The Full Board convened at 7:30 a.m.
ROLL CALL
Roll Call indicated a quorum present.
Regents Present: Mike Foster, Lynn Morrison-Hamilton, Christian Hur Vice-Chair, John Mercer Chair, Richard Roehm, Mark Semmens, Lila Taylor. Also present was Commissioner Sheila M. Stearns
Regents Absent: Governor Judy Martz ex officio, excused, and Superintendent of Public Instruction Linda McCulloch ex officio, excused
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regent
Hamilton MOVED for APPROVAL of the Minutes of the March 25-26, 2004 Regular
Meeting in Dillon, MT and the Minutes of the April 14, 2004 Conference Call
Meeting
The
Minutes were APPROVED unanimously on a 7-0 vote.
a.
Joint Nursing Approval Process – ITEM 123-102-R0504 - Establish a Review and Approval Process for Some Nursing Program Proposals, in Order to Coordinate That Review with the State Board of Nursing Attachment
Deputy Commissioner Roger Barber gave a brief overview of the history of this item.
Regent Hamilton MOVED for APPROVAL of item a.
Item a. was APPROVED unanimously on a 7-0 vote.
b.
Update from Nursing Coordinating Group – Regent Roehm and Regent Hamilton
1. Helena Clinical Capacity Study
Regent Roehm expressed disappointment with the lack of recommendations from the outside consultant. Regent Hamilton indicated the study was paid for the by the State Board of Nursing, and they were charting new territory. It was necessary to find someone from the outside who was qualified to participate. The Nursing Coordinating Group will discuss the possibilities of the study at the June meeting. Regent Foster noted that the study on the clinical capacity focused on Helena, which is only one portion of the state. He stated the other areas of the state will be different, and although the capacity may be tight in Helena, there is a lot of potential in Billings. Regent Hamilton explained the study was intended to be only in Helena, but they were hoping for recommendations for the whole state. Deputy Commissioner Barber attended two conference call meetings of the State Board of Nursing with the consultant. He reported that Dr. Vance used the same phrases repeatedly, such as “inexact science, think out of the box, be flexible, be innovative, and take a risk.” She did suggest rural settings, especially for those who would find themselves in rural areas. Dr. Vance is from NY City, and their programs are growing so quickly they also are looking for other appropriate clinical settings. She indicated there is no literature available on what makes an appropriate clinical setting. Dean Jean Ballantyne said there were some serious limitations to the study, but there also were some suggestions. However, no clarity was given for either Helena or the State of Montana. Some possible sites were listed, but no standards on the difficulty of the exposure, and what constitutes quality clinical education. Dean Ballantyne added that there is an acute shortage of faculty, and that needs to be addressed quickly. Regent Semmens noted the reference in the report to no articulation program between the Helena College of Technology and Carroll College, but the recommendation was to support the HCoT proposal for the LPN and the ASN. Regent Roehm indicated the problem was to ensure a quality clinical experience. He suggested the Veterans Hospital might work. Deputy Commissioner Barber noted that the State Board of Nursing had moved the Helena College of Technology proposal forward under the old process, before the new one was approved that morning. When it comes before the Board for approval they will have to consider the use of non-traditional clinical settings. Regent Semmens inquired about the articulation agreements between the Helena College of Technology and Carroll College, as well as others in general. Roger Barber responded there are agreements in place for some campuses in the system already. However, it appears it may be difficult to work out an agreement with Carroll College. The State Board of Nursing asked Carroll if they would be willing to work out an agreement, and Carroll indicated they would be willing to talk, but did not say they would come to an agreement. Regent Roehm indicated there is a benefit with the Nursing Coordinating Group in that Carroll College has a seat at the table, and there is discussion of the issues. Regent Mercer inquired as to the plain answer to the nursing shortage. He asked if the system was educating enough students, or if they leave the state because of low wages, and if there was a plan to get the answers. Regent Roehm indicated the system is educating enough, but there is the question of the kind needed and how many of each. There is also an aging workforce, along with the need for adequate faculty. The Montana Hospital Association is conducting a survey of the entire state covering the needs for number and type of nurses. Chair Mercer asked if this would get the answer to whether or not MUS was educating enough nurses. Regent Roehm said he suspected there is a greater need than there is capacity in the MUS. Roger Barber noted there are several barriers to filling the needs, such as some will not pass the licensure, and some will leave for better pay. Because of many factors, the answers will be complicated. President Gamble indicated the last survey showed that 68% stayed in state. Regent Foster indicated that St. Vincent’s Healthcare stepped up with a scholarship program to keep the graduates at their facility. He said this is where the public and private entities need to join efforts.
2. Montana Hospital Association Survey
Roger Barber reported the survey has been completed, the data has been put together, and the Montana Hospital Association will release an informal report next week. The Department of Labor has been involved in the survey because they must make projections on nursing needs in Montana. The survey was designed to capture the need for all kinds of health care workers. Most hospitals did not break the RNs into two and four year credentials. They are not sure if this means they don’t need one or the other, but just RNs. The survey was sent to 120 clinical settings, with a response rate of just under 50%, and 75% from the hospitals. The Hospital Association intends to do a follow-up survey every year to obtain trend information. During the survey, there were 160 RN vacancies in Montana. The hospitals are paying a lot of money to cover those vacancies with overtime, part time, and traveling nurses. The Deputy Commissioner said one issue is the aging workforce in the healthcare arena, with the average age of RNs in Montana being 45.
Regent Roehm indicated the Nursing Coordinating Group had agreed at its February 26 meeting to hire a facilitator for this issue. Roger Barber said they will fine-tune the charge, and suggested the time line is August but is open to change. The State Board of Nursing is trying to find a consultant, but is having difficulty doing so.
c.
Shelby Nursing Program – Regent Roehm Informational Item
Regent Roehm explained that the program offered in Shelby was an idea generated by President Gamble to use a SWAT team approach, which would put a group in an area temporarily, to train a cohort, or relieve a problem. A letter was handed out by Rolf Groseth on the background of this item. He briefly explained the history, the decision to form a cohort in Shelby, and also indicated the community was very interested in working on this project. They believed they had residents committed to the community, who either could not or would not leave Shelby, but would be interested in pursuing a nursing education program. Mr. Groseth indicated they formed a pilot project, which required a lot of work over a number of months with health care providers. He said it was not their intention that this program would be permanent, but they would evaluate it to see what had been done right or wrong so they would be in a position to say if they would continue the program in Shelby, or put it another community with the same needs. Senator Black reported that Shelby had operated a very successful program. He and they feel the program should be retained for continuity and integrity. He stated it would damage the credibility of those in the program if it were cancelled. Mark Cross, CEO of the Medical Center in Shelby stated that the program was never presented to them as a SWAT program, but as a long-term program. They were surprised at the great response of those interested in the program. Quality was the main component, and they believed it could be maintained in Shelby. Across Montana, health care facilities are bringing in Philippine nurses, whose training is lacking. The cost is approximately $10,000 to bring these nurses into the community, as well as providing room and board, training, and help to bridge the culture gaps. Mr. Cross said there were at least six of these nurses in Glendive, one in Shelby, and two or three in Conrad. The need for training is long term, and the homegrown idea is to maintain people in their own communities because they will most likely stay there because they are tied by marriage, family or other long-term ties. If their residents go to Bozeman, Carroll College or Havre, they will probably stay in those larger cities because that is where the dollars are. Mr. Cross said that quality does not mean a four-year degree in a large community, but is based on the people driving the program. They are short of X-ray technicians, but in the past they used to send them to Weber State. Allan Underdal, Toole County Commissioner indicated he also did not remember this was an effort that was going to have an end and then be studied. It was going to be continued if successful. He stated that stopping a program is a disincentive to restart it. He urged the Board of Regents to look at the concept, and not stop the program for a review. In rural settings, there is a nursing shortage, and even Shelby prison has trouble finding RNs. Shelby uses satellite and interactive TV and urged the Board to continue to use these, and to expand their use. These graduates will be able to go from a $7 or $8 an hour job to a $20 an hour job, which is an incentive. Dean Ballantyne indicated she did not disagree with either of these gentlemen about the need for nurses, and that the program is helping to meet the need. She added on the quality issue, that nurses in any town need to be well prepared, and that is the system’s responsibility. This program cannot be separated from MSU-Bozeman’s or MSU-Northern’s accreditation process. She indicated it also was necessary to consider the resources needed, and the cost of the program, as well as the faculty shortage that impacts the program. Although it should be done, there is the question of whether they can do it. Susan Raft gave a brief overview of the data on progress to degree and retention of the students in this cohort. Mr. Cross noted that although the students knew from the beginning that there would be only eight slots for the clinical training, they were willing to compete for two years for those slots. President Gamble explained his model was one he had seen work elsewhere, supplying the current need in an area to saturate the marketplace, and then move the program to another community where it is needed. It was always possible to return to the original community at a later time. He explained that nursing education is their most expensive program, and although they are committed to solve the nursing shortage problem, they need to see how it is working, and where it is working. There were different comments on the initial intent of the program. Whether this was to be a SWAT program, or a permanent program needs to be cleared up. Regent Roehm indicated this is a resource issue. He asked how much the system could spend before it becomes disproportionate to the balance of programs. This program is way over the norm for nursing costs. He said the bottom line is an economic issue, and a continuing presence in Shelby would be an economic boon for that city, but the MUS cannot be all things to all people. Regent Taylor stated that if Shelby put resources into the program thinking it was long term, then the system needs to be up front when going in. Mr. Cross indicated resources were utilized. They committed the facilities and equipment, and $10,000 to MSU to support the program, and Chester and Conrad each provided $3000. He stated all of these communities are financially strapped, but were committed to bringing in the program. He said he is an auditor and CPA, and he wanted to see the details behind the budget that had been presented. They are still committed to keeping the program. Regent Semmens asked if the Shelby hospital had a need for more than ten nurses at the present time. Mr. Cross indicated it would probably be enough for them, but would do nothing for Conrad, Chester and the surrounding area. Regent Semmens said he would agree to hit the area that needs the help and to saturate it, then move on. Mr. Cross offered that they could still do electronic training on the core courses and save some resources. He believes they should be kept in the loop on the financing, and thinks there are alternative resources. Regent Semmens asked Mr. Cross if he had the understanding this program would be permanent, to which he replied yes. Regent Semmens asked President Gamble what his plans were, assuming favorable pass rates, to either move to another rural area or stay in Shelby. President Gamble said that with limited resources, he has no intent to grow more sites. The idea was to satisfy the current need, and then to move to another area and fill their need. Regent Hamilton wished to clear up the issue of the intent of the program. She believed the program came to the Board for approval as a cooperative program between three campuses, but it was a pilot project. That means it may not be continued. She said they also touched on distance education as another initiative from the Shared Leadership group and the Nursing Coordinating group to establish a common core, and investigate how it can be delivered. They all agreed it was necessary to train those who are place bound, and acknowledge there is an increased cost in delivery away from campus. The Board needs to decide what commitment it will make. Chair Mercer asked what the express understanding of the program was, and he wants to see it in writing. He asked President Gamble to bring rationale to the Board for their participation, before discontinuing the program. He believes that if this experimental program meets the necessary quality, the MUS has a classic lab experience on how to improve the Montana economy. He recommended looking at the proposal for the next session to try this in several areas. MUS cannot fix this program alone. The taxpayers will have to pay for it.
The Board took a ten-minute break and reconvened at 9:30 a.m.
DISCUSSION WITH CAMPUS CEOs
(President Gamble, President Dennison, Chancellor Capdeville, Dean Hoyle)
Over the course of several meetings, all of the CEOs, on a rotating basis, will have an opportunity to talk with the Board about important higher education issues, trends and directions, and concerns related to their campuses. The Commissioner will determine the rotation.
Please see attached reports
President Gamble said he would provide a document of their five-year plan. He indicated planning over the past year has been fruitful, and the campuses responded positively. He indicated the plan is generally fashioned after the Mission Statement because it doesn’t appear to have specific strategic priorities. He said they needed to do strategic visioning, deciding how the campuses will look in five years. He encouraged the Board to do a complete strategic plan for the entire system since it would make the jobs of the campuses much easier with those guidelines. He thanked the Board for providing creative approaches for the campuses, and believe the flexibility is good for them. He referenced creative acquisition, summer salary policy, refinancing for lower rates, and indicated he wanted to press a little further. He requested discussion of the degree that individual campuses could deviate from system processes.
President Dennison said he wanted to focus on the national issue in education. The new bill HR 8243 (the Higher Education Act) was introduced early this month, and hearings will continue through the summer. The House will have its final version by the end of summer, and the Senate will have its own version. Although education does not want federal control of education, this bill has some elements of it in it. It is important to adopt a position, and then communicate that to the delegation. President Dennison said the bill has some good changes to loans, but it doesn’t do much about the entire loan limit problem. It does have an option for students to consolidate their loans, but it forces them to take variable rather than fixed rates. He indicated there are several other items of concern, one being quality indicators and student learning outcomes. He asked the Board if they wanted to continue the way they are going, or if they want to have something imposed on them by the Federal bureaucracy. He said distance education is a big part of this, and it will open federal loans and grants for distance education, but asked what is the cost, and how would campuses deal with provisions that the accrediting agencies already do. President Dennison indicated this bill goes a bit too far. It even deals with a transfer of credits. There is already a survey being conducted on all the Montana campuses, which must publish the criteria of why they would or would not accept certain credits. There is a whole range of issues that must be reported in new formats and different ways, and it will require more people to accomplish the reporting. This mandate is unfunded.
Chancellor Capdeville reported they had just held commencement, and that Commissioner Stearns was their speaker. She was in Havre for a couple days before that, talking at Rotary, touring tribal campuses, and doing other outreach. They celebrated the first four-year graduating class 50-year reunion. He indicated that Northern is unique, offering teacher education, technical education, and workforce development. He said the Board would have the opportunity to look at the IT infrastructure which the campus accomplished with the fees approved by the Board. They sometimes have trouble recruiting and retaining faculty, partly due to geography, but also due to low salaries. They are also faced with some enrollment decline in teacher education. He believes they have hit the line on teacher education, since there is not much salary differential to justify getting the Masters. Chancellor Capdeville reported they were able to raise over $2,000,000 for the new Applied Technology Center. Groundbreaking for the new facility took place the following day. They struggle to maintain state of the art equipment, and if it were not for the relationships they have developed over the years, they would not have the equipment. Nonetheless, when students leave MSU-Northern, they do very well. Companies from out of state love to recruit their students, but most of them want to return to Montana. He indicated that collaboration with the main campus, and sharing of resources has helped Northern immensely.
Dean Hoyle passed out a folder of items, and pointed out the sheet with the bulleted items which lists their successes and progress over the past year. It then shows the constraints they face, potential opportunities, and finally their needs. Dean Hoyle noted the growth of the college, and that the placement rate was 96%, with virtually all of those in Montana. He said almost all their nurses stay in Helena and/or Montana. Employers are beginning to act differently toward two-year education, and there is a campaign to improve the image, as a professional service of higher education skills. UM-Missoula provided the Helena College of Technology with a grant this year, which was used to hire a marketing person. They also contracted out some services rather than filling vacancies to cut back on expenditures. An expanded access center including advising and testing has been completed on campus, and they now serve twice as many students in half the time. The Helena campus received one of ten $10,000 grants for women in non-traditional jobs, and with the help of Senator Burns a $200,000 grant for their training site. Dean Hoyle said they are working with the City of Helena to expand their revenue streams. He would like to have more flexibility in management, and to function more as a business than a state institution.
Regent Roehm urged the Commissioner and Board to address the five-year planning process for the MUS. He believes planning should be ongoing, with regular reassessment. Some areas of concern to him are distance education which should be led through the Commissioners office, the undercurrent on the structure of two-year education, compensation issues, and the mandated functions of budget and planning as the Board of Education. Regent Hamilton agreed, and asked for copies of the reports presented by President Gamble and President Dennison. She indicated the HEA item has been on the Agenda a couple times, and they still need to meet as a Board on that issue, and then communicate to the delegation. Regent Hamilton also believes the issue of flexibility will be very important, and it is be touched on by the Shared Leadership Group and the Budget Committee. Regent Taylor agreed that a planning process is needed at this time, as the targets are moving. Regent Semmens said the Budget Committee had opted to defer on the salary issue until they have more information. He asked Dean Hoyle to provide the source of data he referred to, which was in conflict with the data he knows himself. Regent Foster reinforced the need for flexibility, indicating they need to prepare, and then prepare to change. The focus on workforce development will be beneficial to all of Montana, and it puts the Board in the position of making sure they are addressing the differences between the two- and four-year campuses, and how to make it work smoothly. Regent Mercer noted that with the changes in the Board, and the problems in getting together, it would probably be a good idea to meet this fall to work on strategic planning, with input from the campuses. He would like to address the latitude of campuses to differ within the system, as well as within their own side of the system. He suggested the CEOs let the Commissioner know if they like this suggestion.
END DISCUSSION WITH CEOs
ACADEMIC/STUDENT AFFAIRS ITEMS continued
d.
Military Studies - ITEM 122-2014-R0104 - Authorization to Establish a Minor in Military Studies; Montana State University-Bozeman (Revised) Summary Proposal
Regent Hur MOVED for APPROVAL of item d.
Regent Roehm asked if this item was authorized under Policy 303.1 which states that a minor must be taken along with the major. He said there appears nothing new is being offered, but only the courses they already have. He believes the proposal would be the same as giving a minor in university studies for taking core courses. Regent Roehm indicated the excellent opportunity this is to use history courses, which would be in the area of the major. He would not support the item. Chair Mercer asked if this item complied with the Regents Policy. Sr. Vice Provost Joe Fedock indicated it was their belief this does satisfy the requirements of the policy. He indicated one would take the courses along with the major, and this is fairly typical in the other 33 non-teaching minors. It represents a range of courses that complement the major. Deputy Commissioner Barber indicated a true minor is for the student’s own interest. Some have breadth, and others are concentrated or specialized, and tend to reflect the culture of the campus. They could differ between MSU and UM. He believes the proposal meets the letter of the policy, and it has been through the internal review process, and approved by the appropriate administrators. Regent Semmens inquired if the proposal was for 18 credits, and if more than ROTC students were required to take these now, and if they could be used for other than a minor. Joe Fedock replied the requirements are for 24-29 credits, and they would be taken in addition to the major. The proposal is not limited to Cadets, but is open to all students. Regent Hamilton asked if there is articulation of this program with other campuses and if they had considered delivering the program to other communities, or the armed services. Joe Fedock replied the answer was no, but the comments were well taken. Chairman Mercer indicated it would not be fair to vote the proposal down based on the policy. However, the policies should be reviewed and updated with clearer language. Regent Roehm suggested a process for Roger Barber to obtain feedback from the CAOs as to whether or not the policy definitions describe what the Board wants, and if the proper rigor is required. Roger Barber and Commissioner Sheila Stearns agreed to handle this assignment.
Item d. was APPROVED on a 6-1 vote with Regent Roehm dissenting.
e.
Admissions Policies – ITEM 123-103-R0504 – Amend Admissions Policies; MUS
Regent Semmens MOVED for
APPROVAL of item e.
Deputy Commissioner Barber gave a brief history of his efforts with this item, wherein he tried to bring all the policies for resident students into one policy and all the policies for non-resident students into another policy. He explained that currently the policies indicate they do not apply to the two-year campuses, but they do want to be covered under them. He looked for those policies that related to all campuses, those for the four-year campuses, and those for the two-year campuses. He noted that UM directs some of its students to the College of Technology when they are admitted. Regent Roehm indicated he has often been confused on the accounting between UM-Missoula and their College of Technology. He said the total campus population including the College of Technology are listed as attending UM, but none of the others report that way. He asked that this information be broken out. President Dennison responded that students are reported attending the campus they are on, either UM or the College of Technology, and the same is true at Montana Tech and its College of Technology. Regent Hamilton referred to attrition rates and how they are tracked, and indicated she would like the Board to discuss methods of dealing with retention, progression and other issues related to these. She noted the large campuses have done a good job of tracking, but there is a need for better data on where the graduates go, and other indications of success. Regent Hamilton said that Native American students do a better job at the system campuses when they first graduate from the tribal colleges. She stated the Board needs to look at policy development as they make progress in P-20 to raise the bar. Regent Semmens suggested it may be necessary to impose more rigorous requirements, with the possibility the students may need to attend the CoTs first. Chairman Mercer asked if these proposed policy changes had been distributed to every high school counselor. Roger Barber replied he had not yet done so.
Chairman Mercer then asked the Board to wait on this item until
the high schools have had a chance to see the proposed changes.
Commissioner Stearns advised she will be calling a meeting of the leaders in the system for mid-June. She suggested that these very issues be evaluated at that time, and suspected they could use more staff advice before returning with a refined proposal. Regent Semmens asked if there was any reason this item could not wait until the July meeting. The Deputy Commissioner indicated that would be best since the Board has not yet passed the new writing standards. He also reminded the Board that there is nothing new in the item before them, because all he did was attempt to consolidate several policies into two. Chair Mercer indicated that no matter what is done, everyone needs to see the changes in advance. He also feels it could be revised for simplicity, and a fresh look at it might make the difference.
Regent Roehm
MOVED to TABLE Item e. until the above
considerations have been handled.
Motion to TABLE was APPROVED on a 6-1 vote with Regent
Hamilton dissenting.
f.
Letter to Congressional Delegation – Action Item – Student Regent Hur
Regent Hur MOVED to APPROVE Item f.
Regent Hur explained this letter is an opportunity for students to urge the Congressional Delegation to reconsider certain proposals in the Reauthorization Act. Regent Roehm asked that the letter be rewritten since it lacks supporting data. Regent Semmens agreed that a letter needs to go to the Delegation, but suggested the letter be substantive, and include several issues that are problems with specific recommendations and statistics. Chair Mercer stated the Board needs to write a letter. The students did it when no one else did. He recommended the students be involved in the drafting process, and follow the recommendations given here. Regent Hamilton agreed the letter needs supporting documentation, but reminded the Board that each of them can write a letter to the delegation in addition to the position taken by the Board. Commissioner Stearns agreed to work with the CEOs to create a letter with related data and good focus. A draft will be sent to the Board in the next few days. Regent Hur agreed to take the letter to the Commissioner and senior staff to work with the Board and students to get it modified and sent out.
It was
UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that the student letter should be
revised, plus a letter is to be written on behalf of the Board to the
Congressional Delegation covering the same issue.
g.
Military Sciences Minor Process at University of Montana-Missoula – Regent Mercer Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6
Chair Mercer referred to Attachment 3-Rationale of the documents provided by the campus, which states that many members of the committee were worried about Pentagon policy, and other things related to war. This is not the information that was provided to the Board in the beginning, and he stated that judging programs based on political beliefs is wrong. President Dennison agreed completely, and reminded faculty that when people raise these issues, the rest need to say they are not relevant and move ahead. Some faculty argued for the freedom of expression because it stimulates thoughts, and ideas. They expressed concern over limitations on political comments they believe they should be able to make. Chair Mercer exhorted them not to cover their political beliefs when judging programs.
END ACADEMIC/STUDENT AFFAIRS ITEMS
Staff Items:
a.
ITEM 123-100-R0504 – Staff; Office Commissioner of Higher Education
b.
ITEM 123-1000-R0504 – Staff; The University of Montana-Missoula
c.
ITEM 123-1002-R0504 – Authorization to Confer the Title of Professor Emeritus of Sociology upon William M. McBroom; The University of Montana-Missoula
d.
ITEM 123-1003-R0504 – Authorization to Confer the title of Professor Emeritus of Political Science upon Forest Grieves; The University of Montana-Missoula
e.
ITEM 123-1004-R0504 – Authorization to Confer the Title of Professor Emeritus of English upon Bruce Bigley; The University of Montana-Missoula
f.
ITEM 123-1005-R0504 – Authorization to Confer the Title of Professor Emeritus of Biological Science and Zoology upon Delbert L. Kilgore, The University of Montana-Missoula
g.
ITEM 123-1006-R0504 – Authorization to Confer the title of Professor Emeritus of Geology upon Donald W. Hyndman; The University of Montana-Missoula
h.
ITEM 123-1007-R0504 – Authorization to Confer the Title of Professor Emeritus of Geology upon Don Winston; The University of Montana-Missoula
i.
ITEM 123-1500-R0504 – Staff; Montana Tech of The University of Montana
j.
ITEM 123-1500A-R0504 – Staff; Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
k.
ITEM 123-1600-R0504 – Staff; The University of Montana-Western
l.
ITEM 123-1601-R0504 – Authorization to confer the Title of Professor Emeritus of Mathematics upon E. Otis Thompson; The University of Montana-Western
m.
ITEM 123-1602-R0504 – Authorization to Confer the Title of Assistant Professor Emeritus of Business upon Glenda Elser; The University of Montana-Western
n.
ITEM 123-1900-R0504 – Staff; The University of Montana – Helena College of Technology
o.
ITEM 123-2000-R0504 – Staff; Montana State University-Bozeman
p.
ITEM 123-2001-R0504 – Authorization to Confer the Title of Professor Emeritus of Microbiology upon John William Costerton; Montana State University-Bozeman
q.
ITEM 123-2300-R0504 – Staff; Agricultural Experiment Station
r.
ITEM 123-2400-R0504 – Staff; Cooperative Extension Service
s.
ITEM 123-2700-R0504 – Staff; Montana State University-Billings
t.
ITEM 123-2800-R0504 – Staff; Montana State University-Northern
u.
ITEM 123-2850-R0504 – Staff; Montana State University – Great Falls College of Technology
Regent Roehm MOVED for APPROVAL of all staff items.
Motion was APPROVED unanimously on a 7-0 vote.
Labor Agreements/Other
a.
Local Executive Boards - ITEM 123-106-R0504 – Confirmation of Governor Martz’ appointments to Local Executive Boards; Montana University System
b.
Rural Physicians Incentives - ITEM 123-105-R0504 – Montana Rural Physicians Incentive Program; Montana University System
Regent Roehm asked if the placement of a physician in Polson met the requirements of the Rural Physicians Incentive Program. Commissioner Stearns indicated the committee had reviewed that issue thoroughly, and it was within the requirements of the program.
Regent Roehm MOVED for APPROVAL of items a. and b.
Motion was APPROVED unanimously on a 7-0 vote.
Academic Items
a.
LEVEL II MEMO (Presented to the CAOs at this meeting)
1. University College - ITEM 123-2005-R0504 - Authorization to Reorganize Five University-wide Programs into an Administrative Structure entitled University College; Montana State University-Bozeman
2. Childhood Trauma - ITEM 123-1010-R0504 – The Montana Center for the Investigation and Treatment of Childhood Trauma at the Division of Educational Research and Service; The University of Montana-Missoula
3. Radiologic Technology (AAS) – ITEM 123-1001-R0504 - Radiologic Technology; The University of Montana-Missoula College of Technology and Montana Tech of The University of Montana College of Technology
4. Preservation Technology - ITEM 123-1502-R0504 – Historic Preservation Technology; Montana Tech of The University of Montana
5. Networking Technology - ITEM 123-1501-R0504 – Networking Technology; Montana Tech of The University of Montana
b.
c.
MSU—Great Falls’ Academic Programming in Bozeman – Information Only – Dean Moe
Regent Roehm MOVED for ACCEPTANCE of items a., b., and c.
Motion was APPROVED unanimously on a 7-0 vote with Item a. to move to the
full Board for Action at the July 7-9, 2004 meeting.
Administrative/Budget Items
a.
Expend Student Computer Fees - ITEM 123-1503-R0504 – Authorization to Expend Student Computer Fees; Montana Tech of The University of Montana
b.
Expend Computer Fee - ITEM 123-2801-R0504 – Authorization to Expend Student Computer Fee Allocation; Montana State University-Northern
c.
Allocate Computer Fee - ITEM 123-1008-R0504 – Student Computer Fee Equipment Allocation; The University of Montana-Missoula
d.
Expend Computer & Equipment Fees - ITEM 123-1901-R0504 – Authorization to Expend Student Computer & Equipment Fees; The University of Montana-Helena College of Technology
e.
Status of Regent Approved Projects - ITEM 123-2006-R0504 – Annual Status Report on Regents Approved Projects; Montana State University - Bozeman Attachment
f.
Status of Regent Approved Projects - ITEM 123-1012-R0504 - Annual Status Report on Regents Approved Projects; The University of Montana - Missoula Attachment
Regent Roehm MOVED for APPROVAL of items a. through f.
Motion was APPROVED unanimously on a 7-0 vote.
END CONSENT AGENDA
At 12:00 noon the Board recessed for lunch with student leaders, followed by a meeting with Faculty Senate Representatives
The Board reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
SPECIAL REPORT - Report from the Special Panel on the UM Athletics Deficit – Judge Dianne Barz Cover Letter from Judge Barz Executive Summary Report Reduction Plan
Judge Barz requested Laurie Neils explain the layout of the Athletic Report which had been distributed to the Board. She indicated further they had 100 copies printed at a cost of $15 each, and portions of the report would be posted on the web site. Judge Barz introduced the members of the panel who were present, those being Pam Joehler, Mark Bruno, Jim Salisbury, Laurie Neils, and Trudy Collins. She thanked the members who had spent countless hours to conclude the review in a period of six weeks. She explained they had not conducted a full audit, nor did they review all the ProCard transactions. Among the findings and recommendations of the panel she reported:
Auditing and Accounting:
· The UM President should re-assess the risk inherent in the financial operations of the athletic department. Therefore, he should communicate clearly his expectations of enhanced involvement and scrutiny over the financial activity of UM Athletics.
· The level of risk in athletics necessitates a closer review of special purpose audit reports and action plans.
· The Board of Regents should review the relationship of the GSA and UM.
· The President should provide written guidelines as to what is acceptable for campus personnel to seek reimbursement or pay for out of UM Foundation accounts.
· The UM Administration should monitor and control both the revenue and expenditure portions of the athletic operating budget throughout the fiscal year. The President should provide a realistic funding package for athletics that includes adequate institutional support.
· The Regents should review the revenues and expenses related to concessions, royalties, and collegiate licensing at UM to determine if adequate profits are being realized and subsequently allocated to the athletics budgets.
· The UM should establish and monitor a receivable from GSA for the amount of pledged scholarships donations for the fiscal year. GSA should establish a corresponding payable. These two entities should communicate with each other to make certain they are in agreement on the amount outstanding.
· The Panel recommends that the Board of Regents ask the Legislative Auditor to review the structure, functions, and staffing of the internal audit departments. The Board of Regents may want to consider establishing an audit oversight committee.
· The special purpose audit (NCAA) of athletics should be completed by December of each year and submitted to the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education.
· The new athletics fiscal officer should develop a standard reporting format for athletics and develop automated systems that monitors revenue and expenses from all sources, including GSA and Foundation funds.
· All game guarantees should be contractually documented and recorded on the University’s accounting records.
· The Board of Regents and UM should analyze the costs incurred versus the value received for trade-outs, comp tickets, and courtesy cars. Although the amounts seemed excessive to Panel members, we are not experts and do not have a reasonable basis for comparison.
· The new athletics fiscal officer should report to the athletic director as soon as is practicable. The Office of Administration and Finance should provide increased level of monitoring and oversight of athletics finances.
· Once the Board of Regents has approved a deficit reduction plan for UM, the University should review actual variances from the plan at least semi-annually.
· The UM should ensure that Athletic Department employees comply with policies and procedures regarding ProCard use and ensure that only appropriate travel and university related expenses are charged to the ProCard.
· The University should re-evaluate the number of ProCards issued in the Athletic Department.
· We recommend that the Regents require a thorough audit of UM Athletic Department ProCard charges for FY02 through FY04.
Budget:
· The athletics fiscal officer should develop an operating budget plan in sufficient detail to evaluate the reasonableness of its assumptions. Input from coaches and other athletics department staff should be solicited and used in developing the budget. The budget should include all funding sources.
· The athletics fiscal officer should provide timely and meaningful budget status reports to athletic department management and head coaches on a regular basis. The budget status report should incorporate all funding sources.
· The athletics fiscal officer should not be responsible for advance travel for games.
· The athletic director should ensure that the operating budget is prepared in sufficient detail, with input from coaches and staff, and that includes all funding sources. The athletic director needs to be attentive to budget variances, provide appropriate oversight over the athletics fiscal officer, and communicate frequently with the President and the Office of Administration and Finance.
· Even though budget responsibilities are decentralized, given the history of athletics deficits, the Office of Planning, Budgeting, and Analysis (OPBA) should provide more thorough analysis of athletics budgets. The President and VP must develop comprehensive analysis tools that allows for better monitoring of the athletics fiscal operations for Administration and Finance.
· The President should have required the athletic director to be more accountable for presenting an operating plan in sufficient detail for OPBA to analyze and should have investigated when the athletic director and fiscal manager did not respond to OPBA’s requests for information regarding the athletics budget. The President should have required the athletic director not only to raise revenues, but also to control costs.
· The Board of Regents should engage in public discussion and feedback on the athletic reports in November each year. The policy on negative fund balance should be re-evaluated to determine if the current policy provides disincentive to acknowledge deficits and problem areas.
· The University should evaluate the number of courtesy cars that are provided to the athletic department.
· Head coaches should be more involved in the budget development process and should receive monthly-standardized budget assessment reports.
Chair Mercer thanked the panel for their dedication to this incredible task, and is amazed at the number of suggested items the panel put forth. He expressed how important it was that such a good cross section of Montana joined with the Montana University System to solve this problem. Chair Mercer assured the panel that the Board would use the report to be sure their actions reflect the advice of the panel. Regent Roehm asked the panel if there had been any influence from anyone that would hinder or affect the work of the panel. Judge Barz responded no, they had excellent cooperation from President Dennison, Robert Duringer, and the athletic department. Regent Roehm then asked if there was a climate established in the athletic department that being a championship team was more important than the budget, and if it influenced management reporting. Jim Salisbury indicated there was probably a culture to be national champions, and they needed to be on that track, and this probably was a case of the culture driving the train, not the fiscal issues. Regent Semmens commented on noncompliance with the policies on ProCards, and asked if there were any other areas where this was the case. Pam Joehler explained that on the budget side, the Office of Planning Budget and Analysis initiated a new budgeting process a couple years ago which incorporated processes that all were supposed to follow, but in the course of developing the budget and monitoring the assessment process, the athletic department failed to respond. It was very difficult to get information from athletics. The panel had a subcommittee look at a portion of the ProCard purchases, and although they have a well-developed policy and procedures manual, the procedures were not built in. They did not get into more than just the ProCards. Laurie Neils indicated they had been provided with a copy of the policy and procedures manual which covered many issues, and had a well developed list of actions. In many cases they weren’t following them. Trudy Collins said they looked specifically at the personal use of cell phones, and the courtesy cars. In response to a question from Regent Semmens, Judge Barz referred to Finding 11, and said that Chuck Maes who did a line-by-line review, and tried to provide accounting for the past three years, could not do so. Jim Salisbury also noted that the fiscal officer left in September, and the athletic director in February, so that key people were missing when they were asking questions. Several members of the panel met with one person and they were disappointed there was no knowledge of the sudden increase in expenditures. Regent Hamilton referred to the same auditor finding problems in FY04 that should have been reported in FY02, and asked if there was a problem with the structure of the audits. Judge Barz replied they only wanted to point out that even the professional auditors from outside did not find the errors. Jim Salisbury said that one issue underscores the accounting in athletics, where money goes back and forth between GSA, athletics and the Foundation. Regent Hamilton then referred to the recommendation for a legislative audit, and asked if the system was not already audited by the state, and if so, why hadn’t they caught it. Laurie Neils replied that the fiscal auditor attests to the fairness of the audits. There was reliance on NCAA auditors which is an external group. However, they look more at NCAA requirements than the big picture. She suggested the legislative auditor may want to look at which kind of audits to perform at UM, MSU and their peers. Regent Hamilton asked if the negative fund balance policy could have been a disincentive to report accurately. Trudy Collins replied there is a disincentive to report negative fund balances, and there is a real scramble at fiscal year end to make ends meet, without looking at what caused the deficits. Realizing the negative fund accounts need to be reported, she recommended the policy be reconstructed with better ideas. Ms. Neils also suggested adding to the report a section showing the funds transferred to make a negative fund whole. Regent Foster asked if the risk in athletics had to do with the financial aspect of donated funds. Judge Barz replied that was true, that the private sector is expected to provide 2/3 or more of the funds they need, and it is very unpredictable. Mens' basketball is an example of not living up to expectations, with lack of attendance. Regent Roehm expressed concern that under GASB 39 transfers from affiliated foundations be accounted properly. Laurie Neils explained when funds are transferred to UM for athletics, they are deposited into the UM account and shown as restricted funding. The part that is difficult are the funds spent at the foundation for the benefit of athletics or others. The foundation report was requested for the evaluation, and it was difficult to get the information. Laurie Neils indicated she understands someone at the university is approving those expenditures. Regent Hur asked how the athletic deficit was able to recur after the CEOs had the charge to take care of the deficit. Laurie Neils replied that President Dennison took the charge seriously, and gave clear orders to have it cleared. Both Rob Edwards and Wayne Hogan knew it was the expectation to clear by FY03. Some funds had to be transferred to help fix it. There was reliance on other funds to cover up a problem. MSU let their deficit stand alone with no transfers. Regent Semmens asked if quarterly reviews of expenditures and revenues were not in place. Pam Joehler explained that once the budget office at UM implemented the new procedure they sat down quarterly to review the budget, but the problem was the difficulty in getting explanations from athletics to explain the problems. There were no consequences for not providing an explanation. Trudy Collins said the quarterly process looks only at the designated funds, but to get the true picture there is a need to combine all the funds together. Commissioner Stearns asked if the revenues were being checked off as they came in after July 1, 2003. Ms. Neils replied some came in after June 30, but were for FY02. Some were advertising revenues, but most came before June 30. The Commissioner commented that she thought Ms. Neils had told her at the end of the fiscal year that those in charge were celebratory for having solved the problem. Laurie Neils stated everyone on the panel thought the people involved had it balanced out at the end of the year. No one intentionally cooked the books. Rob Edwards told the panel that when the books closed positive, he knew of no errors, and if there were any they were done unknowingly, but he didn’t think he had made any errors. Judge Barz said the panel was looking at credibility and all were totally surprised at the deficit, and the panel found it incredible they could be so stupid. Commissioner Stearns asked if the errors in athletic accounting were not so much traditional errors, as not adjusting to the changes in procedures. Jim Salisbury said it was not adapting to the changes in accounting procedures. Rob Edwards was on the payroll at GSA in 2002, and someone should have known they had a problem. They should have adjusted by $200,000 as owed back to GSA. There was poor communication, misunderstanding, and there should have been exit conferences and audits. Commissioner Stearns said that confirmed her own suspicions. Mr. Salisbury said the main error was when Rob Edwards thought the GSA owed him more money. In response to a question from the Commissioner, Ms. Neils indicated that other accounts across the UM campus had been cleared of negative balances, and have remained in that condition. She also reported they had put together spread sheets to show by sport and category where the losses were, and they were looking for the overall reason behind the sudden increases, but the panel had run out of time. She and Judge Barz recommended it be delved into from FY00 through FY04.
President Dennison reported they have hired a fiscal officer who is qualified and had been in another athletic program. There will be rigorous collaboration on the budget in the future, on a weekly basis for some time, and then monthly if appropriate, and then quarterly. He said they will do a review of the ProCard and provide a report to the Board. President Dennison indicated he did not know for some time the Rob Edwards was not just fiscal, but was traveling with the teams. Although this was the same practice of the previous fiscal officer, Mr. Edwards was not giving appropriate attention to his duties. In response to the remark made that he had picked Mr. Edwards for the position, he noted he never knew him before and received a report from the department manager telling him this was the right person. President Dennison is further surprised about spending from the foundation. It is his understanding that foundation funds are transferred to the university and then expended. Exceptions would be any funds donated to work on the stadium which is according to statute. Also excepted is the acquisition of championship rings. He stated the foundation does not spend the money, but are shown the records of how spent by the university. President Dennison indicated they will be following all the recommendations in the report from the panel, and noted that the elements of the deficit reduction plan were on page 39. In addition to increased ticket prices, they will be using funds from the Coke contract and collegiate licensing. To address the structural deficit, they have proposed a $15 athletic fee for students who enroll for less than seven credits. If the plan goes off track, President Dennison committed a portion of the contingency fund to prevent another deficit.
Following a ten-minute break, the Board reconvened at 3:25 p.m.
Questions were addressed to President Dennison by the Regents and the Panel on a variety of points in the budget, on both revenues and expenditures. In response to a request for an explanation of the dramatic increase in expenditures from FY01 to FY02 President De