy on fining authority for the CBHE. Drafting has been delayed because the board’s public policies are not clearly defined. The policy manual is being updated and will be reviewed at the February 2008 meting.

Ms. AuBuchon asked for patience as policy and regulation development requires tremendous staff resources.

Dr. McGuire complimented the Commissioner and the MDHE staff on their efforts.

Chair Swan thanked the presidents and chancellors for their participation in the process and their commitment to positive change.

Action Items

Approval of Minutes

Mr. Greg Upchurch made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 11 and October 26, 2007 Coordinating Board meeting. Mr. Schreimann seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

Budget Supplemental – Bright Flight

Mr. Wagner reported that after the October meeting, the department became aware that the Bright Flight scholarship fund required an additional $330,000 to meet expected obligations. Conversations with the Office of Budget and Planning and the Office of the Governor indicate that the funds will be appropriated.

Mr. David Cole recommended that the CBHE approve a supplemental appropriation request of $330,000 for the FY 2008 Higher Education Academic Scholarship (Bright Flight) budget for submission to the Office of the Governor.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Lowell Kruse, and the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Kruse asked if funding for the Preparing to Care initiative would require a supplemental request as well.

Mr. Wagner replied that the administration had asked for higher education to develop proposals based on varying amounts of funding. The department continues to negotiate with the Office of the Governor and is ensuring that the governor has all the information needed in order to make their decision.

Mr. Schreimann expressed concern that the governor’s office understand that the negotiating process remains open and that the initial Preparing to Care proposal was not an all-or-nothing prospect.

Mr. Wagner stated that in every venue in which the initiative has been discussed, the merits of the program have not come into question. There is a critical mass of funds where institutions can commit to produce a certain number of graduates. Below that, the integrity of the program is compromised.

Commissioner Stein suggested that the CBHE go on record with an additional message of support for the initiative.

Dr. Lamb said that the response to the initiative’s Unity Tour has been overwhelmingly positive and that it would be important for the CBHE to make a statement.

After a brief recess, Mr. Wagner read the following draft CBHE resolution regarding funding for the Preparing to Care initiative:

The CBHE reaffirms its support for the Preparing to Care initiative and encourages the Governor to recommend funding for this important initiative at the highest level possible within the constraints of available resources. The unanimity among higher education institutions for this initiative will address current and future critical workforce needs in health care across the state.

Mr. Schreimann recommended that the CBHE adopt the proposed resolution and submit the resolution to the Governor. Mr. Cole seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

Proposed 2009 CBHE Meeting Dates and Locations

Mr. Kruse recommended that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education adopt the proposed 2009 meeting dates and locations. Mr. Upchurch seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

Proposed Change to CBHE By-Laws

Ms. AuBuchon advised that the by-laws in the board book are an older version. The most recent version is on the MDHE website, but the substance of the changes remains the same. The first recommended change is the date of officer elections and the second is to alter the number of terms served by board officers.

Mr. Upchurch stated that changing the date of elections to December rather than June would be helpful and would put the board more in sync with state government. He also agreed that increasing the number of terms a board member may serve as Chair would be helpful to the work of the CBHE and the department, but he would not support unlimited terms.

Mr. Schreimann moved to amend the changes to state that members may serve up to four consecutive terms in the same office. Mr. Upchurch seconded the motion.

Mr. Kruse stated that CBHE Chair is a very time-consuming role and additional terms should not be automatic but should be voted on by the board. Mr. Upchurch responded that the nominating committee should work with board officers to ensure the officer is willing and able to best represent the interests of higher education during their term.

After further discussion, the motion to amend the change passed unanimously.

Mr. Upchurch made a motion to adopt the final draft of the revised by-laws as amended. Ms. Carter seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

Draft Policy on Dispute Resolution

Ms. AuBuchon briefed the board on the proposed policy for dispute resolution and the general questions received from institutions. While the department has revised some segments of the policy based on feedback, the ultimate determination on the following five key concerns remains with the board.

• Which disputes are subject to this process?

Ms. AuBuchon stated that it did not make sense to arbitrate every dispute, so the draft was revised to narrow the CBHE’s jurisdiction.

• Who can initiate this process?

MDHE staff believes that there may be situations where parties may not want to utilize the process. However, the best interests of the state may be served through the process. Therefore, it was determined that the CBHE, the Commissioner of Higher Education, or any institution should have the ability to initiate dispute resolution.

• Who defines the scope of the dispute?

The scope of the dispute can best be determined through discussion between the CBHE and the parties to the dispute.

• At what point during a dispute will the process be initiated?

It was determined that the dispute resolution process would only be initiated in situations where all other avenues, including informal mediation, have failed to produce satisfactory results.

• Who will preside over the dispute?

Typically, the Commissioner of Higher Education will preside; however, the Commissioner’s designee may also preside. The board discussed the option of a professionally trained external mediator due to shortages in both MDHE staff and time. However, disputes are likely to be work-intensive and therefore expensive. The MDHE has limited funding that will not cover an external mediator. While the statute does not allow the board to require institutions to pay mediator fees, dispute parties are not precluded from identifying and paying for the services of an agreed-upon mediator.

Mr. Schreimann asked if the policy provided a review process for the CBHE of the dispute arbiter’s recommended resolution. Ms. AuBuchon advised that the review is not intended to be a re-hearing. The CBHE would be able to review and make a decision on the resolution based on the record of the dispute proceedings.

To clarify the policy, the MDHE will add language as follows:

The CBHE shall consider the record of the proceedings leading up to the appeal at its next regularly scheduled meeting. At such meeting, the CBHE may inquire and make a determination based on the record.

In addition, Item 7, Section 5 will include the following statement:

The meeting shall be recorded and the recording shall constitute the record.

Mr. Kruse asked if the Commissioner shall have the final determination. Ms. AuBuchon responded that the issue could be decided by all parties during mediation. The policy may need to be revised to clarify.

The policy currently states that the CBHE may inquire of any party to the dispute. Mr. Upchurch expressed concern that the board may only hear from one side. Ms. AuBuchon stated she did not feel that situation would occur; however, the policy’s language could be revised to clarify.

Dr. McGuire asked if the policy would allow the contending parties to use agreed-upon colleagues as mediators rather than relying on certified professional arbitrators. Ms. AuBuchon replied that such actions are permitted under the current draft; mediation is voluntary, non-binding, and does not preclude the use of panels as mediation is intended to be an informal process to address problems prior to binding arbitration.

Commissioner Stein stated that there could be many different scenarios before the dispute resolution policy would be invoked. However, the process would be invoked if there is damage being done to higher education and informal processes are not resolving the issue.

Ms. AuBuchon advised that there is no one-size-fits-all scenario, so the policy needs to be flexible to allow response to each situation as they develop. Mr. Brian Long said that COPHE strongly endorses a provision for the use of a neutral external consultant / arbitrator. The organization does have concerns on other issues within the policy, particularly the “honesty clause” in Section 5, subparagraph 4.

After discussion, Mr. Schreimann moved to amend the draft policy by eliminating subparagraph 4 of Section 5. Mr. Kruse seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Upchurch moved to amend the draft policy by revising subparagraph 2 of Section 4 to state that the dispute resolution process will be initiated only after reasonable informal attempts to resolve the dispute have failed in the determination of the CBHE. Ms. Carter seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Cole moved to recommend that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approve the amended policy on dispute resolution. Ms. Carter seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

Draft Policy on Waiver for Tuition Increases

Ms. AuBuchon briefed the board on the draft policy for waivers for tuition increases.

• There was general concern about the timeline for decision-making; the department is committed to processing waiver requests in a timely manner.
• After discussion and review of appropriate statutes by MDHE staff, the University of Missouri is being counted as one institution for computation of average tuition.
• The draft policy currently allows distance education, which is usually offered under a different tuition, to be included in the overall computation of average tuition.
• The draft policy currently provides a negotiation process whereby institutions that raise tuition beyond the authorized percentage are allowed to return to their governing boards for re-consideration. The institutions could reaffirm their commitment to the tuition increase and possibly incur a fine or they may revise the tuition increase to meet CPI.

Mr. Long thanked the CBHE and MDHE for the openness of the process in developing the policy and posed several concerns on behalf of COPHE:

1. COPHE does not feel that Linn State Technical College should be included in the four-year calculations of average tuition. If LSTC must be included, COPHE recommends that the institution be treated as a community college.
   
   Ms. AuBuchon responded that the department is implementing the law as written. Linn State is not excluded in the statute, which does not specify only four-year institutions. Additionally, Linn State is not a community college and receives funding directly from the state in a manner similar to that of the four-year institutions.

2. COPHE recommends striking the section defining online / distance education courses from the policy. The definition and calculations require great precision that would be difficult to attain due to the nature of student movement in and out of courses and programs.
   
   Ms. AuBuchon agreed that this was a reasonable suggestion; however, students could end up being charged much higher tuition for distance education and that would not visible in the process.

3. COPHE held extensive discussions about defining UM as one or four institutions for computing average tuition. COPHE could not reach consensus and had no recommendations for the CBHE.

4. COPHE recommends preserving the institutions’ ability to negotiate tuition increases with the Commissioner.
   
   Mr. Schreimann expressed concern that such negotiation may result in the Commissioner of Higher Education setting tuition for institutions.

5. As with the dispute resolution policy, COPHE recommends removing the honesty clause from this policy.

6. COPHE recommends striking everything after the first sentence in Section 6, subparagraph 1, which defines state appropriations.
   
   Ms. AuBuchon responded that the definition is taken from the statute.

After discussion, Mr. Schreimann recommended that the CBHE table a vote on this item in order to allow institutions additional time to review and discuss these issues; the CBHE will hold a conference call to finalize the policy after receiving comments from the institutions. Commissioner Stein advised that institutions are even now considering tuition increases, so the board needs a policy in place for consistency and uniformity. The department will commit to having a meeting to finalize the policy before January.

Dr. Marsha Drennon asked that the draft policy be sent electronically along with a breakdown of the lingering issues. Mr. Schreimann asked that presidents and chancellors send all comments to the MDHE in writing.

Dr. Barbara Dixon expressed appreciation for the time to review the most recent draft and to consider the comments from today’s meeting.

Draft Rule on Out-of-State Public Institutions

Mr. Leroy Wade reported that the initial draft has undergone a vetting process with stakeholder groups and garnered no comments or recommendations for changes. The intent and function of the rule is to ensure the program approval requirements for out-of-state public institutions are as rigorous as the requirements applied to Missouri’s public institutions. As a result, the proposed rule requires the application of the same standards with the exception of the section relating to public funding. In addition, the statute authorizes the department to approve individual courses offered by out-of-state public institutions. Because the MDHE does not require course approval of Missouri public institutions, the rule includes a set of detailed requirements for the approval of courses to be delivered in Missouri by out-of-state public institutions.

Mr. Kruse moved to recommend that the Coordinating Board direct the Commissioner of Higher Education to take all actions necessary to ensure the attached Proposed Rulemaking become effective as administrative rules as soon as possible. Mr. Upchurch seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

Consent Calendar

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

Recess

The CBHE meeting was recessed for the joint meeting with the board of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA).

Reconvene the CBHE Meeting

Chair Swan reconvened the meeting of the Coordinating Board at 2:00 p.m.

Commissioner Stein advised the board that during the recess he had spoken with the Office of the Governor regarding the Preparing to Care initiative. The administration was firm that a $19 million proposal was beyond their ability to fund at this time; therefore a two-year phase-in of the proposal is not a possibility at this time.

There was a misperception in the original request for additional information; rather than seeking revised proposals for $3 million, $5 million, and $10 million, the administration intended to seek revised proposals for a three, five, or ten year initiative. Commissioner Stein reported that issues of accountability and performance measures were also of concern to the administration.

The potential funding for the initiative is quickly disappearing. The Governor wants to announce some higher education issues and his budget commitments and intends to make a decision about the Preparing to Care initiative within the next twenty-four hours. The governor’s office is interested in keeping the dialogue on this initiative open but that it would be important to get a response as soon as possible concerning what higher education institutions believe is viable along with what results can reasonably be expected.

Dr. Marsha Drennon expressed concern that it would be difficult to coordinate consensus among the institutions within the Governor’s timeframe. A three-year plan may be workable, but all of the presidents and chancellors would need an opportunity to weigh in on this issue.

Commissioner Stein stated that the department would contact the institutions this afternoon and attempt to reach a consensus that could be shared with the Governor.

Update on Needs Analysis on Cape Girardeau County and the Surrounding Region

Mr. Wagner updated the board on the activities of the Cape Girardeau Needs Analysis Coalition, which has raised $68,500 from 11 organizations. The Coalition met on November 29th to discuss next steps, parameters for analysis, identification of deliverables, and adoption of a process for choosing a firm to conduct the needs analysis.

Update on Community College Service Regions

The MDHE received several letters from Cape Girardeau area superintendents requesting a change to the voluntary community college service regions. The superintendents recommended that Cape Girardeau County become part of the Mineral Area College service region rather than the Three Rivers Community College service region. The MDHE shared the letters and the recommendation with the Missouri Community College Association (MCCA). The MCCA was unanimous in its decision not to adjust the service regions at this time.

Mr. Schreimann asked if the community colleges had a written agreement regarding service regions. Commissioner Stein stated that no signed agreement had been created. However, the CBHE approved the service region recommendations of the community colleges at the March 1993 meeting, and the meeting minutes may be used for reference.

Commissioner Stein advised that representatives from TRCC and Mineral Area College are committed to entering into collaborative agreements on current and future educational needs in the region.

New Legislative Session Logistics

Ms. AuBuchon advised the board that the format for legislative updates on the MDHE website had been revised to be more user-friendly. The department encourages feedback regarding the format as it can easily be changed prior to the beginning of the legislative session.

The department’s primary legislative topic for this session will be the revised statutes for proprietary certification. Pre-filed bills that may affect higher education include topics such as illegal immigrants receiving in-state tuition, changes to the Bright Flight statute to clarify eligibility standards, home school programs and GEDs, and intellectual diversity.

P-20 Council Update

Chair Swan reported that the Workforce 2025 report is expected to be released in the next few days. The Office of the Governor intends to identify regional leaders in the report’s seven geographic areas for workgroups; METS initiatives will be the main focus of the workgroups.

Report of the Commissioner

Commissioner Stein reported that the Governor’s State of the State address is scheduled for January 15, 2008.

The Commissioner thanked the board for a substantive two days of meetings and expressed his appreciation for the member’s commitment and engagement. The Commissioner acknowledged the efforts of the MDHE staff and expressed appreciation for their continued efforts.

Adjournment

Mr. Schreimann made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Carter seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

The CBHE meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

---

COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
and the
MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY

MINUTES OF MEETING
December 6, 2007

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE) met with the board of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA) at 11:45 a.m. on Thursday, December 6, 2007 at the Rickman Center in Jefferson City.

The following members of the Coordinating Board were present:

CBHE Chair Kathryn Swan called the meeting to order and thanked the Members for their patience in the delay of today’s meeting.

Roles and Responsibilities of CBHE, MDHE, and MOHELA

Mr. Wagner provided an overview of the responsibilities of the Coordinating Board, which include the review and approval of academic programs, the establishment of guidelines for admission and credit transfer; the review of institutional missions, and the development of a coordinated plan for higher education.

Mr. Wagner explained that the MDHE is the administrative arm of the Coordinating Board and provided an overview of the department’s responsibilities, which include:

• identification of statewide needs for postsecondary education
• submission of a unified annual budget request for public higher education
• operation of the Missouri Student Loan Program as a state-designated guaranty agency
• collaboration with K-12 and the Department of Economic Development on P-20 initiatives
• policy-setting for and administration of state and federal financial assistance programs
• review of institutional tuition decisions
• potentially setting fines
• design of new policies and/or regulations due to changes in law
• administration of the Proprietary School Certification Program

Statutory Relationship between CBHE/MDHE and MOHELA

Dr. Jim Matchefts provided an overview of MOHELA, explained its role as a secondary market and as a servicer of student loans, and briefed the boards on the processed by which MOHELA raises capital. Dr. Matchefts also described the statutory relationship between the Coordinating Board, the MDHE, and MOHELA.

Board members discussed MOHELA’s operations, the utilization of services by higher education institutions in the state, and MOHELA’s competition in the marketplace. In addition, the two boards discussed MOHELA’s role in funding some initiatives on behalf of the MDHE. Dr. John Smith recommended, and both boards agreed, that an annual meeting of the two boards would be mutually beneficial. The board directed staff to develop an agenda, time, and location for such meetings.

Life of a Loan (FFEL Program)

Ms. Leanne Cardwell provided a description of the Family Federal Education Loan Program (the “FFEL Program”) process from a student’s perspective. The boards discussed the MDHE’s role in default prevention grant programs, the factors colleges and universities consider when selecting either the FFEL Program or the Direct Lending Program, and the reasons behind the fierce competition for student loan volume in Missouri. Mr. Ray Bayer suggested that the wide variety of schools (e.g., medical and law schools, chiropractic institutions) in the state offered many market niches.

Identification of Key Groups Involved in Choosing a Loan Servicer / Guaranty Agency

While students should become more involved in decisions regarding their loan servicer and guaranty agency, an institution’s financial aid office is the primary group involved due to the nature of the loan application process. Students as well as financial aid personnel should be better informed as to the consequences and benefits of the loan servicer / guaranty agency decision.

The boards discussed developing relationships with high school guidance counselors, the role of the financial aid office in selecting either the FFEL Program or the Direct Lending Program, and the need to broaden awareness of utilization of the services and benefits of MOHELA and MDHE to include the leadership and boards of higher education institutions in the state. It was decided that the boards should take time to craft a positive, proactive statement about such benefits.

Market Share Report

Mr. William Shaffner presented the market share report for MOHELA and highlighted the fact that MOHELA’s market share closely aligns with MDHE’s market share. Ms. Julie Meyer pointed out that the total FFEL Program market share is defined differently by MOHELA and the MDHE, resulting in slightly different statewide totals for each entity. The boards discussed the school as lender program and the conversion of the University of Missouri – Rolla from the Direct Lending Program to the FFEL Program.

Benefits from MOHELA / MDHE Loans

Mr. Shaffner presented information on the financial benefits to students who obtain FFEL Program loans with MDHE as guarantor and MOHELA as the servicer. The boards discussed the need to publicize these benefits to prospective students and their parents as well as to the leadership of higher education institutions in the state. Two staff members, Ms. Meyer and Ms. Wendy Baker, were designated as MDHE contacts for this project.

Kindergarten Program

Mr. Quentin Wilson provided an overview of MOHELA’s borrower benefit programs and early access and awareness programs, including the Career & College Club. He also briefed the boards on MOHELA’s efforts in the development of a “Kindergarten to College” program and the program’s goals.

Chair Swan stated that this was a highly productive meeting of the two boards and gave a summary of next steps:

• Coordinate an annual meeting of the Coordinating Board and the MOHELA board
• Commit to partner on higher education issues
• Coordinate a public relations campaign
• Educate higher education institutions’ board members about the benefits of FFEL Program loans utilizing MDHE as guarantor and MOHELA as servicer
• Develop levers to encourage and increase borrower choice

Mr. Greg Upchurch moved to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Doris Carter seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at approximately 2:00 p.m.