Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 10-02

October 10, 2002

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education met at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, October 10, 2002, at the Truman State Office Building in Jefferson City. Members present were:

Sandra Kauffman, Chair
Mary Joan Wood, Secretary
Diana Bourisaw
Marie Carmichael
Dudley Grove
Jim Summers, Jr.

Members absent from the meeting were:

John Bass
Mary Findley
Robert Langdon

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

Opening Comments

Chair Kauffman thanked Mrs. Marie Carmichael for her service to higher education in the state of Missouri and, specifically, to the Coordinating Board. As chair of the CBHE, Mrs. Carmichael's leadership has guided the board under difficult circumstances. A token of appreciation was presented to Mrs. Carmichael.

Minutes of June 6, 2002, CBHE Meeting

Mrs. Grove moved that the minutes of the June 6, 2002, board meeting be approved as written.

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

Report of the Acting Commissioner

Acting Commissioner Wilson stated that he has had numerous discussions with board members about the challenges facing higher education. He has been traveling to visit with presidents and chancellors, and leaders around the state. His research has resulted in the following conclusions:

• Higher education is an incredible, dynamic contributor to economic growth in the state of Missouri by:
• The current resources that are devoted to this purpose;
• The future of Missouri's citizenry who are benefiting from higher education; and
• The direct connection with employers and industry in all areas of the state.

In tough economic times, the higher education community must work diligently to make sure that the benefits of post-secondary education are publicized. This requires information about the economic impact of higher education, a vision for the future, and a method to stimulate growth of the economy. This is an investment challenge for higher education.

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:

• The announcement of new officers for the Presidential Advisory Committee: Chair-Henry Shannon, Vice Chair-Keith Lovin, and Secretary-Dean Hubbard;
• Consideration of the budget recommendations for FY 2004, which comply with the Governor's request to be limited to the fiscal year 2003 core appropriation amount with no decision items, and will include the following additional requests:
  • One modification was made to streamline the core budget for reporting purposes for the community colleges;
  • The board will examine all financial aid packages in the state to determine if they are in line with the goals of Missouri and Missouri higher education;
  • An appeal was made for more equitable treatment for higher education in future deliberations about funding; and
  • The recommendations would reflect that the board would continue to be an advocate for higher education.
• Consideration of academic program proposals and establishment of a fast-track process to review, process, and approve the proposals at the CBHE, with focus on the following:
  • Consideration be given to certain fields that are needed in the state of Missouri;
  • Efficiency as a core value, in considering new programs and program collaborations;
  • Establishment of a moratorium on the review of academic actions, whereby the moratorium would be of short duration in light of many items in process at the institutions. There was strong concern that from a policy perspective, it was not a good idea to set a moratorium; and
  • Appointment of a task force to evaluate the effectiveness of Missouri's associate degree policy framework for associate degree delivery. As sectors, the two-year and four-year institutions should meet to discuss this issue, for the purpose of understanding the issues better and to arrive at a recommendation that would eliminate the possibility of any kind of contentious discussion, before any recommendation is made.
  • A committee composed of CBHE members and representatives from the two-year institutions and four-year institutions would determine how best to present the case for higher education to the legislature. The committee would ensure that the economic impact of higher education is better understood by the new legislators, especially with regard to the cuts made on the discretionary part of the budget.

Recommendations for Public Four-year Institution Operating Appropriations

Acting Commissioner Wilson stated that state departments and the Governor are interested in getting input from young people, especially those who are served by higher education. The Department of Higher Education and the Coordinating Board also share this interest. The Governor has designated two people to work with the DHE and CBHE as part of his Youth Cabinet. They are Janson Thomas from Northwest Missouri State University and Reginald Jennings from Southeast Missouri State.

Mr. Joe Martin, stated that in accordance with the budget office's request, the FY 2004 budget request consists of the FY 2003 core appropriation amounts.. There are no new decision items being presented to the board at this time. In the first quarter of FY 2003 revenues have been approximately $76 million under the estimated amount. The fiscal forecast for the state is not optimistic.

Mr. Martin presented Recommendations for Public Four-year Institution Operating Appropriations - Tab A, the recommendation for the four-year institutions operating appropriations. The FY 2003 core appropriation was $729 million, which is the recommended amount for FY 2004.

Mrs. Carmichael moved that the board approve the FY 2004 four-year institution appropriation request including University of Missouri Related Programs as presented, for submission to the Governor and General Assembly. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Dr. Bourisaw reiterated Mrs. Grove's earlier comment about the equitable balancing of the state budget and thought the issues were dealt with very unfairly. Dr. Bourisaw expressed the need for a statement to be included in the presentation of the budget. Chair Kauffman asked for a vote on the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Recommendations for Linn State Technical College Operating Appropriations

Mr. Martin presented Recommendations for Linn State Technical College Operating Appropriations - Tab B. The FY 2003 core appropriation amount of nearly $4.7 million dollars is recommended for FY 2004.

Mrs. Wood moved that the Board approve the FY 2004 Linn State Technical College appropriation request, as presented, for submission to the Governor and General Assembly. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Recommendations for Community College Operating Appropriations

Mr. Martin presented Recommendations for Community College Operating Appropriations - Tab C. The amount is the same for FY 2004 as was the FY 2003 core appropriation, nearly $137 million dollars. The only change being recommended is that the community college core appropriation line items that are written out in the appropriation bill be consolidated as one core appropriation line item. These items consist of state aid, workforce preparation, out-of-district courses and Regional Technical Education Initiatives (RTEC). This will allow the community college appropriations to be treated in the same manner as the four-year institutions.

Mrs. Wood moved that the Board approve the FY 2004 community college appropriation request, as presented, for submission to the Governor and the General Assembly. Dr. Bourisaw seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Recommendations for CBHE Operating Appropriations (Coordination, Proprietary School Program, Missouri Learners' Network, Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Program, etc.)

Mr. Martin presented Recommendations for CBHE Operating Appropriations (Coordination, Proprietary School Program, Missouri Learners' Network, Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Program, etc.) - Tab D, which requests the FY 2003 core appropriation amount for FY 2004. In FY 2002, $50,000 in one-time funding was appropriated to Missouri Learners' Network. No state funding was provided in FY 2003 and none is requested in FY 2004. The Eisenhower Program has been renamed and has been slightly revised, but the core mission of the program remained the same and the budget request remained the same.

Mr. Summers moved that the Board approve the CBHE FY 2004 internal appropriation request, as presented, for submission to the Governor and General Assembly. Mrs. Carmichael seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Recommendations for CBHE Operating Appropriations (MOSTARS Student Grants, Scholarships, and Loan Programs)Mr. Martin stated that Tab E included the student grants and scholarship programs, and loan programs. The core amounts for FY 2003 are recommended for FY 2004. The Student Loan Program appropriation request is loan operating funds, not general revenue funds. The Appropriation request for the GEAR-UP Program is federal grant funds.

Mr. Summers moved that the Board approve the CBHE FY 2004 MOSTARS appropriation request, as presented, for submission to the Governor and General Assembly. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Mrs. Grove noted that she prepared a statement for the CBHE to submit with the budget request. The statement includes CBHE's responsibility to the state fiscal situation, its role and responsibility, history from last year, the fiscal effect on higher education in Missouri, what the CBHE would like the Governor and legislature to consider, and how the higher education system can be supportive of the Governor and the legislature.

The statement follows:

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education recognizes our responsibility to submit a budget that acknowledges the state's financial situation and supports the Office of Budget and Planning's request for only a core budget submission for FY 2004.

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education further understands its role to plan and advocate for higher education in Missouri. Last year, in FY 2002, higher education assumed a major portion of several revenue withholdings and is operating with a core reduction in FY 2003. Since higher education is the economic engine for the state, continued cuts of this magnitude will severely affect Missouri's well-being. If Missouri is to thrive economically, if companies, large and small, are to have a quality workforce in the future, if individuals and families are going to choose to live in Missouri, then Missouri must invest in a high-quality higher education system.

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education requests that the state place priority emphasis on state investment in higher education and that the state seek ways to commit resources to these institutions in order to have a stronger Missouri.

In addition, in light of the Moody Report, the public institutions of higher learning are prepared to support the executive and legislative branches of government in identifying and addressing the statutory and constitutional issues that are handcuffing the efficient operation of government.

Mr. Summers moved that the statement be submitted with the FY 2004 budget requests to the Governor and General Assembly.

Chair Kauffman authorized Acting Commissioner Wilson to distribute the statement to all appropriate parties.

Mrs. Carmichael seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Acting Commissioner Wilson stated that for informational purposes and for communication as they see fit, he wanted to ensure that the board was aware of the Healthy Missouri Initiative as it relates to the tobacco tax. Neither he, nor the board, was advocating it, but in providing funding for the state generally, it is a potential source of additional funding for education. One of the allocated uses of these resources is in the area of life sciences, which has potential impact on many of the research institutions and on the schools providing any type of applied services. The projected revenue from that proposal is $300 million with 14 percent available to life sciences.

Lake of the Ozarks Community College Proposal

Chair Kauffman announced that the board would not take action on this agenda item at this time. It will possibly be considered on the December agenda.

CBHE Public Policy on Institutional Nomenclature

Dr. John Wittstruck, presented the CBHE Public Policy on Institutional Nomenclature. The issue of institutional names was discussed by the board in 1997. In 1998, the CBHE organized a group of external national experts in the field of higher education to provide some guidance on the consideration of names. Implementation guidelines for the Report of the Missouri Institutional Nomenclature Study Commission were developed and adopted by the Board at its meeting on June 11, 1998. The intent of this agenda item and recommendations is to clarify how names of institutions are changed by three bodies: 1) the board of an independent college or university; 2) the board of trustees of a community college; and 3) the General Assembly. This recommendation includes items that the higher education community would like the bodies who have the authority to change and implement name changes to consider.

Dr. Wittstruck read the recommended action that it is recommended that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education replace its current institutional nomenclature policy (Public Policies Affecting the Missouri Higher Education Delivery System, Chapter II, Statewide Planning, Section C, Institutional Mission Review, Part 4, Institutional Nomenclature) with the following policy:

Because a name change by one institution in a state-supported system affects every institution in the system and the system itself, those responsible for approving and implementing a name change should consider the following when evaluating proposals to change an institution's name.

1. Institutional names should reflect the institution's mission, role, and scope of program delivery within the state's system of higher education.
2. Compass point names, e.g., North, Northeast, etc., should accurately reflect an institution's specific service region. Unique and distinctive names that do not imply a specific service region may be appropriate.
3. New public two-year community college names should reflect their community-based mission.
4. Marketing should not be the primary reason for an institution to change its name.
5. A name change should not justify additional state resources.

It is further recommended that the board direct its Acting Commissioner of Higher Education to disseminate this new policy to all interested parties.

After some discussion, it was decided that number five should be amended as follows: A name change should not justify or require additional state resources.

Mr. Summers moved that the motion be adopted as amended. Mrs. Grove seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Dr. Julio Leon, president, Missouri Southern State College, provided a brief history of the institutional name change policy.

CBHE Public Policy on Academic Program Proposals

Dr. Robert Stein, presented the CBHE Public Policy on Academic Program Proposals - Tab H. The intent of this item is to discuss draft Clarifying Comments concerning the current policy and establish a process for future board action that will ensure immediate and timely institutional participation in the review of these draft Clarifying Comments. The draft recommendations need to be reviewed by the presidents and chancellors. The primary purpose of the moratorium is to serve as an incentive for immediate action, as this review is extremely important. Sound decisions in times of economic downturn, require knowing what kind of data will be used as the basis for the board's decisions on academic program actions.

Based on the discussion from the Presidential Advisory Committee, Dr. Stein recommended that the staff should process the six new program proposals and one program change that are currently in the hopper and that the moratorium should commence immediately.

Mrs. Grove moved that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education direct the staff to work with institutional presidents/chancellors or their designees to review and refine the draft Clarifying Comments presented in this board book. A progress report on the completion of recommendations for the Clarifying Comments concerning the board's "Policies and Procedures for the Review of Academic Program Proposals" should be presented to the board no later than February 2003.

It is further recommended that the Coordinating Board for Higher Education notify all institutions that a moratorium has been established on the review of academic program actions. The moratorium shall be in force until the board has reviewed and taken action on a proposal for Clarifying Comments concerning the board's "Policies and Procedures for the Review of Academic Program Proposals."

It is further recommended that both public and independent institutions work collaboratively in recommending revisions to the draft Clarifying Comments.

It is further recommended that the staff process the six new programs and one program change currently in the hopper.

Dr. Stein answered a question regarding the length of the moratorium by stating that the moratorium would last until the board approved the Draft Clarifying Comments. Dr. Stein pledged that he would work industriously with the staff and the institutions to have the process completed by December and no later than February.

The board responded that these economic times are providing all publicly funded organizations and institutions the opportunity to evaluate their programs, their operations and their results, which were obtained with tax dollars. In replying to the objection on the moratorium, the board expressed concern that the six program requests, eligible for processing, may not be meeting all of the objectives the board views as being important during this time of limited resources. The moratorium was designed for fairness to the programs previously adopted. Although all institutions were affected by the tremendous pressures to economize, the board did not see many deletions of programs. The legislature wants to know how institutions are economizing, and the board needs documentation that actions have indeed been taken to economize.

Dr. Stein stated that this agenda item suggests that we need to have more knowledge and a better understanding of how the reallocation and funding of new programs will occur. The CBHE has considered various pathways, whereby institutions can continue to develop the kinds of programs that are needed for a changing society, but without simply open expansion.

Mrs. Grove then moved that the motion be approved as amended. Mrs. Wood seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

CBHE Public Policy on Associate Degree Delivery

Dr. Stein stated that the associate degree in Missouri represents between 60 and 72 hours and that students use the degree for multiple purposes. In Missouri, there are three Associate Degrees:

• The Associate of Applied Science degree emphasizes career and professional preparation in technical fields.
• The Associate of Science degree is awarded to students transferring into professional programs emphasizing science and mathematics.
• The Associate of Arts degree is awarded to students as part of the statewide general studies and liberal arts transfer programs.

Upon the completion of any of these degrees, graduates may transfer the earned credits toward a baccalaureate degree. The higher education system has supported associate degree delivery via multiple providers. The policy on associate degree delivery contains mixed messages, and two- and four-year institutions want to communicate with each other to achieve more clarity and/or to make policy revisions. The discussions will take place prior to developing a task force and prior to having legislators and the executive office represented.

Dr. Stein offered a substitute recommendation, based on the discussion with the presidents and chancellors earlier in the day. Mr. Summers moved that the CBHE delay formation of a task force on associate degree delivery for six months to give public two- and four-year institutions the opportunity to meet and make recommendations for any policy changes. The staff is directed to be available to work with institutional presidents and chancellors. Progress reports should be made at the December, February and April board meetings. Dr. Bourisaw seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

Information Items:

Update on State Audit Recommendations

Mr. Martin stated that this item on State Audit Recommendations contains information relating to the status of the implementation of recommendations made by the State Auditor in her September 12, 2002, audit report. Although the Department of Higher Education is at various stages in implementing the eight recommendations by the State Auditor, the majority of the recommendations have been completed. All recommendations should be implemented by December 31, 2002.

Academic Program Actions

This item contains all program actions that have occurred since the June 6, 2002, CBHE meeting and include program deletions and placements on inactive status, changes, academic program withdrawals, and new programs approved from public institutions, and program changes received from independent institutions. Reported in this item was Central Missouri State University's decision to drop all but one of their associate degrees. Moberly Area Community College and State Fair Community College have withdrawn program requests. Dr. Stein commended them for responding to the CBHE's encouragement to withdraw the programs.

Mission Accountability Measures and Target Goals

Dr. Stein stated that one of the major directives of interest to the higher education community is to evolve an accountability system that reflects the current climate of restrictive resources, unpredictable budgets, increased competition, new educational structures, limited historical perspective, and the necessity for common language and plans. A draft accountability matrix was designed and sent to the institutions as a tool for discussions concerning possible new descriptions of an accountability system that would be meaningful in relation to the present financial challenges and each institution's personal fiscal situation. Included in the matrix are the agreed-upon mission goals for each institution, the institution's Carnegie classification, measurable goals in performance indicators, base-line performance data, explicit target goals over a period of time in selected cases, and proposed actions if the goals are not achieved.

This initiative is in progress and may require more time than originally anticipated. The base-line performance data/goals are proposed to have five-year targets. Consideration will be given to having third-year mid-point targets as well. Yearly reports will inform the board on institutional progress. The board made additional requests, including:

• Articulation of the steps involved in reaching the agreed upon target goals;
• The development of realistic five-year targets; and
• The development of alternative plans that prepare for and anticipate both improved or worsening financial resources.

Proprietary School Certification Actions and Reviews

Mr. Leroy Wade, stated that this item was designed to provide updated information about actions that have occurred in the Proprietary School Certification Program, including school certifications, school exemptions, denials that occurred, pending actions and other elements affecting the program, including institutions that have submitted applications, and applications that have been withdrawn. This item was intended to help the higher education community stay informed about the Proprietary School Certification Program.

Chair Kauffman asked about the implementation of new rules and regulations adopted by the board in October 2000. Mr. Wade stated the board's policies have improved the process of request approvals of Proprietary Schools. They have allowed the CBHE staff to ensure that the institutions that are certified to operate actually are the institutions that the CBHE wants in existence in the state; and that have provided the tools necessary to make the process successful and make the staff comfortable with the kinds of institutions that complete this process.

Update on the Committee on Transfer and Articulation

Dr. Stein stated that this item provided the board with the current status of activities associated with transfer and articulation. The board's commitment to its Dual Credit Policy implementation and its Credit Transfer Policy, including the General Education Policy guidelines (subject commitment), remains strong, and the Committee on Transfer and Articulation (COTA) appreciates this. This information item provided an update on the following:

• Dual credit continues to increase,
• The scope and magnitude study was completed with the help of Dr. Marty Imers of the University of Missouri,
• Analysis of the self-reporting study indicates that some institutions are at variance with the guidelines.

Dr. Stein stated that the CBHE staff has the basis to discover why variances exist and to determine if the institution at variance is no longer in compliance with the guidelines, but it is the responsibility of COTA to follow-up on these cases. The original intent was to post a list of the institutions that were in compliance so consumers could perceive these institutions as having the seal of approval from the Coordinating Board. COTA will also investigate or monitor situations through an appeals process, when an institution notifies COTA that it feels there is abuse in the system.

Mrs. Carmichael stated that the item's emphasis is to ensure that students in high school, who had access to college-level credit, are actually being taught by teachers, who were prepared to teach at that level. Mrs. Carmichael requested that COTA supply the board with a copy of the dual credit report showing the variances, with the reasons for the variances at the December board meeting. The board needs to know if the higher education community is in compliance, if the variances are justified, if the policy is functional, and if the policy can be improved with revisions.

Mrs. Grove questioned if the University of Missouri, in its study of how well high school students, who take dual credit courses perform in college, plans to do the necessary extensive analysis or if the CBHE is in some way to assist with this.

Dr. Stein could not answer for the University of Missouri, but stated that there were people committed to the task. The CBHE staff could not have completed this study with all of the agenda items scheduled as priorities and the available staff.

General Education Policy outlines an approach to transfer that is competency driven. According to policy guidelines, that policy was expected to be implemented in October 2002. COTA is verifying the list of institutions that have certified they are implementing the general education component of the credit transfer policy. Institutions may request a one-year extension. If an institution chooses not to participate, other institutions may initiate an appeals process. Implementation of both the Dual Credit Policy and General Education Policy is moving forward.

Mrs. Grove asked if the University of Missouri, that has indicated their intention, was requesting a one-year extension or whether it simply decided not to follow the guidelines.

Dr. Stein stated that the University of Missouri-Columbia is attempting to work within the system and work within this policy to make transfer work. Lori France has been appointed specifically to handle this issue, and the University of Missouri-Columbia has been working intensively with two-year partners to engage in articulation agreements and make things work. The appeals process will resolve this issue if and when students complete forty-two hours, transfer to the University of Missouri-Columbia and believe they are not treated fairly.

Distribution of Community College Funds

Mr. Martin stated that CBHE distributed nearly $2.5 million dollars in state funds for the community colleges in the first quarter of this fiscal year. These funds include general revenue, lottery funds, capital maintenance and repair, state aid, and capital appropriations. General revenue is distributed monthly and the Lottery is distributed quarterly.

Update on MOSTARS (Missouri Student Loan Program, Grants and Scholarships, Early Awareness and Outreach-GEAR UP, and Strategic Planning)

Dr. Wittstruck, stated that Tab 7 provides the board with an overview of the activities and engagements of the staff at MOSTARS. It includes the areas of Early Awareness and Outreach, Consumer Information, the administration of the State Grants and Scholarship Programs, the developments that are occurring with the Missouri Student Loan Program, systems improvements in our operations, strategic planning and professional development.

Report of the CBHE Nominating Committee and Election of Vice Chair

Mrs. Carmichael requested that the K-16 Coalition be included as a discussion item in the future to provide the board with an update on the implementation of some of the K-16 items.

Chair Kauffman stated that Adam Fischer had been serving on an expired term and has requested a replacement, because of some pressing business issues, which has left the CBHE without a vice chair.

Mrs. Carmichael, Chair of the nominating committee, submitted Mrs. Mary Findley to fill the position as vice-chair. Chair Kauffman asked for any nominations from the floor. Mrs. Wood nominated Mrs. Dudley Grove. Chair Kauffman called for a vote by paper ballot. Upon calculating the votes, Chair Kauffman announced that there was a tie vote. With the board's approval, this item was tabled until the December board meeting.

Executive Session

Mr. Summers moved that the board proceed into an executive session for the following purpose:

RSMo 610.021(3) relating to "hiring, firing, disciplining or promoting of particular employees by a public governmental body when personal information about the employee is discussed or recorded."

Mrs. Carmichael seconded the motion, and it was unanimously passed with the following vote:

Dr. Bourisaw - yes
Mrs. Carmichael - yes
Mrs. Grove - yes
Mrs. Kauffman - yes
Mr. Summers - yes
Mrs. Wood - yes

Adjournment There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

____________________________
Sandy Kauffman, Chair

____________________________
Mary Joan Wood, Secretary