Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 10-01

October 11, 2001

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education met at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 11, 2001 at Linn State Technical College. Members present were:Marie Carmichael, Chair
Sandra Kauffman, Vice Chair
Jim Summers, Jr., Secretary
Diana Bourisaw
Adam Fischer
Dudley Grove
Mary Joan Wood

Absent were John Bass and Mary Findley.

Also attending were:

Kala M. Stroup, Commissioner
John Wittstruck, Deputy Commissioner
Joe Martin, Associate Commissioner for Fiscal and Legislative Affairs
Robert Stein, Associate Commissioner for Academic Affairs and Planning
Lynn Hearnes, Assistant Commissioner for MOSTARS
Joy Casada, Secretary to the Board
Rebecca Carron, Research Associate for Fiscal and Legislative Affairs
Judy Gehrke, Research Associate for Fiscal Analysis
Patti Knaebel, Administrative Assistant for Fiscal & Legislative Affairs
Jim Matchefts, General Counsel
Brenda Miner, Administrative Assistant for the Deputy Commissioner
Dan Peterson, Director of Student Financial Assistance for MOSTARS
Cheryl Schroeder, Public Information Officer
Dale Swoboda, Senior Associate for Fiscal Affairs
Stephanie Williams, Administrative Assistant to the Commissioner

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

Comments from the Chair

Mrs. Carmichael introduced two new board members: Diana Bourisaw of Imperial and Adam Fischer of Sedalia. Dr. Bourisaw replaced Dr. Ray Henry and Mr. Fischer replaced Mr. Lynn Ewing, Jr. Chair Carmichael presented Dr. Henry with a plaque and a proclamation honoring him for his service to higher education as a member of the CBHE. She also mentioned that Dr. Henry has dedicated his entire life to higher education and brought a wealth of institutional knowledge to the board. (Attachment B)

Minutes of the June 7, 2001 CBHE Meeting

Chair Carmichael stated that since there were no additions or corrections to the minutes of the June 7, 2001 CBHE meeting they stood approved as submitted.

Report of the Commissioner

Commissioner Stroup reported that early indicators predict a 4.1 percent increase in FTE enrollment and a 2 percent increase in headcount for fall 2001. Since there were withholdings to the institutional budgets this places an extra strain on the campuses. Dr. Stroup introduced the following new staff members:

Ms. Stephanie Williams, administrative assistant to the commissioner
Dr. Bill Kennedy, client services representative, MOSTARS
Dr. Debra Cheshire, director of strategic planning and policy development, MOSTARS
Dr. Nancy Devino, research associate for academic technology and director of Missouri Learners' Network

Commissioner Stroup announced that last year Time Magazine recognized Longview Community College as community college of the year. This year William Jewell College was recognized as the liberal arts college of the year for its strong freshman program. The commissioner noted that the House Interim Subcommittee of the Appropriations Education Committee completed their campus hearings Wednesday night at the University of Missouri-St. Louis. They have now met with all the colleges and universities. The subcommittee met with the CBHE staff who in May who explained how the budget request is presently made, how its makes its way through the process, and also to see the trend data over the years in funding levels. The subcommittee will issue a report. The staff will be working with them and the Senate Appropriations Committee as they go through their budget deliberations. A CBHE staff member has been in attendance at every one of the meetings.

Chair Carmichael announced that for the fifth year in a row, Truman State University has been recognized in U.S. News & World Report's "America's Best Colleges" 2002 guide as the #1 public university in the Midwest region. Truman also ranked #7 in the Midwest region among public and private institutions. Mrs. Carmichael congratulated Truman State, William Jewell College, and Longview Community College for their recognition.

Chair Carmichael stated that the board knows that this has been a difficult time for the presidents because of the budget shortfalls and that the board is proud of the job that the institutions have done on behalf of the state's students in making it all work.

Report of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee

Dr. Manuel Pacheco reported that the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee met earlier in the day and considered the following items:

• Higher Education FY 2003 Budget Recommendations
• Emergency Procedures and Plans on Campuses

The following discussion is from the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee meeting and relates to specific board items. The minutes of the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee are located behind the Advisory Committee Minutes tab of the board book.

Higher Education FY 2003 Budget Recommendations

Mr. Joe Martin thanked the institutions for the time and effort devoted to helping staff build the FY 2003 budget recommendations. The FY 2003 budget request totals $1,320,064,658, a 13.7 percent increase over the FY 2002 appropriation. Mr. Martin noted that the percentage of total general revenue and lottery funds appropriated to higher education between FY 2001 and FY 2002 has decreased. This decline is a concern and staff will be working to increase the share higher education receives during the coming fiscal year. The State Budget Office has not indicated whether or not there will be additional FY 2002 withholdings. However, it is difficult to predict at this time the fiscal consequences on state revenue that will result from the events of September 11.

Mr. Martin introduced Mr. George Rickerson, executive director of MOBIUS. The largest project to date for MOBIUS is the Common Library Platform which is approximately 80 percent complete. MOBIUS is funded by a combination of state appropriations and member fees. In the original funding plan, members and the state were to share equally in the cost of operating MOBIUS. The state appropriation for MOBIUS in FY 2002 was $649,000. The FY 2003 request for increased support of MOBIUS includes recurring costs of $1,648,745 and a one-time request of $250,000. The request will partially fund ongoing operations of the Common Library Platform and help initiate new projects to improve access to electronic resources. The one-time request of $250,000 will partially cover the shortfall experiences in FY 2002. Mr. Rickerson stated that MOBIUS needs the support of the institutions in encouraging the state to fulfill its commitment of partnership with MOBIUS and its members.

Emergency Procedures and Plans on Campus

Commissioner Stroup reported that Governor Holden named retired Colonel Tim Daniel, special advisor to the Governor on homeland security. Col. Daniel will head the Missouri Security Panel that has been charged with implementing enhanced communication, conducting an intensive statewide security audit, and proposing recommendations for improvements to public safety. Dr. Stroup noted that all institutions should have emergency plans in place. If any institution feels they need assistance in coordinating its plans or implementing new procedures they should call Col. Daniel at 573-751-1752.

Other Items

Ms. Lynn Hearnes discussed the recent guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education regarding the treatment of FFELP borrowers called to active military duty. The USDE's guidance applies to members of the National Guard and Ready Reserves who are called to active duty, as well as active members of the Armed Forces who may be reassigned for a period of more than 30 days. MOSTARS is working to implement the special treatment provisions immediately with respect to student loans held by MOSTARS. The Advantage Missouri Program does not have any students in repayment of their scholarships at this time.

Commissioner Stroup asked any institution without a tuition refund policy relating to military personnel called to active duty to notify the CBHE staff as soon as possible. All of the presidents or their representatives present indicated they already have tuition refund policies in place for students called to active duty.

Five-year Mission Review Summary

Dr. Wittstruck noted that this item is the culmination of ten years of work by the board and the Missouri institutions of higher education. It began with the report of the Missouri Business and Education Partnership Commission. The report called for more differentiated institutional missions in order to strengthen the state's system of higher education as well as a number of other recommendations that were carried forward into the work of the Taskforce on Critical Choices. Those recommendations were then incorporated into the Blueprint for Missouri Higher Education and other planning documents since 1991. Many of those recommendations are being continued into the Coordinated Plan for Higher Education. The initial mission implementation plans were approved by the board in 1995 and 1996. Staff has completed the second cycle of mission review for Central Missouri State University, Northwest Missouri State University, and Southeast Missouri State University. In addition, Missouri Southern State College and Missouri Western State College have also completed their second five-year mission review. None of these institutions has requested changes to their missions established in 1995 and 1996 by the board and the institutions. This board item described the staff's review and assessment of the work that has been completed by the institutions in fulfilling their mission implementation plans.

Central Missouri State University

The first five-year mission review and implementation plan for Central Missouri State University was approved by the Coordinating Board on October 10, 1996. The plan approved by the board was to assist the university in meeting the board's standards for moderately selective institutions and to achieve a statewide mission at the baccalaureate and master's degree levels as the state's professional applied science and technology university. Central has received a state investment of $7.5 million in mission enhancement funding.

The goals for Central's mission enhancement included:

• Strengthening "academic technology" infrastructure;
• Adding and enhancing degree programs in advanced applied science and technology;
• Strengthening the state's corps of vocational/technical education instructors; and
• Enhancing telecommunications network and public television station.

Ninety-five percent of the entering freshmen took the CBHE recommended 16-unit high school core curriculum; the goal is 100 percent. Seventy-two percent of freshmen met the moderately selective admissions standard; the goal is 90 percent. Central's six-year graduation rate is 55 percent. The most recent rate was 46 percent where it has generally remained since 1989. The institution did meet the board's freshman success rate goal for moderately selective institutions. The board's recommended admission and exit standards for new classroom teachers have not been achieved. Significant progress has been made in strengthening the campus academic technology infrastructure. Five new applied technology programs have been added to the curriculum. Central joined a multi-institution collaborative through Indiana State University to provide courses supporting a Ph.D. program in technology management. These new programs are consistent with the university's mission as the state's professional applied science and technology university. They add to the significant number of existing programs offered by the university that led to its mission designation as the state's professional applied sciences and technology university. To strengthen the state's corps of vocational/technical education instructors, the university established 12 training sites around the state and has provided advanced instruction and training for 4,251 vocational/technical education instructors. The new KMOS-TV tower is being constructed in Tipton. Construction of this tower, made possible by a portion of Central's mission enhancement funding, will enable Central to provide increased programmatic access for high school students and teachers through advanced digital television programming.

Central submitted strategic planning documents containing plans to more fully integrate the applied technology programs and activities with the work of the Small Business Development Center. The planning documents also address continuing and new initiatives and an ambitious enrollment management plan. The CBHE staff will be encouraging the institution to build on the professional applied science and technology mission by establishing two-plus-two articulation programs with the state's associate of applied science degree programs. Obtaining accreditation for each of its baccalaureate programs in the applied sciences and technology and advancing each of the programs to the master's level is an important goal the university should pursue.

Mrs. Carmichael commended Central on the fact that 95 percent of their entering freshmen took the CBHE recommended core curriculum. She stated that she is concerned about the low number of applied science and technology degrees conferred. In 1995 there were 493 degrees conferred at the bachelor's level in applied science and that number dropped to 351 in 2000. There was also a decline at the master's level in applied science and Mrs. Carmichael asked for an explanation of the reason for the drop. Dr. Wittstruck responded that the enrollment projections in the professional applied science and technology programs at the baccalaureate and master's level were based on an estimate of new transfer students from the community colleges with the associate of applied science degrees. The transfer rate has not met expectations. Dr. Wittstruck stated that he visited with Dr. Patton who indicated that the institution is working on what it might do to increase the transfer rate.

Mrs. Grove made a statement that generally applies to all of the institutions. She said that when an institution chooses to be at a level; moderately selective, selective, open, or highly selective then they are committing themselves to certain actions to achieve that level. She would like for the yearly plan to address any gaps between the goal of the CBHE and where the institution is. She wants to ensure that when an institution chooses to be a certain type of institution its admission standards are consistent with that type and that the institution has a public relations plan or a market plan or some type of plan to achieve the different targeted goals set by the board. If institutions feel as a group that those targeted goals are incorrect Mrs. Grove would like to rethink the goals rather than not meet them. She would like to see progress toward meeting the goals and to have over the next five years specific yearly targets set up to meet these goals. Dr. Wittstruck responded that these goals were reaffirmed by the CBHE Presidential Advisory Committee in 1996. He also stated that some of these concerns are addressed in the progress report that is presented to the board in April of each year. Mrs. Grove noted that although the measurement of incoming students is important, the outcome assessments of our graduates who enter Missouri's workforce should be emphasized more.

Dr. Bobby Patton addressed the board and stated that Central is sensitive to the points that have been raised. They are finding that some of these goals and targets actually are in conflict with each other. For example, the core curriculum has been one of the impediments to getting more technical oriented students into the university. Two impediments they have in terms of increasing their enrollment is the A+ Program and they are not getting the anticipated transfers from community colleges even with the articulation programs they have.

Mrs. Kauffman inquired if Central's new strategic plan contains anything that addresses the classroom teacher preparation issue as far as raising the bar for their graduates. Dr. Patton responded that the institution's strategic plan is always evolving but they have a lengthy document that tries to address those issues. They would be glad to share a draft of the plan with the board. Dr. Bourisaw added that the teacher education programs do need improvement but it is a very complex issue and there are differentiations that need to be examined. She said the complexity of the number of ethnic and economic breakdown of graduates; both at the state and national level has an impact on these goals as well.

Northwest Missouri State University

Dr. Wittstruck stated that on October 10, 1996, the Coordinating Board approved the first five-year mission review and mission implementation plan for Northwest Missouri State University. Northwest has received a state investment of $5.7 million in mission enhancement funding. Northwest is a master's-level, moderately selective admissions institution serving northwest Missouri with emphasis on the delivery of courses via the extended electronic campus. The goals for Northwest's mission enhancement included:

• Developing a Center for the Application of Information Technology;
• Developing modularized courses and making them available statewide;
Continuing to apply quality concepts using Baldrige criteria; andFacilitating the operation of the Northwest Missouri Educational Consortium.

Ninety-four percent of Northwest's freshmen took the CBHE-recommended high school core curriculum. The proportion of freshmen meeting the board's admissions standards for moderately selective institutions has held steady at around 80 percent the last few years; the board's goal is 90 percent. The six-year graduation rate goal for moderately selective institutions is 55 percent; Northwest's rate has increased slightly from 44 percent to 48 percent in the last year but has generally been steady over time. Northwest has met the board's goal for freshman success rates, 72 percent compared to the goal of 70 percent. Three hundred modularized and Internet-based courses and programs have been established and are being distributed through the Center for the Application of Information Technology. Thirty-six of these courses are offered asynchronously online and are listed on the Missouri Learners' Network. The university won the Missouri Quality Award using Baldrige criteria in 1997. Northwest has applied for and expects a site visit related to the coveted national Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award. In partnership with the member institutions of the Northwest Missouri Educational Consortium, 31 courses are offered and 77 class sections, nine degree programs and nearly 400 students are enrolled through the consortium.

Northwest needs to focus on meeting all of the board's goals associated with being a moderately selective admissions university. The university also needs to help strengthen the role of the Northwest Missouri Educational Consortium in providing geographic and programmatic access to higher education in northwest Missouri. The university needs to examine its financial aid policies with respect to the amount of financial aid it awards for tuition waivers and aid based on merit. The university can provide leadership for Missouri higher education regarding implementation strategies and best practices that promote quality, as well as achieve efficiency in higher education. Northwest has made it a practice to request funding for restoration and renovation projects rather than new capital projects and has employed cost containment strategies that include committing to the practice of using alternative fuels for energy. The university also established a tri-semester curriculum that has increased the number of students with opportunities to shorten the time to degree completion and allows campus facilities to be utilized year round. Northwest has adopted an enrollment management plan of approximately 5,300 full-time equivalent students on campus while increasing enrollments in Internet based and Northwest Missouri Educational Consortium-sponsored courses and programs. The university also proposes to increase enrollment from 120 in fall 2001 to 150 in fall 2002 in its very successful Missouri Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Computing for qualified high school juniors and seniors.

Southeast Missouri State University

The Coordinating Board approved Southeast Missouri State University's first mission review and mission implementation plan on October 10, 1996. Southeast has received a state investment of over $6 million in mission enhancement funding as a master's-level, moderately selective institution serving southeast Missouri through extended partnerships, with special emphasis on experiential learning. Goals for Southeast's mission enhancement included:

• Emphasizing experiential learning in the curriculum;
• Providing distance learning opportunities through SEE-NET and the Southeast Missouri Educational Consortium;
• Improving access for nontraditional and transfer students; and
• Establishing a center for excellence in advanced manufacturing.

At 98 percent, Southeast has effectively achieved the board's goal that 100 percent of entering freshmen take the board's recommended 16-unit high school core curriculum. The proportion of freshmen meeting the board's moderately selective admissions guidelines has declined from 79 percent in 1996 to 73 percent in 2000. Progress has been made toward meeting the 70 percent freshman success rate goal, increasing from 48 percent to 68 percent and the six-year graduation rate at 53 percent approaches the board's goal of 55 percent. With the exception of meeting the board's 90 percent goal for freshmen meeting the board's admissions standard for moderately selective institutions, Southeast is closer than other moderately selective institutions in meeting its agreed upon goals. The proportion of graduates who have participated in at least one experiential learning experience increased from 83 percent in 1996 to 89 percent in 2000. The proportion that had three or more experiential learning experiences increased from 44 percent to 52 percent over the same period.

Through the Southeast Missouri Educational Consortium member institutions and through SEE-NET, geographic and programmatic access to higher education has increased from seven communities to 22 southeast Missouri communities. As a result, the percent of Southeast graduates who were enrolled in articulated transfer programs with community colleges increased from 14 percent of all graduates in 1996 to 23 percent in 2000 and of all transfer students, the proportion of transfer graduates from articulated programs increased from 42 percent in 1996 to 76 percent in 2000. The university has established collaborative agreements to partner in offering an Ed.D. program in Educational Leadership and Master's in Social Work with the University of Missouri-Columbia and Master's in Engineering Management with the University of Missouri-Rolla.

A Center of Excellence in Advanced Manufacturing has been established through the university's Polytechnic Institute. New programs added with support from mission enhancement include bachelor's degree programs in manufacturing engineering technology, industrial technology, and industrial education. The Polytechnic Institute has helped many small manufacturing industries in southeast Missouri remain competitive and profitable. Another important outcome of having established the Center of Excellence in Advanced Manufacturing and Polytechnic Institute has been increased enrollments and degree completions in fields related to advanced manufacturing.

Some challenges for the university include developing quality goals and measures for its experiential learning program, working with area community colleges in increasing the educational attainment level of citizens in southeast Missouri, and providing leadership for the Southeast Missouri Educational Consortium. In fall 1999, while preparing for its second five-year mission review, Southeast conducted a number of regional forums, on-campus discussions, and surveys of students, faculty, and administrators regarding the future direction of its regional role and mission in southeast Missouri. Those discussions resulted in revisions to the university's 1996 strategic plan. The revised plan calls for the institution to continue its focus on being a moderately selective institution. It also includes an enrollment management plan based on an average freshman class of 1,600 with projected enrollment increases through retention and transfer students at the upper division level.

Chair Carmichael expressed her concern that the proportion of freshmen meeting the board's moderately selective admissions guidelines has declined from 79 percent in 1996 to 73 percent in 2000 and asked how this issue is being addressed. Dr. Wittstruck responded that this is constantly monitored and that some kind of annual benchmarks should be developed to see if the institutions are making progress in this area. Mr. Fischer inquired if an institution is not meeting its admissions goal if there is a possibility for them to decide if they want to change their category. Dr. Wittstruck noted that each president is asked at the time of their second five-year mission review if they want to continue with the admissions category the institution has chosen. All of the presidents indicated an intention to continue with the same category.

Missouri Southern State College

Missouri Southern State College is a baccalaureate-level institution with an international emphasis. Section 174.231, RSMo (HB 442) designates Missouri Southern as a moderately selective institution which shall provide associate and baccalaureate degree programs which meet the needs of the citizens, businesses, and industries of its service area as defined in Section 174.010, as well as counties contiguous to Jasper County. Missouri Southern has received a state investment of $2,390,090 in mission enhancement funding. Goals for Missouri Southern's mission enhancement included:

• Establishing an Institute for International Studies;
• Expanding foreign language programs
• Internationalizing the curriculum; and
• Enhancing learning of foreign languages.

Missouri Southern has not made significant progress in becoming a moderately selective institution although it continues to state its intention to become moderately selective and continues to advertise itself as being moderately selective. The data show the college was closer to achieving many of the board's goals for moderately selective institutions in the past than in more recent years. In 1996, 86 percent of the college's freshmen took the CBHE recommended 16-unit high school core curriculum; in 2000, 83 percent did so. The board's goal is 100 percent. In 1992, 69 percent of entering freshmen met the moderately selective admissions goal; in fall 2000, 64 percent met the standard against a board goal of 90 percent. First-year freshmen success rates declined from 62 percent in 1992 to 60 percent for those freshmen entering the college in fall 1999. The board's freshmen success rate goal for moderately selective institutions is 70 percent. The college's six-year graduation rate has remained at 31 percent for the entering 1991 freshmen and 32 percent for the 1994 freshmen class cohort. The board's goal is a six-year graduation rate of 55 percent.

The Institute for International Studies has been established and four new degree programs have been approved by the CBHE. Enrollments in language classes have increased each year. While there were only 3 degrees conferred in foreign languages in 2000, the number of foreign language majors is increasing (from 59 in 2000 to 88 in 2001). The college has incorporated international themes throughout the curriculum, offered free classes in Japanese, Russian, Chinese, and Spanish at local elementary schools and the city library, offered international cultural and artistic programs to the community of Joplin, and provided support to local businesses and industries competing in the global economy.

Part of Southern's first cycle of mission enhancement was devoted to strengthening two degree programs. An emphasis in Manufacturing Information Management Systems (MIMS) as an option to its existing baccalaureate degree program in management technology and the college's associate of science degree program in dental hygiene were strengthened with additional faculty.

Beyond working to achieve the board's goals for moderately selective institutions, Missouri Southern needs to move from using headcount in foreign travel as a measure of the success of its international mission to measures of the quality of those experiences. Other challenges include developing relevant measures of the extent internationalism has penetrated the academic curriculum and culture of the institution, beyond travel abroad opportunities and campus activities. Enrollment increases in foreign language courses and increases in the number of graduates with foreign language degrees are needed.

In Southern's "Mission Implementation Plan, 2001-2006," the college includes several goals to be achieved between FY 2001 and FY 2006 related to its mission as a moderately selective institution. These goals are:

• By FY 2006, 90 percent of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking, ACT-tested freshmen at Southern will meet the CBHE index of 100 for moderately selective institutions. Intermediate goals: 2002, 70 percent; 2003, 75 percent; 2004, 80 percent; 2005, 85 percent.
• By FY 2006, Southern will meet the CBHE goal of 70 percent for first-time, full-time, degree-seeking freshmen with 24 hours and a 2.0 grade point average. Intermediate goals: 2002, 62 percent; 2003, 64 percent; 2004, 66 percent; 2005, 68 percent.
• The six-year graduation rate at Southern is 32 percent as of spring 2000. By FY 2006, the six-year graduation rate for the freshman cohort will increase by 50 percent.

Other goals established by the college include increasing its tuition rates each year between FY 2002 and FY 2006 to make the institution's tuition rates comparable with other public colleges.

Mr. Summers expressed his concern that institutions might be advertising themselves to be something that they really aren't. Clearly, there is a high expectation by the CBHE, the staff, and Missouri's citizens that you are what you say you are. Dr. Wittstruck stated that through the commissioner, the staff, the board, and annual reviews the presidents and chancellors are increasingly aware of the fact that institutional integrity and consumer information are extremely important. One of the things that makes the Missouri system of higher education strong is the leadership of the institutions and their responsiveness to improvement because it is the right thing to do.

Dr. Leon pointed out that when you think in terms of the goals stated for different categories of selectivity there is only one institution in the state that has met that goal and that is Truman State University. He stated that the institutions in the moderately selective category have basically wavered around the same level, and it is very unlikely that any of the institutions will reach the goal of 90 percent for admissions within the next five or ten years. Most of those goals resulted from the Task Force on Critical Choices in 1991. Ten years later the landscape of higher education has changed so much that to keep applying goals that were created in 1992 may not be appropriate any longer. Another obstacle in moving toward those goals is the fact that we keep instituting policy after policy that sometimes act against each other. Missouri has put a lot of resources into technical and vocational education and in doing so through the Excellence in Education Act, a program was created at the community colleges where students can attend the two-year colleges (A+ Program) and they are doing so in large numbers. Many of the students who should be attending and who are capable of being accepted at moderately selective and selective institutions are attending, for economic reasons, and rightly so, community colleges. Dr. Leon stated that there is a need to have a full discussion concerning the applicability of these goals and the relationship to the conditions in which we live today.

Mr. Fischer noted that in 1996, 86 percent of Missouri Southern's freshmen took the CBHE's recommended 16-unit high school core curriculum and in 2000 that percentage dropped to 83 percent. In 1992, 69 percent of entering freshmen met the moderately selective admissions goal while in fall 2000 only 64 percent met the standard against a board goal of 90 percent. The institution seems to be going in the opposite direction on these goals and Mr. Fischer asked if it is possible for an institution to change its category. He asked President Leon to address the issue of why Missouri Southern is going in the wrong direction. Dr. Leon responded that Missouri Southern has already committed to make efforts to move towards the board's goals and that it has set specific targets that it intends to move toward. If Missouri Southern does not reach those goals they will consider changing its mission category. Dr. Leon noted that Missouri Southern had certain admission standards before the selectivity categories were approved by the Coordinating Board.

Missouri Western State College

Missouri Western is an open enrollment associate and baccalaureate degree granting institution emphasizing academic support programs to improve the potential for success of its students. Missouri Western has received a state investment of more than $2.9 million for mission enhancement, including $515,000 in mission enhancement funding as a result of the college's participation with N.S. Hillyard Area Vocational Technical School in the State Plan for Postsecondary Technical Education. Goals for Missouri Western's mission enhancement included:

• Increasing participating in Excellence in Teaching Initiatives;
• Improving support services for, and increase the academic success of at-risk students; and
• Partnering with N.S. Hilllyard Area Vocational Technical School in providing technical education and training in the St. Joseph area.

Although Missouri Western is an open enrollment institution, there are freshman success rate and graduation rate goals that need to be met by the college, as should the board's goal that all entering freshmen take the board's recommended 16-unit high school core curriculum. Missouri Western has increased the proportion of freshmen with the core curriculum from 28 percent in 1992 to 60 percent by fall 2000; but it needs to be higher. The college has increased its freshman success rate from 41 percent in 1992 to 52 percent in 1999 and is making progress toward meeting the board's goal of 55 percent. Retention of freshmen to the sophomore year has increased from 54 percent in 1996 to 64 percent for fall 1998 freshmen. The retention of students identified as being academically at-risk increased from 27 percent in 1996 to nearly 48 percent for fall 1998 freshmen.

In partnership with N.S. Hillyard Area Vocational Technical School, Missouri Western is approaching its goal of 45 full-time students enrolled in manufacturing engineering technology and has experienced a 16 percent increase in the number of students enrolling at the college from Hillyard since 1996.

Missouri Western engaged in a process of community and campus involvement in developing a strategic plan for its future as outlined in its "Second Cycle Mission Review," dated May 16, 2001. The college remains committed to its open enrollment mission and to better serving underprepared students through its nationally recognized ACCESS PLUS program. Now that Missouri Western has obtained Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) accreditation for its associate of applied science degree program in manufacturing engineering technology, it should consider advancing this program to the baccalaureate degree level.

Mrs. Kauffman commented that although she did not pursue the education issue with Southeast and Northwest as she did with Central, that she would hope and encourage each of the institutions to be very diligent in guaranteeing the quality of teachers that leave each institution. She commended Dr. Leon for having achieved significant gains in the teachers who graduate from Missouri Southern and their level of expertise on the exit exam.

Mrs. Grove requested that as part of next year's mission review that the University of Missouri's presentation be broken out by campus. By breaking the analysis by campus, the board would be able to better understand the expertise and the uniqueness and the strengths of the individual campuses and will also be able to make a better recommendation to the legislature on appropriate financial requests if there are any financial inequities. Dr. Bourisaw supported Mrs. Grove's statement.

Chair Carmichael congratulated the institutions for their successes and stated that they do not go unrecognized. She stated that in this age of accountability that when standards are set it is real important that attention is paid to those standards and if they are not accurate they should be changed. Commissioner Stroup commented that it also important to carry the message as a higher education community that as a result of a sizeable investment in mission enhancements the institutions are different and stronger today.

The Coordinated Plan for Missouri Higher Education

Dr. Wittstruck reported that at its June 7, 2001 meeting, the Coordinating Board approved "The Coordinated Plan at a Glance" containing its vision, mission, and values. The "Plan at a Glance" also described the board's goals for student success, institutional strength, and public engagement. Three key outcome statements were associated with each of the goals. To focus The Coordinated Plan on a few select issues and statewide initiatives, it has been organized into five building blocks. The areas being emphasized include a focus on system strength, on institutional strength, on public engagement, and on student success by increasing student participation and performance in the state's system of higher education.

Since the June meeting the staff has reviewed the plan and the building blocks with several groups representing Missouri higher education. Also Marie Carmichael and Sandra Kauffman along with Commissioner Stroup reviewed the plan with Governor Holden. Governor Holden expressed his interest in several elements of The Coordinated Plan. Of special interest is the plan's focus on improving the quality of classroom teachers and the K-16 initiative. Closing the performance achievement gap for low income and minority students is another area of special interest to the Governor. Increased student participation in the state's system of higher education, particularly among Missouri's low-income youth and the need to increase need-based student financial aid were also recognized by the Governor as important statewide initiatives. Another top priority of the Governor's is the emphasis in the plan on building capacity in the life sciences.

The FY 2003 budget recommendations being presented to the board included a number of funding requests that directly support the board's Coordinated Plan for Missouri Higher Education and the five areas of emphasis described to Governor Holden and others.

Higher Education FY 2003 Budget Overview

Mr. Martin reported that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education is charged by state statute to work with public colleges and universities to develop a unified budget proposal for advancing Missouri's system of higher education. The appropriations request is divided into individual budgets to make it more readily understandable. However, the budget request can more accurately be regarded as a comprehensive recommendation from the board to the Governor and General Assembly. This recommendation provides the direction and resources needed to promote access, quality, and efficiency throughout the state's system of higher education.

The budget request is guided by the board's strategic plan, "The Coordinated Plan for Missouri Higher Education." The plan identifies five initiatives as central to the board's mission, vision, and values for improving higher education. These are student success, student performance, public engagement, institutional strength, and system strength. The FY 2003 request includes funding recommendations associated with these initiatives to:

• Expand and refine technology-based programs and services to provide greater access to the state's system of higher education and student financial assistance through MOSTARS;
• Foster institutional mission accountability and quality;
• Build capacity in the life sciences;
• Ensure affordability of higher education for underrepresented and low-income groups;
• Expand outreach and early awareness; and
• Improve the quality of the teaching workforce and close the achievement gap for low-income and minority youth through he K-16 system.

For the most part, the recommendations include those board priorities from FY 2002 that were not funded. Other funding requests build upon recommendations made to the board in the past by its statewide study commissions, e.g., addressing the high cost of health science education recommended by the board Affordability Commission and included as part of the statewide initiatives for the University of Missouri. The recommended increase for the state's need-based student financial aid programs assigned to the board and administered by MOSTARS are also consistent with the recommendations of the Affordability Commission. Reinstating the core appropriation for the Advantage Missouri Program is consistent with the board's goals for the State Plan for Postsecondary Technical Education and support the state's initiatives to promote the life sciences, advanced manufacturing, and information technology. For the community colleges, much is also the same. The statewide priorities associated with the Targeted Service Initiatives, approved by the board for the FY 2002 budget, are the same as those included in the FY 2003 request. The capital request is essentially the same as approved by the board in the past.

While the format is different, the FY 2003 budget request is very similar to funding requests submitted by the board to the Governor and General Assembly in the past. The funding recommendations also reflect the board's prior public policy decisions and strategies related to achieving statewide goals for Missouri higher education.

Report on Public Two- and Four-year Institutions' Budget Withholding Plans

Mr. Martin noted that as a result of the FY 2002 budget shortfall, the Governor has withheld an additional five percent from each public two- and four-year institution's FY 2002 operating appropriation. This withholding of $179,919,000 currently withheld from the FY 2002 appropriations to higher education institutions is in addition to the withholding of $133.1 million in capital appropriations to the four-year institutions. Over 57 percent of the FY 2002 budget shortfall cam from higher education.

The analysis of the withholding plans of Missouri's colleges and universities reveals that the actions to reduce expenditures may seriously affect faculty retention, academic programs, accreditations, and mission enhancements. In many institutional proposals, eliminating staff positions through attrition and eliminating salary increases are the most cited actions. Other cited impacts of the five percent budget reduction are as follows:

• Reduction in staff travel and professional development
• Reduction of RTEC outreach programs for the two-year sector
• Delayed technology replacement
• Reduction of services available to students
• Reduction of instructional supplies
• Further postponement of maintenance and repair on aging facilities
• Deferred implementation of mission enhancement initiatives

As the type of action taken varies among institutions, so will the severity of the withholding impact, as it largely depends on the institution's proportion of state funds compared to other sources of revenue. The long-term effects of these withholdings will not be known for some time. Our colleges and universities assure us that they are doing all they can to minimize the impact on the students and faculty. Most institutions indicated that these plans are only sustainable for one year, and that large tuition increases may be necessary if this situation continues.

Mrs. Grove inquired if it would be helpful for the board to go on record that the institutions cannot continue to receive cuts for another year. Dr. Bourisaw suggested that the board ask the staff to draft a letter on its behalf to the Governor as well as the President Pro Tem of the Senate and the chairs of the House and Senate appropriations committees to express the board's concern about any future cut. Mrs. Carmichael agreed that writing the letter would be a good idea. She said the staff could draft a letter and have it on the December agenda.

Core Base Budget Adjustments

Dr. Wittstruck stated that on April 15, 1999, the board established a planning process and identified materials and analyses required of institutions participating in their respective five-year mission review. The materials and analyses for the second five-year mission reviews include the following seven items:

1. A needs assessment of institutional actions and initiatives necessary to meet their agreed-upon mission as part of their strategic planning process;
2. Assessment of the degree to which original goals and results were accomplished;
3. Assessment of the institution's agreed-upon mission statement;
4. Evaluation and assessment of the institution's strategic plan;
5. Evaluation of the institution's statistical profile;
6. Financial analysis of the institution's fiscal condition an adequacy of its funding level; and
7. Assessment of the condition of the institution's physical plant.

The financial analysis of the fiscal condition of the state's public colleges and universities is performed once all the mission review documents requested by the Coordinating Board have been submitted, reviewed by CBHE staff, and discussed with the institution's president. The financial analysis and methodology CBHE follow is guided by processes employed in many other states as well as recommended by national consultants who have advised the staff on various aspects of the financial analysis described in the agenda item. The purpose of the financial analysis is to ensure that the state's public institutions are funded by state appropriations and tuition and fee revenues at a level comparable to what other states provide similar or like institutions nationally. If it is determined that a Missouri institution is funded below a level comparable to like institutions nationally, the board has directed the staff to recommend a core adjustment in state support. If an institution's revenue from tuition and fees is low compared to like institutions, staff has discussed ways in which institutions might increase their tuition and fee revenue to comparable levels while maintaining affordable financial access to their institution. An operational definition for comparability used in the financial analysis was ten percent around the average level of funding for like institutions nationally.

The institutions that were involved in this financial analysis completed their second five-year mission review in calendar year 2001. Those institutions were Northwest Missouri State University, Central Missouri State University, and Southeast Missouri State University. The financial analysis for Missouri Southern and Missouri Western State Colleges should have been completed in calendar year 2000, along with Southwest Missouri State University. Several components of their respective second five-year mission reviews were not completed and/or submitted for CBHE staff to review prior to September 2000. Consequently, additional time in calendar year 2001 was needed to review and evaluate the status of both Missouri Southern and Missouri Western State College. The second five-year mission review for Southern and Western has now been completed. The financial analysis undertaken by the CBHE staff, as guided by practices in other states and recommended by the national consultants, involved several steps in assessing the extent these Missouri institutions are funded at levels comparable to like institutions nationally. The steps in the financial analysis included the following:

Step 1: Identifying like institutions nationally
Step 2: Collecting relevant information
Step 3: Examination of relevant data for both Missouri and like institutions
Step 4: Inflating the computed FY 1999 state appropriations per FTE student to FY 2001 estimates
Step 5: Comparing the estimated FY 2001 state appropriations per FTE student for Missouri institutions with the FY 2001 estimate of state appropriations per FTE student for like institutions
Step 6: Calculating a five-year weighted average (FY 1996 to FY 2000) of the total FTE enrollment for Missouri's institutions falling more than 10 percent below the funding level for like institutions nationally
Step 7: Performance adjustment

The financial analysis performed on those institutions involved in their second five-year mission review led to the following conclusions. Of the five institutions involved in their second five-year mission review, Missouri Southern and Missouri Western State Colleges are the only institutions that fall below a level of comparable funding as operationally defined for the purpose of the Coordinating Board's mission review financial analysis. In keeping with the principle that institutions not be compensated for less than average performance through the base core funding adjustment process at the end of a five-year mission review, Missouri Southern State College's adjustment was reduced from $2,665,199 to $2,336,377 since its success in obtaining additional state funding based on its performance was only 88 percent of the average of other Missouri public colleges and universities between FY 1997 and FY 2001. Missouri Western State College, having performed at or above the state average in obtaining additional state funding based on performance would qualify for the full adjustment of $1,526,364. Since Northwest Missouri State University's funding is at the low end of the comparable funding level at like institutions nationally, CBHE staff will continue to review the University's financial condition which could in the future qualify Northwest for a core base budget adjustment recommendation.

The methodology for comparing Missouri's colleges and universities to like institutions nationally is guided by the Coordinating Board's policy for student and institutional performance as well as institution and mission integrity. For more than 30 years, scholars of American higher education, campus institutional researchers, presidents and chancellors, and staff of statewide coordinating and governing boards have worked on how best to compare one institution to a group of life institutions nationally. Institutional comparisons have never been, are not now, and probably will never be an exact science. The staff used the Carnegie Classification of American college and universities and a range of 10 percent around a national like institution average as being within a range of comparable funding. Institutional performance based on the CBHE's recommended Funding for Results funding elements is considered in this analysis.

The Coordinating Board's base core adjustment process is part of the financial analysis that is done at the conclusion of an institution's five-year mission review. However, it is only one initiative by the board to ensure that the state's public colleges and universities are adequately funded. Other initiatives include using a floor of 60 percent for the proportion of an institution's overall education and general expenditures that should be supported through state general revenue appropriations. As a floor, 60 percent is just the beginning of a statewide discussion that must be held regarding an appropriate and relevant proportion of the cost that should be borne by the state and by the student/family and is consistent with an institution's mission. On like terms, institutions are expected to excel in meeting institution and student performance goals and succeed in securing state appropriations annually through the board's mission and student success goals based on the institution's agreed upon mission.

Dr. Leon addressed the board. He stated that after they were informed of the way the core base budget adjustments were going to work Southern analyzed data and wrote the commissioner requesting consideration of several items. Dr. Leon commented that he did not receive a response to his letter and found out through the board book what the final recommendation was. President Leon mentioned that there were comments about the difficulty of being responsive to institutions that presumably have unbridled enrollment growth. Enrollment growth at Missouri Southern is not unbridled as the institution is just trying to be responsive to the needs of southwest Missouri which is the fastest growing area in the state. Twenty years ago Missouri Southern had the lowest funding per FTE and today it still has the lowest funding per FTE.

Dr. Leon noted that last year after an financial analysis was done for Missouri Western, Missouri Southern, and Southwest Missouri State University a recommendation for a core base budget adjustment was made only for Southwest because the analysis of data concerning a national sample of institutions did not warrant increases for Southern and Western. Missouri Southern did not feel that was right. The process this year has included comparisons of Southern and Western to a set of institutions that they feel is comparable to their institutions. Analysis of that data showed that the national average of funding for FTE was significantly higher than for Missouri Southern State College. If using this process the adjustment so that Missouri Southern could receive funding equal to the average for this set of national institutions would be a total adjustment to the base of $5.4 million for Missouri Southern. Dr. Leon said that in his letter to the commissioner he requested that it was logical and fair that a way should be found to bring Southern up to the national average of these like institutions.

Mrs. Carmichael responded that the board wants to make sure that it treats all the institutions the same and that it just is not possible for the board to recommend funding that would bring Missouri Southern up to the $5.4 million. That would call for the necessity to rethink Southwest Missouri State University and Missouri Western State College.

Dr. Leon noted that the students at Missouri Southern should be treated the same as students at other institutions and they are not being treated the same even with the adjustment that is being recommended. The adjustment will be a tremendous help but it still is not fair.

Dr. James Scanlon, President of Missouri Western State College addressed the board. Dr. Scanlon reiterated that in dealing with the base adjustment for Missouri Western the board is dealing with a historical inequity that may go back two decades. However, he is thankful for the adjustment which will move Western closer to what would be equitable funding. He asked the commissioner and the board to consider this adjustment not as the last word during this five-year period but as a step to bringing the campus closer to what they would consider an equitable situation. Dr. Scanlon made a comment in regard to Chair Camichael's statement of the board's desire to treat students equally across all the institutions. He suggested that even with the core adjustment for Western, Southern, and Southwest there is still not a situation which treats students equally. The per FTE funding for undergraduates at Western, Southern, Southwest, and Northwest will remain demonstrably below the peer assessment average per FTE undergraduate student. Dr. Scanlon said if this adjustment is a first step, it is a good one, but if it is the final step, it is not good enough.

Mrs. Carmichael stated that she appreciated Dr. Scanlon's comments and that the board realizes this adjustment is not enough but it is an attempt to bring the lowest up to a rung that would be acceptable at this point.

Mrs. Kauffman moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education accept and endorse the steps outlines in this agenda item as being relevant and appropriate for the financial analysis required as part of each public Missouri institution's five-year mission review. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed.

Recommendations for Public Four-year Institutions' Operating Appropriations

Mr. Martin stated that the recommendations for public four-year institutions' operating appropriations reflect institutional and CBHE staff efforts to identify priorities for state funding of higher education based on the strategic issues identified in The Coordinated Plan for Missouri Higher Education. The recommendations are designed to promote the goals of the plan through budget initiatives which foster efficiency and support state goals and needs, and funding to acknowledge institutional results. The FY 2003 budget request is based on a funding formula developed in cooperation with the presidents and chancellors of Missouri's public institutions. Another major revision in the budget request is the evolution of Funding for Results. In this request, Funding for Results is tied to CBHE goals for performance elements. The request for each decision item is divided between the core (on-going) amount appropriated in FY 2002 and, where appropriate, the increase sought for FY 2003. The total request for public four-year institutions' operating appropriations for FY 2003 is $951,379,045.

Mr. Fischer moved that the FY 2003 general revenue and other fund recommendations for the public four-year institutions, including University of Missouri Related Programs, be approved as presented for submission to the Governor and General Assembly. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Dr. Bourisaw commented that she would like for the board to consider further discussion at a later date on the performance measures related to mission and student success.

Recommendations for Public Four-year Institutions' and Linn State Technical College's Capital Improvements

Mr. Martin explained that both the Governor and the General Assembly have endorsed a biennial approach to capital improvement appropriations during the second session of the General Assembly. The Governor has withheld all FY 2001 capital improvement projects for the four-year institutions, with the exception of $1,000,000 for the University of Missouri-Columbia's Life Sciences Center. No funding was appropriated in FY 2002 for higher education capital improvement projects. In general, staff recommendations are intended to ensure completion of renovation/addition projects where funds have been previously recommended by the CBHE and supported by the General Assembly and the Governor. Many of the projects in the FY 2003 request were previously recommended by the board in FY 2002. The staff recommendation for the FY 2003 capital projects total $158,449,893. This total reflects an adjustment to account for the 20 percent local match required by the State Budget Office on projects, or the portion of projects, that create new square footage. The recommendations take into consideration the capital improvement needs indicated in The Coordinated Plan for Missouri Higher Education, the Blueprint for Missouri Higher Education and those projects related to the academic mission of the particular institution and the state plans for technology and comprehensive technical education. The recommendations also emphasize remodeling and renovation of existing structures used for academic purposes in order for classrooms to incorporate appropriate technology. Institutions were given an opportunity to submit any changes that they wished to make so there are some differences in the 2003 list compared to the 2002 list. The changes included an opportunity to update the amount of money requested to accurately reflect their needs for the same project, and institutions were allowed to substitute projects if they had a new priority. Commissioner Stroup pointed out that if funds become available the FY 2001 capital list will be funded first.

Mrs. Wood moved that the recommendations for public four-year institutions and Linn State Technical College's capital improvements for FY 2003 be approved, as presented, for submission to the Governor and the General Assembly. Dr. Bourisaw seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed. (Attachment C)

Recommendations for Linn State Technical College's Operating Appropriations

Mr. Martin indicated that FY 2003 will mark the seventh year of operation of Linn State Technical College as a state institution and its second year as a North Central Association (NCA) accredited institution. The strong support of the board, the Governor, and the General Assembly have been integral to Linn State Technical College's transformation from an area vocational school. This support is crucial as the college continues to mature into its role as Missouri's designated provider of advanced postsecondary technological associate of applied science degree programs and related services. The request for each decision item is divided between the core (on-going) amount appropriated in FY 2002 and, where appropriate, the increase sought for FY 2003. The total request for Linn State Technical College's operating appropriations for FY 2003 is $6,786,981. Commissioner Stroup noted that even though the past five years have been spent building and developing Linn State's programs and campus, additional funds to continue development will need to go into this institution for a while.

Mrs. Kauffman moved that the FY 2003 general revenue and other fund recommendations for Linn State Technical College be approved as presented for submission to the Governor and the General Assembly. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, and it unanimously passed.

Recommendations for Public Community Colleges' Operating Appropriations

Dr. Walter Nolte, representing the Presidents and Chancellors Council of the Missouri Community College Association, addressed the board. Dr. Nolte stated that they appreciated the staff's collaborative approach to the preparation of the FY 2003 budget. They are also especially appreciative of the new recommendations and the approach on the core budget, the adjustments to St. Charles and Three Rivers, the targeted services initiatives, and the opportunity to review the FFR funding model to more meaningfully reflect the community colleges' mission and purpose. They are in substantial agreement with the recommendations as described in the board book with one exception. That exception is that the community colleges would prefer a proposed allocation of the maintenance and repair money that more closely approaches the 10 percent maximum that is authorized by statute. This is money that goes to the core and remains in the core year after year.

Mr. Martin commented that the recommendations for community colleges' operating appropriations reflect institutional and CBHE staff efforts to identify priorities for state funding of higher education based on the three strategic issues of student success, institutional strength, and public engagement identified in The Coordinated Plan for Missouri Higher Education. In preparing recommendations for public community colleges' operating budgets, a staff review with institutional representatives has occurred to ensure that both core budgets as well as enhancements contribute directly to the mission of community colleges. The FY 2003 budget request is based on a new funding formula developed in cooperation with the presidents and chancellors of Missouri's community colleges. Whereas, in previous years inflationary increase requests were based on applying an inflation rate to total planned education and general expenditures, the new approach emphasizes building institutional strength, funding for performance, and statewide priorities. In the FY 2003 request, funding for institutional performance is tied to CBHE planning priorities for performance elements. The request for each decision item is divided between the core (on-going) amount appropriated in FY 2002 and, where appropriate, the increase sought for FY 2003. The total amount requested for community colleges' operating appropriations for FY 2003 is $174,585,960.

Mrs. Grove moved that the staff recommendations for FY 2003 community colleges' appropriations be approved, as presented, for submission to the Governor and the General Assembly. Mr. Summers seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Recommendations for Public Community Colleges' Capital Improvements

Mr. Martin reported that all FY 2001 community college capital projects appropriated with lottery funds have now been released. However, those projects appropriated with general revenue have been withheld by the Governor. No funding was appropriated in FY 2002 for higher education capital improvement projects. Section 163.191, RSMo, authorizes an appropriation to community colleges for the cost of maintenance and repair of facilities and grounds and purchases of equipment and furniture, in an amount not to exceed 10 percent of state appropriations to community colleges for operating purposes during the most recently completed fiscal year. The FY 2001 community college operating budget request set aside approximately 5 percent of the operating appropriation for projects involving maintenance, repair, and equipment. That portion of state aid was allocated among the 12 community college districts. In FY 2001, the CBHE recommended the appropriation of an additional 5 percent of state aid for distribution by the CBHE to high priority renovation, maintenance, and construction projects based on criteria contained in the June 1999 board book. A 50 percent local match is required for the distribution of these funds.

In general, staff recommendations prioritize renovation, ADA compliance, remodeling, and conversions of space within the factors specific to priority rankings for community colleges, recognizing those projects that are most closely aligned with the board's emphasis on technical education and math and sciences. As in the maintenance and repair component of the operating budget, state funding for each capital improvement must be matched by local funds accounting for at least one-half of a project's total cost. The recommendations also emphasize remodeling and renovation of existing structures used for academic purposes in order to support technical programs and for classrooms to incorporate appropriate technology. The list of recommended projects for FY 2003 have a cumulative total cost of $14,452,000. The state's share of these projects is $7,286,000. Mr. Martin noted that there were some changes in projects for FY 2003. Those changes are indicated on the list by an asterisk.

Dr. Bourisaw moved that the community college capital improvement recommendations for FY 2003 be approved, as presented, for submission to the Governor and the General Assembly. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed. (Attachment D)

MOBIUS, Missouri Learners' Network, Eisenhower Program, Proprietary School Program, and Other Coordination Budget Items

Mr. Martin reported that the request for each decision item is divided between the core (on-going) amount appropriated in FY 2002 and, where appropriate, the increase sought for FY 2003. The total request for Coordination-Administration is $1,704,095. The Division of Budget and Planning issued budget instructions that require within-grade, marketplace, and step elimination pay adjustments be calculated and requested on a position-by-position basis. Requests for salary adjustments for Coordination, Eisenhower, and Proprietary are computed using identical methodology. The requested core funding is for funds to restore a FY 2002 core cut of $28,267 and 2.35 FTE. The core cuts have curtailed the department's ability to carry out its mandated responsibilities to ensure a quality higher education system in the state. The purpose of this request is to fully restore the department's core and FTE to FY 2001 levels. The requested funding for the K-16 Initiative is $300,000. Forty thousand is being requested for Professional Development of Governing Boards. This appropriation will enable the department to develop professional development training for university and college trustees of Missouri institutions. The requested appropriation of new grants is an estimated appropriation of $1 in the event a new federal or other grant becomes available to the department.

A total of $3,294,653 is requested for Coordination - Program Distribution. This amount includes funding for the Missouri Learners' Network, MOBIUS, Midwest Higher Education Commissioner, Contracting for Academic Programs, and the State Anatomical Board. The amount requested for the Eisenhower Math and Science Professional Development Distribution is $1,777,521. The amount requested for the Proprietary School Regulation is $331,550.

Mrs. Grove moved that the CBHE FY 2003 internal budget request be approved as presented for submission to the Governor and the General Assembly. Dr. Bourisaw seconded the motion and it was unanimously passed.

MOSTARS, Student Grants, Scholarships, and Loan Programs

Mr. Martin stated that this item contains the remainder of the internal budget request, which is the MOSTARS budget consisting of grants and scholarships, loan guaranty functions and the GEAR Up Program. The request for Grants and Scholarships Administration is $504,391. The increase consists of two separate elements. The first element is $10,477 for salary adjustments. The second element is a request for funds to restore a FY 2002 core cut of 1.6 FTE and $76,707 in Grants and Scholarships administration. The positions were instrumental in providing services to Missourians who are recipients of financial assistance.

A total of $55,325,920 is requested for Grants and Scholarships - Program Distribution. These programs consists of the Academic Scholarship Program (Bright Flight), Charles Gallagher Student Financial Assistance Program, Missouri College Guarantee Grant Program, Advantage Missouri Program, Marguerite Ross Barnett Memorial Scholarship Program, Public Service Officer's Survivor Grant Program, and the Vietnam Veteran Survivor Grant Program.

The request for the Missouri Student Loan Program (MSLP) - Administration is $14,686,328. This request includes funding for administration, salary adjustments, MOSTARS enhanced capacity, imaging equipment replacement, and E-Government. The total requested for - Administrative Functions is $108,171,670. These administrative functions include the student loan revolving fund, collection agency invoicing, Federal 48-hour rule reimbursement, tax refund offsets, and transfer of funds in the PL 105-33 recall account to the federal government. The total requested for GEAR UP Early Awareness and Outreach is $1,516,544. The statewide initiatives request is being eliminated as it was used as a placeholder in the past.

Two supplemental appropriations are requested for FY 2002. First, $100,000 is requested for the Charles Gallagher Student Financial Assistance program. The increase of $100,000 in federal spending authority for the Gallagher program is needed to distribute funds from the U.S. Department of Education. The other supplemental requests is $157,000 for GEAR UP. This request is needed to purchase three vehicles for the three GEAR UP regional coordinators and to purchase a proprietary mathematics curriculum. This is also an increase in spending authority in federal dollars.

Mrs. Wood moved that the CBHE FY 2003 MOSTARS budget request be approved as presented for submission to the Governor and the General Assembly.

Request for Subdistricting Committee for the Junior College District of East Central Missouri

Dr. Wittstruck reported that Section 178,820, RSMo provides that after the publication of the decennial census figures, the boards of trustees of junior (community) college districts shall adopt a resolution calling for the creation of a subdistricting committee. A subdistricting committee is to be comprised of six residents of the community college district, three appointed by the local board of trustees, and three by the Coordinating Board for Higher Education. Pursuant to the guidelines and procedures set forth in Section 178.820, RSMo, and through certified resolution the Board of Trustees of the Junior College District of East Central Missouri has already appointed three members of a six member subdistricting committee. The Board of Trustees also submitted the names and resumes of six residents of the district from the Coordinating Board may select its three appointments to the subdistricting committee. Of these six candidates, two are women and four are men. Coordinating Board staff has reviewed the resumes of the six residents. Based upon the candidates' experience and qualifications, as well as to assure district-wide diversity and geographic representation the staff has identified three candidates for the board's consideration who best seem to meet the needs of the subdistricting committee.

Once these six members are approved, the subdistricting committee is to adopt a plan dividing the Junior College District of East Central Missouri into no fewer than two and no more than six subdistricts for the election of trustees in which the population is to be apportioned so as to be substantially equal for each trustee elected. No modification of the community college's district boundaries is involved. President Karen Herzog has indicated that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education can expect to receive and consider a subdistricting plan based on the 2000 census from the subdistricting committee of the Junior College District of East Central Missouri at the December 2001 board meeting.

Mr. Summers moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education accept the resolution of the Board of Trustees of the Junior College District of East Central Missouri calling for the formation of a decennial subdistricting committee.

He further recommended that from the six (6) names provided, the CBHE appoint the following three residents of the Junior College District of East Central Missouri to the subdistricting committee to develop a plan for dividing the junior college district into no fewer than two (2) and no more than six (6) subdistricts as set forth in Section 178.820, RSMo:

Ms. Sadie Generally, Union
Ms. Letha Hickinbotham, St. Clair
Mr. Gary P. Kuhn, New Haven

Mr. Summers also moved that the board charge the subdistricting committee to proceed with the adoption of a subdistricting plan to be submitted to the Coordinating Board for Higher Education for its approval or disapproval in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 178.820, RSMo. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Subdistricting Plan for the Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City, Missouri

Dr. Wittstruck reported that on September 12, 2001 Mr. Donald Gregory, secretary to the subdistricting committee for the Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City, Missouri, presented a redistricting plan for staff review. The subdistricting plan establishes six subdistricts from a 2000 census district population of 829,919. Subdistrict One, with a population of 134,731, is to be represented by one trustee. Subdistrict Two, with a population of 141,238 is to be represented by one trustee. Subdistrict Three with a population of 140,420 is to be represented by one trustee. Subdistrict Four, with a population of 140,324 is to be represented by one trustee. Subdistrict Five, with a population of 135,410 is to be represented by one trustee. Subdistrict Six, with a population of 137,796 is to be represented by one trustee. The CBHE staff is of the opinion that the subdistricting plan meets the subdistricting committee's intent to make each subdistrict "substantially equal" according to provisions set forth in Section 178,820, RSMo.

Dr. Bourisaw moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approve the subdistricting plan for the Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 178.820, RSMo. She further moved that the board direct its staff to notify the Board of Trustees of the Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City of its approval of the subdistricting plan, and to convey its appreciation to the chairman, and members of the subdistricting committee for their service. Mrs. Kauffman seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Subdistricting Plan for the Junior College District of Mineral Area College

Dr. Wittstruck stated that on September 14, the subdistricting plan for the Junior College District of Mineral Area College was submitted to the CBHE staff for review. The subdistricting plan establishes five subdistricts from a district population of 71,228. Subdistrict One, with a population of 13,717, is to be represented by one trustee. Subdistrict Two, with a population of 14,250, is to be represented by one trustee. Subdistrict Three, with a population of 13,901, is to be represented by one trustee. Subdistrict Four, with a population of 14,954, is to be represented by one trustee. Except for one trustee who shall be elected at large from the entire taxing district, all of the above five trustees are to reside in the subdistrict they represent and shall be elected by votes of electors of the subdistricts in which they reside. The CBHE staff is of the opinion that the subdistricting plan meets the subdistricting committee's intent to make each subdistrict "substantially equal" according to provisions set forth in Section 178.820, RSMo.

Mrs. Kauffman questioned the deviations from the mean of the five subdistricts. Dr. Wittstruck noted that these boundaries are drawn on voting precincts, wards, and school districts. Mr. Al Sullivan, Jr., chair of the Mineral Area College Subdistricting Committee stated that they tried to make their districts as compact as possible and not divide other political subdivisions for the clarification of county clerks.

Dr. Bourisaw moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approved the subdistricting plan for the Junior College District of Mineral Area College in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 178.820, RSMo. She further moved that the board direct its staff to notify the Board of Trustees of the Junior College District of Mineral Area College of its approval of the subdistricting plan, and to convey its appreciation to the chairman and members of the subdistricting committee for their service. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Subdistricting Plan for the Junior College District of Newton-McDonald Counties

Dr. Wittstruck commented that on August 21, 2001 the subdistricting plan for the Junior College District of Newton-McDonald Counties was submitted to CBHE staff for review. The subdistricting plan establishes two subdistricts from a district population of 65,054. Subdistrict One, with a population of 22,067, is to be represented by two trustees, and has an average population of 11,034. Subdistrict Two with a population of 42,987, is to be represented by four trustees, and has an average population of 10,747. All trustees are to reside in the subdistrict they represent and shall be elected by votes of electors of the subdistrict in which they reside. The staff is of the opinion that the subdistricting plan meets the subdistrict committee's intent to make each subdistrict "substantially equal" according to provisions set forth in Section 178.820, RSMo.

Mrs. Wood moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approve the subdistricting plan for the Junior College District of Newton-McDonald Counties in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 178.820, RSMo. She further moved that the board direct its staff to notify the Board of Trustees of the Junior College District of Newton-McDonald Counties of its approval of the subdistricting plan, and to convey its appreciation to the chairman and members of the subdistricting committee for their service. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Subdistricting Plan for the Junior College District of St. Louis, St. Louis County

Dr. Wittstruck reported that on September 21 the subdistricting plan for the Junior College District of St. Louis, St. Louis County was submitted to the CBHE staff for review. The subdistricting plan establishes four subdistricts from a population of 1,399,436. Subdistrict One, with a population of 473,740, is to be represented by two trustees. Subdistrict Two, with a population of 229,312,and Subdistrict Three, with a population of 225,423 are each to be represented by one trustee. Subdistrict Four, with a population of 470,961 is to be represented by two trustees. All trustees are to reside in the subdistrict they represent and shall be elected by votes of electors of the subdistricts in which they reside. The CBHE staff is of the opinion that the subdistricting plan meets the subdistricting committee's intent to make each subdistrict "substantially equal" according to provisions set forth in Section 178.820, RSMo.

Mrs. Wood moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approved the subdistricting plan for the Junior College District of St. Louis, St. Louis County in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 178.820, RSMo. She further moved that the board direct its staff to notify the Board of Trustees of the Junior College District of St. Louis, St. Louis County of its approval of the subdistricting plan, and to convey its appreciation to the chairman and members of the subdistricting committee for their service. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Subdistricting Plan for the Three Rivers Junior College District

Dr. Wittstruck reported that on August 23 the subdistricting plan for the Three Rivers Junior College District was submitted to CBHE staff for their review. The subdistricting plan established four subdistricts from a district population of 72,681. Subdistrict One, with a population of 36,401, is to be represented by three trustees. Subdistrict Two (population 12,070), Subdistrict Three (population 11,854), and Subdistrict Four (population 12,345) are each to be represented by one trustee. All six trustees are to reside in the subdistrict they represent and shall be elected by votes of electors of the subdistricts in which they reside. The CBHE staff is of the opinion that the subdistricting plan meets the subdistricting committee's intent to make each subdistrict "substantially equal" according to provisions set forth in Section 178.820, RSMo.

Mrs. Grove moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education approve the subdistricting plan for the Three Rivers Junior College District in accordance with the provisions set forth in Section 178.820, RSMo. She further moved that the board direct its staff of notify the Board of Trustees of Three Rivers Junior College District of its approval of the subdistricting plan, and to convey its appreciation to the chairman and members of the subdistricting committee for their service. Dr. Bourisaw seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed.

Information Items

The board received the following information items:

Academic Program Actions
Proprietary School Certification Actions and Reviews
2001 Governor's Conference on Higher Education
Update on the CBHE Committee on Transfer and Articulation
Update on the Missouri K-16 Coalition
First State Aid and Technical Education Payments, and Capital
Reimbursements to Community Colleges, FY 2002
MOSTARS Default Prevention Grant Awards

Commission Stroup noted that the theme of this year Governor's Conference on Higher Education is "Missouri's Life Sciences Alliance." Preparations are underway for a tour of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research for the presidents and chancellor and the CBHE. The Missourians for Higher Education meeting will also be held at the Stowers Institute.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.

____________________________
Marie Carmichael, Chair

___________________________
Jim Summers, Jr., Secretary