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

Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 06-02

June 6, 2002

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education met at 10:15 a.m. on Thursday, June 6, 2002 at the Regional Training Center at East Central College. Members present were:

Marie Carmichael, Chair
Sandra Kauffman, Vice Chair
Diana Bourisaw
Mary Findley
Dudley Grove
Adam Fischer
Mary Joan Wood
Kala M. Stroup, Commissioner

John Bass and Jim Summers were absent from the meeting.

There being a quorum present, Chair Carmichael called the meeting to order. A list of CBHE staff, presidents, and guests attending the meeting is attached. (Attachment A)

Opening Comments

Chair Carmichael thanked Dr. Karen Herzog, president, East Central College and her staff for their wonderful hospitality in hosting the Coordinating Board for Higher Education meeting.

Chair Carmichael also recognized Ms. Emmy McClelland, assistant director of legislative affairs, Governor's office and thanked her for attending the meeting.

Minutes of April 11, 2002 CBHE Meeting

Ms. Grove moved that page three, second paragraph, second sentence of the minutes be amended as follows: "As a consequence of this Ms. Grove suggested that the staff begin work on developing a revised set of standards for the board's consideration regarding the establishment of new community college taxing district."

Mrs. Wood seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Report of the Commissioner

Commissioner Stroup remarked that it is nice to be on East Central's campus and appreciates the opportunity to have the day's meetings in the Regional Training Center, which was built as part of Missouri's State Plan for Postsecondary Technical Education. At the time of the Plan's implementation, this region of the state had been a manufacturing community that needed a facility for workforce training and development. The state recognized this need and allocated funding for the facility in addition to what the district contributed. Today, East Central is a strong community college with a good understanding of the workforce development needs of the communities it serves.

Commissioner Stroup congratulated Dr. Herzog for her leadership in returning East Central College to the MOSTARS Federal Family Education Loan Program and presented her with a small token of appreciation. With the return of East Central to the program, all students enrolled in the state's public and independent two-year colleges have access to the MOSTARS student loan program. Returning to MOSTARS clearly puts the students of East Central first. The Coordinating Board thanks East Central College for its commitment to providing financial access to higher education through low-cost student loans.

After consultation with Chair Carmichael, CBHE staff has recommended cancellation of the 2002 Governor's Conference on Higher Education due to budget constraints. Orientation for new legislators coincides with the December Coordinating Board meeting and both will take place in Jefferson City. The CBHE board and staff feel that meeting with the new legislators in December is an important opportunity for them, as well as the presidents and chancellors.

CBHE has received two major grants with the help of deputy commissioner, Dr. John Wittstruck. Missouri is one of five states participating in a Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) project entitled, Changing Directions: Integrating Higher Education Financial Aid Programs and Financing Policy. The second grant has been funded through The Lumina Foundation for Education and is entitled, Access and Affordability: Patterns of Higher Education Attendance and Performance for Cohorts of ACT-Tested Missouri High School Graduates. The grant from the Lumina Foundation is a result of a partnership with the University of Missouri-Columbia and the Department of Economic Development staff. Presidents will be an important part of this cooperative project. Because of the Coordinating Board's strong research base, Missouri is leading the way in many areas.

Report of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee

Dr. Pacheco, president, University of Missouri, reported that the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee met earlier in the day and discussed the following items:

Dr. John Strong, assistant to the president, Southwest Missouri State University gave a presentation on the status of the Missouri Campus Compact;
Summary of Legislation Truly Agreed to and Finally Passed - Second Regular Session, 91st General Assembly;
The Future of State Appropriations for Public Colleges and Universities;
Methodology for Budget Recommendations for Public Institutions, FY 2004; and a projected outlook for FY 2004 was provided.
Metropolitan Community Colleges' Plan to Expand the Business & Technology Center into a Fifth College; and
Dr. Donald Claycomb, president, Linn State Technical College, requested that the creation of an additional college in the Kansas City area be delayed for more discussions.

Dr. Pacheco stated that there was discussion of the short- and long-term impact of the withholdings and the core reduction in FY 2003. There were good suggestions about the kinds of activities that need to be engaged in during the coming months. Refer to the meeting summary from the Presidential Advisory Committee included under Tab "Advisory Committee Minutes."

Summary of Legislation Truly Agreed to and Finally Passed-Second Regular Session, 91st General Assembly

This was a discussion item only. In the future, there may be required action on Senate Committee Substitute/House Bill 2047 to promulgate the rules related to National Guard students called to active duty.

CBHE staff will present a recommendation for House Resolution 51, which urges the CBHE to require each publicly funded institution of higher education to establish policies related to credit cards on their campuses, at the next board meeting. The MOSTARS staff has a financial literacy task force of individuals from other agencies. They will coordinate information from these teams and send a report to the board.

Analysis of FY 2002 Withholdings

Mr. Joe Martin, associate commissioner for fiscal and legislative affairs, presented an analysis of FY 2002 withholdings, which covered the following facts:

The $286,197,202 higher education budget actions were 37 percent of the statewide budget reductions of $765,600,229.
The FY 2002 General Revenue withholdings and reserve represented 18.9 percent of each campus's original General Revenue appropriation.

Mr. Martin presented information on the effects of the core reductions in FY 2003 on state institutions of higher education and MOSTARS with Attachments A through G. The information is outlined by: all institutions, two-year institutions, four-year institutions, University of Missouri-related, Coordination, MOSTARS and Total Appropriations. The board will discuss ways they can move forward with the suggestions they received from the institutions. The issue of debt and reserve balances will impact institutions' programs and their future financial stability.

Core Reductions FY 2003

Mr. Martin presented Tab C noting that there were 10 percent core reductions for the institutions and various core reductions for other appropriations in higher education.

Mr. Martin provided a review of the FY 2002 core budget, FY 2003 CBHE recommendations, FY 2003 Governor's recommendations, percent of change from FY 2002, FY 2003, and percent of change from FY 2002 in attachments A through G as they related to all institutions, two-year and four-year institutions, the University of Missouri system, Coordination, MOSTARS, and total appropriations.

Short-term Impact and Discussion of Long-term Impact

The board and the higher education community should respond to the present economic condition by carefully considering, in future statewide planning efforts, the financial stability of the state's higher education institutions. The CBHE will collect from the institutions economic impact studies that should address the impact of decline of access, local impact to communities in terms of jobs lost and those positions that will remain unfilled, and address in a positive manner the statewide impact of graduates and programs. Economic impact studies should also address the role of higher education in developing Missouri's workforce.

Higher education may have to consider restructuring in the future and focus on the programs and services that can be eliminated.

Board and Higher Education Community Response to Present Condition

Chair Carmichael stated what she heard from presidents was the importance of presenting our case in terms of the economic impact on the state's economy. Special sessions with the presidents and members of the General Assembly are necessary. The presentation to the General Assembly and the public about the importance of higher education and the economic impact of higher education also needs to include the CBHE's plans to restructure and to streamline for more efficient use of the limited resources available at this time. The economic impact and the importance of access are key issues that need to be considered.

Ms. Grove stated that it is necessary to chart a course for the CBHE, including key directives that will serve as guideposts to take the board into the future.

Mr. Fischer reiterated that restructuring in the future will have to focus on the programs and services that will be eliminated based on the limited money available.

There was general consensus among the board that staff should begin work with the presidents, General Assembly and the Governor's office to move forward on the issues discussed during the Presidential Advisory Committee as a way to position ourselves for the next legislative session.

Ms. Grove moved that the staff develop a statement of priorities by September 1 based on the discussion that was heard in the Presidential Advisory Committee meeting and from other sources on the procedure and future priorities for higher education in the state.

Dr. Bourisaw seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

Projected Outlook for FY 2004

Commissioner Stroup suggested there is a discrepancy between Missouri's need to expand opportunity and access in higher education, the need for an educated workforce, and the direction of public policy and public funding of higher education. CBHE is the statutory and logical group to bring together these discussions within the community of higher education and with all external business groups. It is CBHE's responsibility and the institutions' responsibility to add research, consensus building, and intelligent dialogue to solve this dilemma. The CBHE staff will develop a framework to use in accomplishing this task.

Ms. Grove asked that the institutions act in the most conservative fashion possible in their expenditures throughout the year. She would like to see the institutions project the impact of these cuts on the students, the economy locally and statewide, as well as the other impacts previously discussed.

Chair Carmichael stated that the board understands that our institutions are well-managed and these are tough times for the higher education community. She suggested that presidents might want to consolidate programs and consider restructuring. She encouraged the institutions to be creative and consider every possible option.

Status of Five Year Mission Review - Analysis of Mission Implementation Plans for Harris-Stowe State College, Lincoln University, Truman Sate University, and the University of Missouri

Dr. Robert Stein, associate commissioner for academic affairs and planning, referred the board to TAB F, analysis of Mission Implementation Plans. He explained that at the end of each five-year cycle, institutions report to the board on the results of their mission implementation plans. In April 2002, four institutions (Harris-Stowe State College, Lincoln University, Truman State University, and the University of Missouri) reported to the board on their respective mission-related accomplishments. This agenda item provides a staff analysis of the mission enhancement accomplishments for these four institutions. Dr. Stein noted that the withholdings experienced by institutions for FY 2002 (18.9 percent) have had both a direct and indirect impact on each institution's ability to achieve its mission related goals.

Board members engaged in questions and discussion during the presentation of highlights about each institution.

Highlights for Harris-Stowe State College included the following:

The major goals for Harris-Stowe State College involved a commitment to become a moderately selective institution, to add new degree programs in selected applied professional fields, to enhance and refine existing degree programs in business administration, teacher education and criminal justice, increase two-plus-two programs with St. Louis Community College, and to expand its facilities.

Between fall 1996 and fall 2001 Harris-Stowe has made progress in some areas and experienced declines in others related to the standards set by the board for a moderately selective institution. While the average ACT score increased slightly (from 18.7 percent to 19.0 percent) and the six-year graduation rate increased from 19 percent to 29 percent, the number of first-time, full-time freshmen meeting admission standards decreased from 46 percent to 44 percent, the number who completed the 16-unit high school core curriculum decreased from 59 percent to 42 percent, and the freshmen success rate decreased from 41 percent to 38 percent. Harris-Stowe did not accomplish the target goals set by the CBHE for a moderately selective institution.

The college added six new degree programs during the time period of mission enhancement and adopted a new teacher education initiative, Manifesto for Year 2000 and Beyond. As part of the teacher education initiative, Harris-Stowe will engage in curriculum revision, provide additional student support and raise entrance and exit standards for all teacher education programs.

While the college continues to work to enhance its facilities, progress has been hampered by the most recent withholdings. A major challenge for Harris-Stowe is to continue its work toward meeting the standards for a moderately selective institution. Currently only 36.5 percent of the institution's students are full-time. Many students who began full-time reverted to part-time status before the end of the first year.

Mrs. Kauffman suggested that the board might want to explore establishing additional comparison groups for institutions with high concentrations of part-time and under-served students. She emphasized that the board's commitment to high standards for all institutions should be maintained. Indicators should focus on the progress made by students once they enter the institution.

Ms. Grove raised concerns about the performance of Harris-Stowe relative to the standards for moderately selective institutions. She suggested that the board stipulate a timeframe whereby an institution would be required to re-evaluate its mission category. There should be some time limit after which an institution should not be allowed to continue to use a mission category it is not achieving.

Chair Charmichael indicated that Harris-Stowe serves a population of low-income students, many who are the first in their family to attend college. She expressed serious reservation about the college's ability to meeting moderately selective standards and encouraged the institution to consider becoming an open-enrollment institution. She emphasized the importance of the open enrollment mission, especially for under-served populations.

Highlights from Lincoln University

The major goals for Lincoln University involved a commitment to enhance and increase collaborative partnerships; enhance programs in business administration, elementary education, criminal justice/law enforcement, and nursing science; expand programs and courses offered at night and on weekends; increase access to the African-American/Ethnic Studies library collections; and strengthen the 1890s land-grant cooperative extension and research.

Between fall 1996 and fall 2001, Lincoln has made progress in some areas and experienced declines in others. The percent of full-time freshmen entering the institution, having completing the CBHE recommended high school core curriculum, increased from 65 percent to 75 percent. During the same time period, the freshman success rate decreased from 48 percent to 39 percent while the six-year graduate rate increased from 20 percent to 32 percent. Both rates fall short of the target for an open-enrollment four-year institution. Teacher education students meeting CBHE targeted admissions standards decreased from 48 percent to 44 percent, while those meeting exit standards increased form 42 percent to 48 percent. Lincoln has a major challenge to increase its performance in all of these areas.

Other highlights from Lincoln include progress toward accreditation of its business program, provision of urban experiences for teacher education students, expansion of night and week-end programming, expansion of access to African-American/Ethnic library collections, and intrusive intervention with under-prepared students.

As an 1890s land grant graduate institution and a historic black institution, Lincoln is committed to providing quality programs from associate-through masters-level degrees. With a base of only approximately 2,500 FTE students, Lincoln's resources are stretched as it seeks to provide a full complement of remedial programs, to deliver quality education at three-degree levels, and to serve the needs of mid Missouri.

Chair Carmichael noted that only 37 percent of the graduates were given assessments in general education and indicated she would like to see more students assessed. She asked for clarification about the board's policies on assessment. Dr. Stein explained that the board has promoted assessment of all students through its Funding for Results recommendations. The issue of sampling was extensively debated in 1998, when the board established major objectives for Funding for Results. While the board does not require universal assessment, institutions are encouraged and rewarded for assessment through the board's budget recommendations.

Ms. Grove indicated the importance of including target goals in five-year plans even though state resources are limited. She encouraged staff to work with the institutions in the design of priority issues despite the lack of state dollars in support of Funding for Results during this past year.

Highlights from Truman State University

The major goals for Truman involved a commitment to become a highly selective institution, to receive national recognition as a public liberal arts and sciences university, attract and retain quality faculty, to increase graduates pursuing graduate and professional education, to implement a distinguished scholars program, and renovate and expand the Science Hall.

Between fall 1996 and fall 2001 Truman has made significant progress on all of its goals. The average ACT for students entering Truman has been at least 27, which was the target goal. In addition, the institution has successfully met the CBHE goals for percent of full-time freshmen entering the institution having completed the CBHE recommended high school core curriculum and the percent meeting admission guidelines for a highly selective institution. During the same time period, the freshman success rate increased from 84 percent to 87 percent and the six-year graduation rate increased from 66 percent to 72 percent. Teacher education students entering and exiting from Truman's five-year program exceeded the recommended CBHE standards.

Other highlights from Truman included increased efforts to attract students of color, increases in foreign language enrollments, lowered student faculty ratios, recruitment of quality new faculty, implementation of a visiting scholars program, renovation and expansion of Science Hall, and establishment of a Phi Beta Kappa Chapter on campus.

In his summary comments, Dr. Stein indicated that Truman was to be commended for its outstanding achievements.

Ms. Grove added her congratulations to Truman for doing an outstanding job. She indicated her interest in the recruitment efforts of Truman to attract students of color and asked to be kept informed of their success on this initiative.

Highlights from the University of Missouri

The major goals for the University of Missouri involved a commitment to become a selective institution, to demonstrate quality improvement in graduate doctoral professional programs and research, to promote and implement its endowed chairs and distinguished professorship programs, to enrich funding for selective programs, and to increase national stature and recognition of selected graduate programs and areas of research. Specific goals set for each campus were outlined in the board item. In addition, goals were set for the University of Missouri Outreach and Extension.

Between fall 1996 and fall 2001, campuses varied in the extent to which they met the admissions standards set for a selective institution. Both the Columbia and Rolla campuses fell just short of the 90 percent goal, while St. Louis and Kansas City were between 18 and 22 percentage points below the standard respectively. At least 92 percent of entering first time, full-time freshmen had completed the CBHE recommended 16-unit high school core curriculum prior to entry. Freshman success rates increased on each campus, with Columbia and Rolla both surpassing the goal of 80 percent. Kansas City fell just short of the goal at 76 percent, and St. Louis had only 63 percent of its freshman meet the standard. Six-year graduation rates also increased on each campus. Columbia surpassed the 65 percent goal and Rolla fell just short of it. Both St. Louis and Kansas City were between 22 and 23 percentage points lower than the standard respectively. Concerning teacher education entry and exit standards, Columbia surpassed the recommended CBHE entry standard. Both St. Louis and Kansas City fell short of the 90 percent goal and between 31 and 46 percentage points respectively. All three institutions fell short of the 80 percent exit standard.

Other highlights from the University of Missouri included increases in graduate program rankings, favorable comparisons to AAU averages in the number of graduate degrees awarded with significant increases in the university's market share of federal research funds, $80 million raised to support 121 Endowed Chairs and Professorships, increases in the number of collaborative degree programs among the four campuses, establishment of Plus Two programs with community colleges in St. Louis and Kansas City, continued and expanded involvement in serving as a consultant for state government, and successful initiatives of outreach and extension in addressing priority issues identified by local communities.

A major challenge for the University of Missouri is the use of a common framework for all of its campuses. Both St. Louis and Kansas City face the challenge of working with urban students. The University of Missouri is in the process of designing strategic plans for the future that will address goals for the system as well as targeted goals for each campus. In addition, the institution has made a commitment to more explicitly define its criteria for collaborative programs.

Chair Carmichael stated her praise for an outstanding job. She stressed the board's appreciation for the complexity of the University of Missouri and the commitment of President Pacheco and his staff to provide leadership and direction for the institution. She indicated particular interest in increased efforts at collaboration and encouraged the institution to forge new initiatives and to track the success of existing programs.

Ms. Grove indicated that she recommends that all four campuses be reviewed in the context of base budget adjustments.

Profile Reports for Public Institutions

Dr. Stein referred the board to TAB G - Profile Reports for Public Institutions. He explained that at the board's April meeting, the 2002 progress report - Striving for Excellence: A Report on Missouri's System of Higher Education was presented. The data collected in this report demonstrated that:

Students enrolling in public colleges and universities are better prepared.
Public higher education is less affordable.
Enrollment increased by 11 percent.
The competitiveness of faculty in obtaining external funding increased.
Six-year graduation rates increased.
Performance on national norm assessment of general education increased.
Performance of students on teacher education entrance and exit examinations increased.

Aggregate-level data were provided in Striving for Excellence as a tool for evaluating the system's success in achieving major goals established by previous planning priorities. However, variations among institutions in their performance on specific goals only become apparent when data are disaggregated. Institutional-level data, which are shared with presidents and chancellors as part of the board's five-year mission review process, have also been provided to the board. Included in the profile for each institution are common elements related to mission, student mix, performance, comprehensiveness, and student financial aid. Additional mission-specific data, e.g., data on foreign language enrollments and degrees are included for Missouri Southern based on its international emphasis, while retention and probation rates are included for Missouri Western based on its emphasis on access to learner success. The attachment provides definitions, goals, and data source for all common elements. Institutional profile data are available at the CBHE offices and will be used in meetings with institutional representatives as higher education plans for the future.

Chair Carmichael emphasized the board's interest in institutional-level data and expressed regret that there was not an opportunity to discuss these data in detail with the presidents and chancellors. She emphasized the importance of using these data for higher education's accountability and suggested that the board use the profile data to examine and evaluate our current performance as well as our goals for the future.

Ms. Grove asked if they would use the same profiles in the future, or if as a result of new data elements, they would have a new approach. Dr. Stein suggested that much of the data will be similar and can be tracked for long-term patterns. New elements can be added as needed.

Mission Accountability Measures and Target Goals

Dr. Stein referred the board to TAB H - Mission Accountability Measures and Target Goals. In beginning his presentation, Dr. Stein referenced a future filled with restricted resources, unpredictable budgets, increased competition, new educational structures, limited historical perspective, and the need for common language and plans. He suggested that higher education is on uncharted terrain. Furthermore, he indicated that the demand for accountability systems in higher education has become common throughout the state and across the nation. What accountability means in an age of shrinking state resources, withholdings, and projected core cuts remains a challenge that must be addressed by the leadership of Missouri's higher education community. Dr. Stein stressed that as institutional boards and administrators focus on making difficult decisions to ensure fiscal responsibility, it is also essential to reevaluate goals and objectives for the future so that they will serve as a basis for a meaningful and realistic accountability system.

In designing a planning process for the future, the CBHE staff is creating draft matrices for reviewing previous institutional actions and documents. Consideration is being given to include the following information:

Agreed upon institutional mission statement,
Carnegie Classification, and
Programs added and deleted since 1996.

In addition, based on strategic plans, which are on file with the CBHE, the staff is in the process of identifying:

Future priorities;
Future academic program development; and
Measurable goals and performance indicators;
Baseline data; and
Five-year target goals.

Some initial generalizations about the goals included in institutional strategic plans include the following challenges:

Too many priority areas listed (the range was from 4 to 14);
Too many Goals listed. (The range was from 10 to 94);
Goals were not prioritized;
Some goals were vague or unclear, e.g., develop high quality academic programs, expand experiential learning activities;
Other goals were not easily measurable, e.g., provide leadership for the community, integrate assessment into all aspects of university life; and
In some cases there is a need for additional baseline data, e.g., student success in current collaborative programs, successful demonstration of interdisciplinary thinking in senior portfolios.

It was anticipated that new goals would be agreed-upon by the staff and institutional presidents/chancellors for presentation to the board at this June meeting. The continued fiscal crisis faced by higher education has delayed the process. New conversations with presidents/chancellors will need to take place over the summer with a goal of having institutional accountability matrices for board approval a future meeting. The staff is committed to working with the institutions to determine the impact of the current financial crisis on institutional commitments and to design an accountability system for the future that is both realistic and meaningful.

Ms. Grove suggested that national comparisons be included when appropriate. She also suggested that the staff explore the possibility of including information about the extent of financial commitment to meeting the institution's target goals. Ms. Grove also asked for clarification that each institution would have concrete measurable target goals.

Dr. Stein explained that the immediate priority for institutions is to analyze the fiscal impact of the latest round of withholding and the core cuts for FY 2003. Once this is better understood, it will serve as a framework and foundation for designing future planning efforts, including realistic mission-driven target goals.

Methodology for Budget Recommendations for Public Institutions, FY 2004

Mr. Martin presented Tab I stating there are many unknowns as we begin to develop the FY 2004 budget request. In October 2001, the Coordinating Board approved a new methodology for development of the FY 2003 budget recommendation. Rather than focusing solely on full-time equivalent (FTE) student funding, the FY 2003 formulas were calculated based on three main categories of adjustments: institutional strength, performance funding, and statewide priorities.

Although this item was originally intended to be an action item, given the day's discussions Mr. Martin believes it is premature for the board to vote on the recommended action. He suggested that the board give staff a sense of direction in relation to the same framework we used last year, which included the main categories: institutional strength, performance funding and statewide priorities, but allow the staff the flexibility to modify based on the discussions that will take place. In the legislative conference committee, they agreed to issue a Letter of Intent related to FTE funding. We have not received this letter yet.Ms. Grove hopes we have conversations with the legislators and the Governor's office in this development about FTE funding.

Chair Carmichael stated that we do need to have a budget by the time we meet in October. After some key meetings with legislators and the Governor's office, we would have a framework on how the formula will be designed.

It is agreed that this item will not be voted on now, but will have some structure in place by late August.

Dr. Bourisaw moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education have a special meeting in September to revisit the funding formula and the methodology used to develop the FY 2004 budget request, as well as reaffirm and add additional goals to the formula, if necessary. Also at the September meeting, the board will review new strategic plans, or revisions to existing strategic plans, that institutions may choose to submit based on the current fiscal situation and future forecasts.

Mrs. Wood seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.

Metropolitan Community Colleges' Plan to Expand the Business and Technology Center into a Fifth College

Dr. Stein introduced Dr. Wayne Giles, chancellor, Metropolitan Communities Colleges and referred the board to TAB J - Metropolitan Community Colleges' Plan to Expand the Business and Technology Center into a Fifth College.

Dr. Stein stated that the Metropolitan Community Colleges (MCC) is currently made up of four separate college campuses and a Center - Blue River Community College, Longview Community College, Maplewood Community College, Penn Valley Community College and the Business and Technology Center. The taxing district of Metropolitan Community Colleges, originally organized in 1964, includes school districts in Jackson, Cass, Clay and Platte counties. The Business and Technology Center, which was acquired by Metropolitan Community Colleges in 1992 is located in Jackson county in the heart of a major Kansas City industrial park. Metropolitan Community Colleges is proposing to elevate the status of its Business and Technology Center to a fifth college of the Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City, Missouri.

The delivery of technical programs at the Business and Technology Center began in 1995. As part of the State Plan for Postsecondary Education, the CBHE supported the building of the Business and Technology Center. Under the current arrangement, degree authorization remains with each of Metropolitan Community Colleges' current colleges, though delivery of Metropolitan Community Colleges' primary industrial and technology programs has occurred at the Business and Technology Center site. In addition, the staff at the Business and Technology Center provide noncredit programs to business and industry, and short-term continuing education, contract and customized training and new jobs training.

Over the years, there has been continued growth at the Business and Technology Center. With support from CBHE, Metropolitan Community College received a special grant of $4.4 million in capital funds for facility expansion. The expanded Business and Technology Center site is targeted to be 350,000 square feet, triple its original size.

The rationale provided by Metropolitan Community Colleges for elevating the Business Technology Center to a fifth college involves its desire to have a single point of service for a majority of Metropolitan Community Colleges' postsecondary technical education and training. The administration and organizational structure is slated to be consistent with the other four campuses and will address the governance, representation and process problems that are resulting from the current distributive approach to program delivery. Metropolitan Community College anticipated a smoother functioning and simpler operating system.

The mission of the Business and Technology College will be to support economic development of the Kansas City region by providing postsecondary technical education and training to meet needs of area business and industry for a skilled workforce. This college will differ from the other four in the Metropolitan Community Colleges' system in that it will not offer an Associate of Arts transfer degree. Thus, the name Business and Technology College, and not the use of the traditional label, community college. The only general education to be delivered at the college will be that needed to support technical degree programs. The new college will play a significant role in the district's RTEC plans for the region.

Metropolitan Community College is working with four-year institutions to provide a smooth transition for its students to enter baccalaureate degree-completion programs in technical fields. Metropolitan Community College has expressed its commitment to partner with other higher education institutions, with the Northwest Missouri Educational Consortium, secondary schools, businesses, governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations to provide high-quality post-secondary technical education and training.

Metropolitan Community College indicates that no additional resources will be required for this change. Allocations to the new college will be similar to the current allocations to the Center within the context of withholdings and core cuts. Metropolitan Community Colleges believes the new college will help generate new revenue.

The elevation of the Business and Technology Center to a college is not expected to have a negative impact on other community colleges in Missouri. On May 8, 2002, MCCA presidents/chancellors gave support to the proposal and urged Metropolitan Community Colleges to proceed with change in status.

Dr. Stein acknowledged the concerns raised by Linn State Technical College, which were discussed at the Presidential Advisory Committee meeting earlier in the morning. The fact that Linn State Technical College was not formally approached about this change is symbolic of the need for better communication between the state's public community colleges and the state's technical college.

Dr. Stein indicated that the Higher Learning Commission accredits Metropolitan Community Colleges as a single learning institution. Correspondence from the Higher Learning Commission indicates their approval of the name change pending action by the CBHE.

Dr. Stein read the staff recommendation into the record.

Dr. Wayne Giles, president, Metropolitan Community Colleges was asked, if he had additional comments he would like to share with the board. Dr. Giles shared his perspective that this action represents a management decision of a local community college district in wanting to designate one of its campus centers as a college. He emphasized that this action is not similar to the creation of a new community college district. Rather, they are proposing to change the name of an existing operative unit from that of a center to that of a college. No new state resources are being requested. This administrative change is responsive to the regional needs of the taxing district and of the larger voluntary RTEC service region.

Dr. Giles indicated he would be happy to answer any questions.

Mrs. Kauffman indicated that she would like the name Business and Technology Center specifically referenced in any formal motion so it is clear what the fifth college will be called.

Chair Carmichael questioned whether the name change is consistent with the board's policy on nomenclature changes. She is concerned about the use of the label "college" without any reference to "community" and asked if it was necessary to call the unit a college. Ms. Carmichael stated that the label might be confusing in that some will think it implies that the Business and Technology College is a four-year institution.

Dr. Giles responded by indicating that the Business and Technology College will not offer an associate of arts transfer degrees. The faculty from the other Metropolitan Community Colleges will teach the general education courses at the Business and Technology College. Dr. Giles further stated that there is not a standard lexicon for names used by other public two-year institutions in Missouri and indeed, several do not include Community in their title, e.g., Crowder College, Mineral Area College, and North Central College. Dr. Giles added that the Business and Technology Center presents itself as part of the Metropolitan Community Colleges and he does not think the public would perceive it as a four-year institution.

Commissioner Stroup reminded the board that its predecessors did encourage this centralization so Metropolitan Community Colleges would better serve the needs of business and industry in the Kansas City region in a cost-effective way. The expense of placing high cost equipment necessary for AAS programming on every campus in Kansas City is prohibitive.

Several board members indicated that they did not have any disagreement with the consolidation but did have some concern about the name change.

Ms. Grove suggested that the board might want to amend the staff recommendation to include reference to Metropolitan Community Colleges whenever talking about the Business and Technology College.

Mrs. Kauffman indicated her agreement with this solution. She also indicated her desire to have an additional change in the staff recommendation. In the first expectation listed that refers to "cost effective way to deliver?", she would like the words "to continue" inserted before "to deliver." This would ensure that it is understood that this change does not represent development of new initiatives but represents the expansion of existing, ongoing activities.

Ms. Grove questioned whether there would be a potential conflict, especially in future planning between Linn State Technical College and this new technical college, e.g., in adding new degrees, in competing for students, in submitting grant proposals, and in seeking capital funding.

Dr. Giles responded by explaining that any new degree proposals would be submitted to the CBHE for approval. All new program requests are posted on the CBHE web site and institutions, including Linn State have the opportunity to comment and to object. This aspect of the policy provides a check and balance on each institution's aspirations. He further stated that the Metropolitan Community Colleges' board would not be interested in using local taxpayer dollars to support statewide programs. This represents a difference between a community college with a local support base and Linn State which does not receive local tax dollars.

Ms. Grove asked if the programs at the two institutions were distinctively different.

Dr. Giles indicated that the list of Metropolitan Community Colleges' programs is included in the board item. He used as an illustration that Metropolitan Community Colleges phased out Aviation recently and transferred equipment to Linn State, which has this program.

Chair Carmichael referenced the letter from Linn State and directed the institutions to work more closely in the future. She would like institutions to resolve their differences in advance.

Mrs. Wood asked if there was any reason why action today could not be delayed to allow Linn State Technical College and Metropolitan Community College time to share information. She was not sure she fully understood all of Linn State Technical College's concerns.

Dr. Giles indicated that he preferred for the board to take action today.

Chair Carmichael declared a break and indicated that discussion on this item would resume at the start of the meeting immediately after lunch.

Mrs. Kauffman moved (including the two changes referenced in the earlier discussion) that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education recognize and add its support to the decision of the Metropolitan Community Colleges' Board of Trustees to change the status of the Business and Technology Center to a fifth college of Metropolitan Community Colleges to be known as Metropolitan Community Colleges Business and Technology College.

Based on the state's investment in the development and delivery of community college education within the parameters of limited state resources, the board further states the following expectations:

That the Metropolitan Community Colleges Board of Trustees will have determined that the creation of a fifth college is the most cost-effective way to continue to deliver high-cost, high-quality technology programs;

That the Metropolitan Community Colleges Board of Trustees and the citizens of the Metropolitan Community Colleges taxing district will have agreed to assume responsibility for any additional costs associated with creating a fifth college;

That the Metropolitan Community Colleges will continue to work closely with public and independent colleges and universities as well as local school districts in determining additional programmatic needs for local residents to ensure the efficient and effective use of resources;

That the Metropolitan Community Colleges will ensure that current and prospective students will not have federal financial aid disrupted as a result of the creation of a fifth college within the district.

Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.

Mrs. Wood indicated that she thought the board should not rush into this action. She did not understand the urgency and supports taking more time to allow Linn State Technical College and Metropolitan Community Colleges to look at the economic impact.

Ms. Grove added that her concern was that the two institutions with technology as their primary function did not communicate on the front end. She is interested in ensuring that these two institutions communicate about potential ways to collaborate and to support each other's programming. She added that all colleges offering technical education should communicate so we can offer the best education in the most cost-effective way to our students.

Commissioner Stroup stated that there has been communication dating back to the formation of the State Plan Postsecondary for Technical Education. Institutions, as well as the board, have supported the type of programming developed for technical education. In addition, the board on two occasions has supported capital improvements for Metropolitan Community Colleges, explicitly for consolidation at the Business and Technology Center. The discussion has occurred and now what is important is how to label the unit that is part of Metropolitan Community Colleges.

Mr. Fischer called for the question.

Ms. Grove offered a substitute motion to delay action today and have the staff facilitate discussion between MCC and LSTC with a report back to the board by July 1st. The board would then be in a position to vote on the original motion by phone or through a mailed ballot.

Mrs. Wood seconded the motion. The substitute motion failed.

Chair Carmichael called for a vote on the original motion.

The motion passed with five in favor and two against. Chair Carmichael asked for a roll call vote on the motion.

Dr. Bourisaw - yes
Chair Carmichael - yes
Mrs. Findley - yes
Mr. Fischer - yes
Ms. Grove - no
Mrs. Kauffman - yes
Mrs. Wood - no

Developments Affecting MOSTARS Operations

Dr. John Wittstruck, deputy commissioner, brought four information items and one approval item to the board. He referred to information items seven, eight and nine. Information item number seven provides an inventory of where the states grant and scholarship funds were distributed to students enrolled in the state's public, independent and private colleges. Not included with this report are students that were eligible for funds, but did not receive funds for lack of state support for these financial aid programs.

While MOSTARS is responsible for these state grant programs, by far one of the largest is the Federal Family Education Loan Program. By year's end, MOSTARS will have guaranteed $50 million more in student loans than last year. With Commissioner Stroup's and Senator Bass' leadership, MOSTARS has engaged in several collaborative and partnership efforts with MOHELA. The work we have been doing on consolidated loans is a result of this partnership. We will be watching how our loan volume compares to increases in tuition rates as opposed to the current interest rate of 2 percent on a student loan.

Information item 8 refers to the GEAR UP program, which has been very successful. The major portion of this grant has to do with scholarship to students that stay in the GEAR UP Program from middle school through high school. At the end of the program, they are eligible to receive a scholarship as a reward and incentive for completion of the program. It is called the Guarantee Program. A listing of schools participating in the Guarantee PLUS (GEAR UP) was provided.

Information item 9 was a report of the GEAR UP program activities completed this last year. The total annual report is submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. It contains the following:

Variety of activities delivered through the program;
Students, achievement levels and performance levels; and
A historical trend line on our high school students who participate in our system of higher education.

Missouri has 20 middle schools in this program. The number of students coming out of these GEAR UP high schools who are in remedial math, science and English is higher than most high schools.

The challenge facing CBHE is to work increasingly with parents and developing initiatives this year for improvement in this area.

Dr. Wittstruck returned to Item K and stated that one of the first difficulties in getting this program underway was that when we received the $278,900 state grant, the CBHE board did not have the state authorization to spend the grant money. We are now on track to spend this grant money for this program and undertake the services that are part of our proposal to the U.S. Department of Education.

Two other items that CBHE was very excited about is a grant from the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE) entitled Changing Directions: Integrating Higher Education Financial Aid and Financing Policy. Missouri was one of five states who received this based on the merit of the proposals that CBHE submitted. Other states participating in the program are Florida, Arizona, Oregon, and Connecticut. The Lumina grant proposal was in response to the report: Unequal Opportunity: Disparities in College Access Among the 50 States. This study was funded by the Lumina Foundation, which measured admissibility and affordability of the institutions. The CBHE staff will address student enrollment and participation patterns as the students move into the work force.

The WICHE proposal, will allow the CBHE staff and the representatives from the other states, to bring together the policy level conversations with the people who will be involved with the motion presented by Ms. Grove today. The CBHE needs to discuss where the state is going, the future role of higher education, future priorities, and what kind of financial strategy and policy framework do we need to finance it. They need to consider what is the role of student financial aid in relation to all of this. Hopefully those conversations will be guided by the research we have done in connection with the Lumina proposal. These funds will be used to support the planning work of the CBHE board in the next few years.

Commissioner Stroup reminded the board that they direct a $2 billion dollar enterprise of loan assistance to students.

Recertification of Eligibility for Institutional Participation in the State Student Financial Assistance Programs

Dr. Wittstruck referred the board to TAB L. In compliance with the regulations on institutional eligibility for participation in the state student financial assistance programs, approved institutions must be recertified every three years. This recertification process applies to all Missouri institutions that are approved to participate in the state programs listed below under Section 173.205(2)(3) RSMo.

Advantage Missouri Program
Bright Flight Scholarship Program
Charles Gallagher Student Financial Assistance Program
Marguerite Ross Barnett Memorial Scholarship Program
Missouri College Guarantee Program
Public Service Officer or Employee's Child Survivor Grant Program
Vietnam Veteran's Survivor Grant Program

Mrs. Wood moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approve the institutions that meet the recertification criteria to participate in the state student financial assistance programs administered by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education until June 2005. Ms. Grove seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Proposed CBHE Staff Salary Schedule to Reflect Uniform Classification Plan Pay Grid, FY 2003

Mr. Martin presented the proposed CBHE Staff Salary Schedule to Reflect Uniform Classification Plan Pay Grid, FY 2003 -TAB M. It is important to note that this will be the second consecutive year that staff have not receive pay increases. The CBHE staff is subject to the provisions of Section 36.031, RSMo, regarding the Uniform Classification and Pay (UPC) system. CBHE staff is not subject to the state Merit System, but many of them are presently classified with position titles, descriptions, and rates of compensation established prior to the UCP system. The UCP system pay grid is constructed using 45 ranges with each range divided into steps with increments between each step of approximately 2 percent. The following titles were changed during FY 2002:

Present Title	Former Title
Office Services Asst.	Clerk
Office Support Asst.	Clerk II
Office Support Asst.	Clerk II/Receptionist
Office Support Asst.	Information/Communication Specialist
Office Support Asst.	Receptionist

Attachment A is the Uniform Classification Pay grid, which reflects the current salary levels for state employees. Attachment B is the FY 2002 Executive Salary within Grades.

Mr. Fischer moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approves the above-referenced changes in position titles and recognizes the attached Uniform Classification Pay grid. Mrs. Kauffman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Outline of the 2001 Annual Report of the Coordinating Board for Higher Education to the Governor and General Assembly

Commissioner Stroup referred to TAB M and stated that every year, the Coordinating Board for Higher Education prepares an annual report of actions and activities of the Missouri higher education community during the previous year.

The 2000 Annual Report of Missouri Higher Education described the substantial progress CBHE has made in the areas of mission enhancement, student financial assistance, technical education, and technology-based delivery systems in recent years.

The 2001 annual report will serve as an addendum to the 2000 report and it will illustrate the effects of higher education budget reductions. Together the 2000 and 2001 annual reports will describe the results achieved in key areas and illustrate the impacts of the recent budget reductions.

Discussions of the cover for the annual report followed. There was general consensus among board members that the proposed cover of the annual report had a negative, confrontational tone and asked that it be redesigned.

Ms. Grove added that the CBHE staff should include information that compares Missouri at the national level concerning the cuts to provide a national perspective. If Missouri is number one in the percentage of cuts, this needs to be emphasized, as well as where we are with regard to our spending level now.

Chair Carmichael wants the problem addressed, in a serious, objective, and clear tone that is not confrontational. She wants to see the finished product before it is distributed and have an opportunity to vote on it.

Chair Carmichael noted that the board will not take action on this item until after the full report is submitted for review and the board has time to comment on the content information and other factors.

Report of the CBHE Nominating Committee and Election of Officers

Chair Carmichael thanked the staff for all of their hard work and stated that the board appreciates everything they do. She thanked the board for the opportunity to be Chair. Mrs. Wood stated the nominating committee presents the following selected officers to serve on the Missouri Board for Higher Education 2002 - 2003

Mrs. Sandra Kauffman, Chair
Mr. Adam Fischer, Vice-Chair
Mrs. Mary Joan Wood, Secretary

Mrs. Findley moved to accept the slate of officers by acclimation. Ms. Grove seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Other Items

Chair Carmichael made reference to receiving a letter from Representative Carl Bearden that was requested to be added to the minutes. The letter is included with the minutes as Attachment B.

Mr. Fischer moved that the board go into executive session for the following purpose:

RSMo 610.021 (3) relating to "hiring, firing, disciplining or promotion of particular employees by a public governmental body when personal information about the employee is disucssed or recorded." Ms. Grove seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with the following vote:

Dr. Bourisaw - yes
Mrs. Carmichael - yes
Mrs. Findley - yes
Mr. Fischer - yes
Ms. Grove - yes
Mrs. Kauffman - yes
Mrs. Wood - yes

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

______________________________
Marie Carmichael, Chair

______________________________
Jim Summers, Jr. Secretary