Office of the Vice President of Finance and Administration
PO Box 443168
Phone: (208) 885-6174
Fax: (208) 885-5504
PO Box 443162
Phone: (208) 885-7177
Fax: (208) 885-9490
Decision Index 2008-2011
TIP: Looking for something specific? Try using your browser's search function (usually Control F)
|Item||Motion||Meeting||Minutes Page Number|
|Idaho Center for Livestock and Environmental Studies (ICLES)||To approve the University of Idaho Center for Livestock and Environmental Studies (ICLES) for planning pursuant to Board Policy Section V, Subsection K.; to authorize the University of Idaho to spend up to $750,000 of appropriated funds for planning; and to authorize the President of the Board to send a letter to the Joint Finance and Appropriation Committee of the Idaho Legislature indicating the Board's approval for planning and requesting release of appropriated funds currently held in the Permanent Building Fund for the ICLES. The University shall continue to work with the Board of Land Commissioners and the Idaho Department of Lands to utilize Agriculture College Endowment assets in the build-out of the facility, and shall report to this Board at each Board meeting on the progress of planning, including an accounting of funds expended to date as well as any specifically identified future expenditures. The University shall return to the Board for further approval prior to commencing construction - Motion carried unanimously
Board member Stone presented this item and clarified that the request pertains to the planning stage of the project and not the construction phase. Kent Nelson of the University of Idaho noted that the dollar amount in the motion should read $750,000. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to that correction in the motion. Mr. Nelson explained that the UI brought their request to the Board at this time in order to fit with the timeline of the Joint Finance and Appropriation Committee.
|National Medal of Arts Award||Board Vice President Agidius congratulated the UI on behalf of the
Board for being the 2007 recipient of the National Medal of Arts Award. The national recognition was awarded to the UI Lionel Hampton International Jazz Festival. Board member Thilo reported that the award was presented by President Bush on November 15, 2007 in an East Room ceremony. She pointed out that the festival received the award for preserving and promoting the uniquely American art of jazz, educating teachers and young musicians, and for continuing to explore diverse cultural connections forged by Lionel Hampton. The National Medal of Arts is a presidential initiative managed by the National Endowment for the Arts.
|New Positions and Reactivation of Position||By unanimous consent, the Board approved the request by the University of Idaho to establish three (3) new positions and reactivate three (3) positions (6.0 Total FTE), all supported by appropriated and non-appropriated funds.||2/27-28/2008||3|
||Issued by University Presidents - Informational item only||2/27-28/2008||4|
|Intercollegiate Athletics - Financial Reports||Board member Stone presented this information item||2/27-28/2008||7|
|Intercollegiate Athletics - Employee Compensation Reports
||Board member Stone presented this information item||2/27-28/2008||7|
|Progress Report on Idaho Center for Livestock and Environmental Studies (ICLES)||Lloyd Mues of the University of Idaho presented this item. He introduced Kent Nelson of the UI to discuss the item. Mr. Nelson reported that UI has fulfilled all of the preconditions set forth in HB325. The University will continue to update the Board on a regular basis. He noted that funds will be eligible to be released as soon as they are approved by the Legislature.
|Settlement Agreement||This item was pulled from the agenda
|Request for Capital Project Authorization Increase- Aberdeen Research and Extension Center||To approve the request by the University of Idaho to increase the Capital Project Authorization for the HVAC and Roof Upgrades, the Joe Marshall Potato Research Building, Aberdeen Research and Extension Center, University of Idaho, Aberdeen, Idaho, from $800,000 to $1,370,000 to allow for the full implementation of the construction phase based upon actual bids received by the University - Motion carried 5-0 (Luna absent).
LLoyd Mues of the University of Idaho presented this item. He explained that there were additional items not included in the original estimate, including equipment improvements. Also, since the original proposal, the costs of materials have increased significantly. For those reasons, the University is requesting an increase in funds.
|Mathematics Program Focus Visit Report||To approve the recommendation by the Professional Standards Commission to accept the State Review Team Focus Visit Report, thereby granting program approval for the Mathematics Program, College of Education, at the University of Idaho - Motion carried 5-0 (Luna absent)||2/27-28/2008||15
|To approve the agenda as modified|| Motion carried unanimously
Board President Terrell asked that the following items be delayed until just prior to the Department of Education agenda in order to give State Superintendent Luna time to arrive: Tab 10 of the Instruction, Research and Student Affairs agenda, and Tabs 5 and 8 of the Planning, policy and Governmental Affairs agenda. Board member Thilo asked that there be flexibility to consider the UI Law School agenda item out-of-order as well, so that the panel of presenters would all be in attendance.
|New Positions and Changes to Positions||By unanimous consent, the Board approved the request by University of Idaho to establish six (6) new positions (6.0 FTE) and reactivate one (1) position (1.0 FTE), all supported by appropriated and non-appropriated funds.
|New Graduate Program - Full Proposal - Master of Science in Bioregional Planning and Community Design||To approve the University of Idaho's request to offer a new M.S. Bioregional Planning and Community Design Program - Motion carried unanimously
Board member Thilo introduced this item. Dr. Doug Baker of the UI briefly summarized the details of the program.
|Strategic Planning of the University of Idaho's Law School||To approve the request by the University of Idaho for: (1) approval of the concept of a two-location approach for the UI College of Law to strengthen statewide delivery of public legal education in Idaho, as described in the material presented to the Regents; and (2) authority to proceed with the implementation planning for two locations, including operating operating budget, capital budget, facility needs analysis, curriculum, and an implementation timeline. Information on progress will be brought routinely to the Regents attention, and any approvals required regarding curriculum and facility issues shall be brought to the Regent for approval as required by Board Policy - Motion failed (Hall, Agidius, Westerberg voted nay).
Amended M/S (Hall/Agidius): To strike the (#1) part of the motion - Motion failed 2/3 (Westerberg, Thilo, Terrell voted nay)
Substitute M/S (Thilo/Westerberg): To approve the request by the University of Idaho for authority to proceed with the implementation planning for two-location concept, including operating budget, capital budget, facility-needs analysis, curriculum, and an implementation timeline. Information on progress will be brought routinely to the Regents attention, and any approvals required regarding curriculum and facility issues shall be brought to the Regents for approval as required by Board Policy - Motion carried unanimously
Dr. Tim White presented this item. He noted that the economic, demographic, and sociological landscape of Idaho has changed significantly over the years. In response to those changes and demands, the University of Idaho has studied different ways of meeting the needs of Idaho as related to its statewide legal education mission. He indicated that letters had been received from Attorney General Lawrence Wasden and Dr. Elson Floyd, President of WSU supporting the University's proposal to bring a law school campus to Boise.
Dr. White explained that an open and thorough strategic planning effort has been underway for some time to study various options of providing quality, affordable, and accessible legal education to the state of Idaho. The result of the study is that a two-location concept is the best option. As a result, the University is requesting approval from the Board to proceed with the implementation planning effort related to that concept.
Chief Justice Daniel Eismann was introduced. He noted that the State Law Library had occupied the first floor of the Idaho Supreme Court Building up until a few years ago. It was moved to a temporary location to allow for the Court of Appeals to move into that area. Now options are being considered as to where to permanently locate the library. Chief Justice Eismann Suggested that if the University of Idaho opened an extension of it's Law School in Boise, the State Law Library could be connected to the UI Law School and its library. As a result, the State Law Library would serve not only the large number of law practices, attorneys, courts, and citizens already located in the Treasure Valley, but also offer its services to the law students pursuing degrees throughout t he University of Idaho. Chief Justice Eismann pointed out that the Permanent Building Fund had provided funds for a new State Law Library this past year, so this discussion is timely. He encouraged the Board to approve locating an extension of the UI Law School in Boise.
Justice Linda Copple Trout addressed the Board. She noted she is the Chair of the Law Advisory Council, which has discussed, for several years, the best structure and location for the law school. The Law Advisory Council agreed that the dual location approach is the best one for the students and the citizens in Idaho. The main campus of the law school would remain in Moscow and continue to offer the majority of the programs and degrees; however, the extension campus in Boise could provide students pursuing certain degrees the opportunity to do so in Boise. She urged the Board's consideration and support of the proposal.
Richard Morgan, President of the Law School Accreditation Standards Committee, was introduced. He has been an active consultant to UI in their strategic planning and assessment of the UI Law School. Mr. Morgan noted that the UI Law School has the exclusive statewide mission for public legal education. He pointed out that because Boise is the population and governmental center of the state, the state will benefit from the community-wide services that a law school will bring into the area. Mr. Morgan indicated that even with an extension of the UI Law School in boise, the main school in Moscow could continue at full strength to give the entire operation the necessary and appropriate rating of excellence. He pointed out that the dual-location concept offers an efficient solution to the challenge of providing statewide legal services and education, and that it is cost effective. Mr. Morgan reminded the Board that while this is a very novel and unique solution, it is a time when innovation, in terms of delivery and connectivity, are ripe in Idaho.
Anna Fahler, a student from the University of Idaho Law School, spoke in support of the proposal. She noted that the location of a branch in Boise would expand the opportunities for law students to pursue degrees with greater affordability and access. Ms. Fahler suggested that students would be drawn to both atmospheres so that both locations would have strong and vital programs to offer. She reminded the Board that by having a branch campus in Boise, students could have access to the bar, the courts, and the law offices.
Don Burnett, Dean of the University of Idaho, College of Law, was introduced. Dean Burnett noted that the vision of Idaho having a two-location law school is similar to the Johns Hopkins School which has branched out to meet the needs of its state in terms of the students, the communities, and the economy. Having a two-location law school would offer a greater level of affordability and access while addressing the need for an effective criminal justice education system. He assured that having law schools in both Moscow and Boise would not duplicate offerings. There will be distinctive and specialized offerings in each area. The faculty and services will be under one umbrella. Also, tying the UI College of Law branch in Boise with the Law Learning Center that is being proposed by the Justices makes sense. Dean Burnett indicated that a rigorous business plan would be brought forward to the Board in the summer if the Board approves the UI moving forward with the planning of this concept of having a branch campus in Boise.
Board member Thilo thanked the members of the panel for their remarks. President Terrell congratulated the UI for Putting together a strong team of support for this concept. Board member Agidius asked for assurances to be included in the proposal that such an expansion would not be detrimental to the Moscow campus in terms of the offerings, the students, and the community. He asked for statistics as to the numbers of students leaving Idaho to go elsewhere; also, the number of students that are unable to find practicum opportunities in the Moscow area, and the number of student-spouses unable to find jobs in the Moscow area. Mr. Agidius noted that he would not want to have the main college in Moscow become secondary over time. Dean Burnett noted that the business plan will include those items.
Board member Hall asked if the two institutions would be identical in the first year. Dean Burnett said they wold be similar, but with differing capstone classes. It is a plan to meet Idaho's needs which means increasing the opportunities for more student s to attend. Mr. Hall asked about the analysis in terms of need for more lawyers and the number of seats currently available.
Dean Burnett noted that some of that information is available in the materials already provided to the Board; however, the business plan will provide more detail. Mr. Hall clarified that he would like to know about the need, in Idaho, for more lawyers and not just the need for more seats for more students.
Board member Hall raised a question about the level of funding to sustain this effort over time. Dr. White responded and noted that the University is confident, based on the interest expressed statewide for this effort that the financial support will be there. He went on to point out that the proposal before the Board at this time is to get approval to develop a detailed business plan that will address such questions and concerns. The completed business plan would then be brought back to the Board for their review and consideration.
Board member Hall raised a concern that students would bear an increased burden in terms of fees for supporting two campuses. Dean Burnett agreed that there could be an impact on the students in terms of fees, but even if that is the case, Idaho will still be below what other schools, regionally, are already charging.
Board member Hall commented on the plans of the previous UI administration to move the law school to Boise and voiced a concern that the current proposal may be politically motivated. Dr. White assured Mr. Hall that many things in Idaho have changed since he became the President of the University. He emphasized that the former UI president's plan have absolutely no bearing on the current study or recommendations. He pointed out that the plan being proposed at this time was not created over night, but included the input of many parties from throughout that state. Richard Morgan indicated that he has no sense that political compromise is on the table or in the background in regards to this proposal. He offered the opinion that folks are working to provide an excellent legal education opportunity for the state.
Board President Terrell took a few moments to introduced Representative Tom Trail and Senator Gary Schroeder in the audience.
Board member Hall expressed his concern that the original motion indicates that the Board is approving the concept. Board member Agidius voiced the same concern. Board member Hall amended his motion. At that time, the UI and the panel members were granted a few minutes to briefly discuss the impact of the amended motion. A substitute motion was made by Board member Thilo.
|Progress Report||Dr. Tim White presented the University's report. He invited the Board and meeting participants to see the University of Idaho Presence in Second Life presentation during the lunch break. Dr. White discussed the Focused Interim Report and the vision of UI to continue being recognized nationally for excellence in academics, research, creative activity, and the engagement stakeholders through outreach and extension.
Dr. White presented highlights of accomplishments, pursuits, and planning effort in the following areas: (1) quality academics, students, programs; (2) uncommon student life engagement; (3) outstanding outcomes; (4) leading research; and, (5) strength, pride and progress in achieving their objectives.
Dr. White reported that the University is enrolling freshman who are of high quality in terms of academic standing and national recognition. Many of the University's programs have also been nationally recognized. Dr. White discussed several of the research projects that the University is engaged in and the positive impact those projects are having nationally and globally. Dr. White reported on the finances and infrastructure of the University, and noted that significant progress had been made in building the organization and systems to support the University's strategic plan goals. Dr. White concluded by noting that the University is planting seeds now in order to continue its excellence and positive impact for future generations.
Board member Hall asked about concurrent enrollment. Dr. White reported that the percentage increase is significant, however it doesn't take into account that the University started with a small number. He indicated that all of the deans were brought together to come up with recommendations to address the situation. A process is now in place that allows the University to make this a statewide effort, not just a regional effort and he expects that the University will continue to increase those numbers.
|University of Idaho Retirement Plan||Kent Nelson introduced the item. He explained that because this could likely go to litigation, the University and the Board cannot make comments or ask questions at this time. Dr. Earl Bennett and Dr. Jeff Harkins were introduced to address the Board regarding the negative impact of the changes in the University's retirement program.
Dr. Bennett had previously submitted a packet of materials to the Board for their review. He indicated that promises were made by the University prior to the current revisions regarding the benefits for retirees, and that contracts were signed by the University and the parties of interest. He promises, which is why four individual retirees have filed a notice of claim with the Idaho Secretary of State. Dr. Bennett provided a lengthy explanation of all the issues and concerns of the retirees impacted by this situation.
Dr. Jeff Harkins discussed GASB 45 and the University's deferred compensation plan. He noted that the proposed changes to the policies were never considered by the Board of Regents as it was submitted only as an information item even though it was a $100 million decision. He summarized his presentation by noting that the University agreed to offer benefits in lieu of salaries, and University employees, acting in good faith, accepted those promises. He suggested that the University charged the University's Retiree Health and Life Insurance Task Force to basically arrive at a foregone conclusion. He pointed out that the University should have charged the Task Force to find ways for the University to honor the benefits it promised to its employees and still reach decisions of austerity.
|Employment Contract - Head Men's Basketball Coach||To approve the University of Idaho's employment contract with head basketball coach, Don Verlin.
Amended M/S (Hall/Agidius): Amend the motion to reflect the salary base shown on Tab 1, page 1, and to also include the incentive payments as outlined on Tab 1, page 2 - Amended motion carried unanimously
|Settlement Agreement||To approve the settlement of a personnel matter and to authorize the University of Idaho to sign all necessary settlement documents - Motion carried unanimously||4/16-18/2008||11|
|FY2010 Budget Development Guidelines||M/S (Westerberg/Luna): To direct the agencies and institutions to use the following categories, and in priority order, to develop FY2010 Line Item budget requests: Occupancy Costs, Maintenance, Infrastructure and Critical Operating Expenses, Center for Advanced Energy Studies, Biomedical Research Initiative with Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New or Expanded Programs, and Enhancements for institution or agency effectiveness, competitiveness, and/or efficiency - Motion carried unanimously||4/16-18/2008||13|
|Easement for Public Bus Shelter||M/S (Westerberg/Agidius): To approve the temporary, non-exclusive easement from the Regents to the City of Moscow and to authorize the University of Idaho's Vice President for Finance and Administration to execute the necessary documents in substantial conformation to the documents submitted to the Board in Attachment 1 - Motion carried unanimously||4/16-18/2008||15|
|Amendments to Faculty/Staff Handbook||M/S (Westerberg/Adigius): To approve the amendments to University of Idaho Faculty-Staff Handbook Sections 5300 "Copyrights, Protectable Discoveries and Other Intellectual Property Rights," in substantial conformation to the version submitted to the Board in Attachment 1 - Motion carried unanimously||4/16-18/2008||15|
|Appointment to Trustee - UI Retiree Benefits Trust||M/S (Westerberg/Agidius): To approve the University of Idaho's request to designate Wells Fargo as trustee for the University of Idaho Retiree Benefits Trust - Motion carried unanimously
Lloyd Mues of the University of Idaho presented this item to the Board. He noted that this action will ensure that the trust is properly insured. He explained that having Wells Fargo appointed as trustee keeps everything transparent, and also puts into place the proper checks and balances to ensure that everything is above board. Mr. Mues noted that this is an entirely different issue from the accounting standards issue discussed earlier in the day. The University assured Board member Hall that the costs of having the bank act as trustee were in line with what it would cost to have a University of Idaho employee perform that function.
|Student Health Insurance Plan (SHIP) - Approval of Rates and Service Provider Contracts||M/S (Westerberg/Hall): To approve the 2008-2009 Student Health Insurance Plan rates; and to authorize the University of Idaho to take such actions necessary to complete the contract between the University and United Health Care Student Resources, and to authorize the Executive Director of the State Board of Education to approve the final contract before execution by the University, subject to review by the Board's legal counsel; and to approve the agreement the University and Moscow Family Medicine in substantial conformance to the contract submitted to the Board in Attachment 2 - Motion carried 5-1 (Mr. Agidius voted nay)
Lloyd Mues of the University of Idaho presented this item. Board member Agidius raised a concern about the additional financial strain this would put on the students
|Election of Officers||M/S (Agidius/Thilo): To appoint Milford Terrell as President of the Board of Education for the coming term - Motion carried unanimously
M/S (Thilo/Terrell): To appoint Paul Agidius as the Vice President of the Board for the coming term -Motion carried unanimously
M/S (Terrell/Weterberg): To appoint Sue Thilo as the Secretary of the Board for the coming term -Motion carried unanimously
|Acknowledgements||Board President Terrell presented a plaque of appreciation to Dr. Tim White of the UI who is leaving to make a position in California. He introduced Steven Daley-Laursen who has been appointed as the Interim President of the UI. Board President Terrell announced that a search committee had been appointed for the UI President position.||6/18-19/2008||3
|BAHR - New Positions||By unanimous consent, the Board approved the request by the UI to establish 14 new positions supported by appropriated and non-appropriated funds||6/18-19/2008||3-4|
|FY 2008 Room and Board Rates||This is an information item only||6/18-19/2008||4|
|PPGAC - Alcohol Permits||This is an information item only||6/18-19/2008||4|
|Strategic Planning Process of the University of Idaho's Law School||President Tim White introduced Dean Donald Burnett and Chief Justice Eismann to speak to this item. Steven Daley-Laursen indicated that this initiative will continue to be a high priority as he takes over as the interim President.
Dean Burnett explained that today's progress report is a continuation of the discussion regarding the concept of unifying Idaho with one law school in two locations. The implementation plan will be presented to the Board in August.
Chief Justice Eismann discussed the proposed Idaho Law Learning Center. He reported that the Law Library is being relocated because the courts and judges need more space for their offices at the present location. The Law Library is currently in temporary facilities and has had to be downsized considerably. He explained that since the Law Library has to be relocated, it is a good time to look at connecting it to the UI Law School. Chief Justice Eismann indicated that the courts are moving forward with their plans and encouraged the Board to seriously consider the benefits of having a law school located in Boise.
Dean Burnett emphasized that having a second law school in Boise would not undermine or detract from the programs, courses, degrees, or educational opportunities at the UI College of Law in Moscow. Core courses will be offered a each location with an emphasis on professional values and ethics. Subject-area specialties will be offered at each location to avoid undue duplication.
State Superintendent Luna indicated that Board member Lewis had expressed some concerns via email. He urged the UI to review those concerns prior to preparing a proposal for the August Board meeting. Board member Hall pointed out that he had noticed funding will be through private donations, student fees, and funding from the Legislature. He asked for something in writing from the Legislature that verifies it does support this plan and does plan to finance it. He asked for information on the long-term commitments of private donors as well. Board member Westerberg indicated that he looks forward to reviewing the cost-benefits analysis. He asked for a ratio study to be done as well that shows how this plan will benefit the University.
|Dual Credit Update
||Selena Grace of the Board office updated the Board on this item. Board member Thilo complimented the existing dual/concurrent credit coordinators who have emt on an ongoing basis. She noted that this is a high priority item and thanked Ms. Grace for the information provided in the agenda materials.
State Superintendent Luna indicated that the majority of members of the task force have been identified. Several more will be appointed as well. The intent is to present one plan to the Governor and the Legislature this year.
|Idaho / Washington Reciprocity Agreement
||To direct staff to continue working with the Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board to renew a one-year reciprocity agreement with the State Board of Education, and direct staff and institutions to continue reviewing this matter related to fee waivers and report back to the Board with proposed solutions - Motion carried 6-1 (Hall voted nay)
Board member Thilo reviewed this item and explained that her motion extends the current agreement by one year and instructs staff to find additional institutions in Washington that would work with Idaho. She indicated that the students of Idaho will benefit from this agreement and explained that Washington has other mechanisms in place for granting waivers to out-of-state students. She noted that Idaho needs to modify its current waiver plan to address how Idaho can better recruit Washington students. She emphasized that should the Board decide not to extend the agreement for one more year, it would compromise the students currently enrolled. Dana Kelly of the Board office indicated that staff is looking at ways to attract more Washington students to Idaho.
Board member Hall indicated that he was concerned that on the Washington side, only Walla Walla had agreed to the one-year extension. He wanted that fact noted. Board President Terrell indicated he had a similar concern.
Lewis-Clark State College Provost Fernandez reported that the colleges and universities in Idaho value this reciprocity agreement. He explained that, without this reciprocity agreement, Idaho would lose about 100 students. He reiterated that Washington offers reciprocity outside of this agreement through other types of waivers and mechanisms, therefore additional opportunities exist for Idaho students beyond this one agreement.
Dana Kelly explained that there are a number of Washington students in the Idaho system as a result of this agreement and they would be harmed as well. Many of those Washington students would leave Idaho altogether if this reciprocity agreement is not renewed, adversely impacting Idaho. Provost Fernandez noted that a number of Washington students do take advantage of Idaho schools because they live on, or close to the border. Board member Agidius concurred.
Provost Fernandez noted that the institutions can provide waivers outside of this agreement, but there are limits and qualifiers that limit the numbers and kinds of students Idaho can accept or give waivers to. He encouraged the Board to take a serious look at that particular issue.
|President's Council Report
||Dr. Tim White briefly addressed the Board and encouraged it to be aware of the issues. He spoke about the WWAMI program and medical education in Idaho. Dr. White noted that one of his tasks in California is to build a medical school. He offered to work with Idaho in the future on their efforts in that regard given that he will have gained significant experience.
|Approval of University of Idaho Alcohol Waiver Request for 2008 Home Football Games
||To approve the request by the UI to establish secure areas for the purpose of allowing the above specified pre-game activities (Vandal Game Day, Corporate Tent Area, and President's Circle Pre-Game Function) for the 2008 home football season, such events to be in compliance with Board policy Section I.J, and the following conditions:
(1) These service areas shall be secure, and surrounded by a fence to control access to and from the game
(2) The pre-game events shall be limited to four hours, ending at kick-off
(3) Alcohol-making or distributing companies may not sponsor the activities or tents
(4) UI shall use a color-coded wrist band or pass admission system to identify attendees and invited guests
(5) UI shall send companies sponsoring a corporate tent a letter outlining the Board's alcohol policy and further conditions set by the Board. The letter will state that the minimum drinking age in Idaho is 21 and that at no time may they allow any underage drinking and/or serving of alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons
(6) There must be no more that two entry points, each manned by security personnel, for the secure area
(7) Security personnel shall be located throughout the secure service area to monitor use of wristbands, patron behavior, and entrance and exit
(8) No person may exit the secure area with alcoholic beverages
(9) Tent sponsors shall insure and indemnify the State of Idaho, the State Board of Education, and the Board of Regents of the University of Idaho, and the University of Idaho for a minimum of $2,000,000, and shall obtain the proper permits and licenses
(10) The area is for sponsors to entertain clients/guests for the fall of 2008 home football games, including the sales and service of alcohol
(11) This exception is only for the 2008 football season; the University shall bring the matter back to the Board after the conclusion of the 2008 football season for reconsideration for 2009
Motion carried unanimously
At this time Board member Hall was excused from the meeting for a length of time. Board member Agidius took over his agenda items
|Audit Committee Update
||Board member Thilo presented this item. She noted that the Audit Committee is working on the charter to address specific issues. The charter will come before the Board in August. The Audit Committee unanimously approved the 2008 audit fees and has also been working with all of the institutions to identify primary foundation operating agreements.
Board President Terrell pointed out that the Audit Committee needs three people with accounting expertise, and who have no connection or relationship to any of the institutions. He asked the Board members to think about who might be added to the committee.
|Idaho National Laboratory Update - CAES
||Harold Blackman, Interim Director for CAES, briefly reported on the progress of the Center for Advanced Energy Studies. He noted that the building is progressing well. Other funds have been procured which will help complete the building and also to equip the building. In terms of what is happening inside the Center, about five years ago Idaho had ten or fewer students enrolled in nuclear energy engineering and education. That is turning around and this Center is one of the reasons.
In regards to the funding picture, the Laboratory is continuing to invest approximately two million dollars per year towards procuring equipment. In addition, the Department of Energy is also providing support as well. Over the next year the programmatic funding will be about three million dollars.
|FY 2009 Allocation - CAES
||To allocate the $1,603,100 FY 2009 legislative appropriation for the Center for Advanced Energy Studies contained in House Bill 610 to Boise State University, $512,700; Idaho State University, $692,900; and University of Idaho, $397,500 -Motion carried 5-0 (Hall excused absent)
|FY 2009 Center for Advanced Energy Studies (CAES
||To approve the request by Boise State University, Idaho State University, and the University Idaho to expand the budget approval for the CAES building in Idaho Falls to authorize application of two million dollars of additional INL Settlement proceeds to the project as set out in the joint letter of the presidents of these three institutions dated December 14, 2007 - Motion carried 5-0 (Hall excused absent)
|NCAA Academic Progress Reports
||Board member Westerberg presented this information item
|FY 2008 Intercollegiate Athletic Reports
||Board member Westerberg presented this information item
|FY 2009 Student Health Insurance
||Board member Westerberg presented this information item and noted that the health insurance issue for UI came before the Board in April
|FY 2009 Operating Budgets
||To approve the FY 2009 operating budgets for the Office of the State Board of Education, Idaho School for the Deaf and Blind, Idaho State Historical Society, Idaho Commission for Libraries, Idaho Public Television, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, College and Universities, Postsecondary Professional-Technical Education, Agricultural Research/Extension, Health Education, and Special Programs - Motion carried unanimously
|FY 2010 Line Items
||To accept the Line Items requests from the agencies and institutions and to direct the Business and Human Resources Committee, in cooperation with the Division of Financial Management and the agencies and institutions, to develop a list of Line Items in priority order to be approved at the August Board meeting - Motion carried unanimously
Board member Westerberg presented this item. He noted that work on these items needs to continue and the motion indicates that as well. Board President Terrell observed that the institutions need to be quick in getting details to the Board if there are additional requests that need to be considered. This comment was in regards to the presentation made during Open Forum related to the nursing program.
|Auen Property Acquisition
||To approve the acquisition of a five acre parcel adjoining the Nancy M. Cummings Research, Extension and Education Center near Salmon, Idaho, and to authorize the University of Idaho's VP for Finance and Administration to execute the conveyance deed in substantial conformance to the form submitted to the Board as Exhibit B in the Purchase and Sale Agreement (Attachment 1) -Motion carried unanimously
Lloyd Mues of the University of Idaho presented this item. He noted that the College of Agriculture has the funds on hand to purchase this property.
|Transit Services Agreement
||To authorize the University to take such actions necessary to complete the contract between University of Idaho and Wheatland, and to authorize the Executive Director of the State Board of Education to approve the final contract before execution by the University, subject to review by the Board's legal counsel - Motion carried unanimously
Lloyd Mues presented this item to the Board. Funds from student activity fees will be used along with funds from UI and WSU. He noted that the current agreement expires August 2008. He explained that the reduction in services is based solely on the cost of fuel.
|Health and Welfare Benefits Consulting Services Contract
||To approve the agreement between the UI and Buck Consultants, LLC, in substantial conformance to the form submitted to the Board in Attachment 2, and inclusive of the (1) University of Idaho Request for Proposals Number 08-16J; (2) Buck Consultants, LLC's response dated October 24, 2007; and (3) University of Idaho General Terms and Conditions - Motion carried unanimously
At this time Board member Hall was excused to take a conference call. Item 19 was delayed until his return.
|West Virginia University and IRF Agreement
||To approve the agreement between the UI and West Virginia University, in substantial conformance to the form submitted to the Board in Attachment - Motion carried 5-0 (Hall excused absent)
|Renovation of SUB Ballroom
||To approve the request by the University of Idaho to execute all necessary contracts in support of design for the renovations of the Music Building Recital Hall in an amount not to exceed $157,500. This approval is contingent upon passage of the supplemental bill currently before Congress to modify use of the existing HUD grant funding held by the University - Motion carried 5-0 (Hall excused absent)
Lloyd Mues presented this item which had to do with the use of HUD money that the UI received years ago. It appears that the UI will receive permission from the federal government to use those funds. If that turns out not to be the case, then the project will not proceed. However, the UI does need to show intent to use these funds before the end of the fiscal year. Board President Terrell emphasized that both requests are contingent upon passage of the supplemental bill by Congress.
|Improvement to Archival Facilities - Library
||To approve the request by the University of Idaho to execute all necessary contracts in support of a $1,433,186 project to design and renovate the Lionel Hampton International Jazz Collection archival space within the Library. This approval is contingent upon passage of the supplemental bill currently before Congress to modify use of the existing HUD grant funding held by the University -Motion carried 5-0 (Hall excused absent)
Lloyd Mues presented this item. Mr. Mues noted that the UI will bring these projects back to the Board before they move forward.
|ICLES (Dairy) Update
||Lloyd Mues presented this item
||To approve the settlement terms discussed in executive session, as set forth in the written settlement agreement presented to the Board in open session, and to authorize the President of the Board to execute the settlement agreement -Motion carried 5-0 (Hall excused absent)
|Harbor Center Lease
||Board member Westerberg presented this item. Dr. Tim White reported that UI had offered academic programs in North Idaho since 1982. This proposal responds to an interest by North Idaho for the UI to continue its offerings and to expand capacity. Dr. White noted that the window of opportunity is open right now as the Coeur d'Alene City Council is prepared to move forward on this effort this week. He asked the Board for their careful consideration of this request.
Kent Nelson of UI briefly presented the facts. Currently, UI leases space in the Harbor Center and the lease expires in 2010. He noted the City is prevented, by legal restrictions from selling the property in question outright, but it can enter into the proposed long-term lease. The proposed solution would allow UI to acquire from the City guaranteed long-term leasehold in the Harbor Center property for a single payment of $1.3 million.
The proposal includes the existing building and parking on a 7.2 acre parcel which has the potential for to two additional buildings which will meet future needs of the collaborative four-year institutions. The possible bonus is that if the City is able to work with North Idaho College (NIC) for acquisition of the Mill Site property, the City will deed 2.5 acres adjacent to the NIC campus to UI and University growth will occur on this site. UI prepared an analysis of potential sites and concluded that the Harbor Center plus the 2.5 acres adjacent to NIC is the best site based on the analysis for UI to expand.
A lengthy discussion followed. It was explained that the master lease was negotiated in 2002. In addition, because the property was acquired, it can't be sold for anything less than appraised value. It was clarified that all three times when the UI entered into agreements with the City, the City was not aware that it could not sell the property for less than the appraised value. The current proposal is not to purchase 2.5 acres and to lease the rest of the property. The UI will receive all of the substantial rights.
Board member Hall clarified that the UI essentially will be going from owning the property as agreed upon in all three agreements to leasing the property. Lloyd Mues agreed that Mr. Hall is correct that the UI had the understanding that it was going to purchase the property. He explained until the sale of the Mill site, nobody knew that the City could not sell UI the Harbor Center Property. He noted that the Mill site will be a better site than the Harbor Center for offering classes. It is a better value and is a better return on investment. In addition, if that turns out not to happen, then the UI would still have the Harbor Center.
Board member Thilo noted that the proposal would allow UI to be in a very long term lease on a building that is already built on land that is very desirable at a very attractive lease rate. Looking at it from the City's point of view they could be leasing this property to another party for substantially more money. Lloyd Mues agreed that it is evident by the numbers that UI would be leasing the property for below market dollars.
Board member Thilo noted that UI has exercised good judgment and analysis to determine what is best at this time. She suggested that it is not constructive to ask what-if questions and went on to emphasize that this is a good opportunity for higher education and for the community. Board member Agidius agreed that it is apparent from the facts that this is the best deal for the UI.
Mr. Luna noted that the interest by the Board in the education corridor in North Idaho seems to have been lacking. It didn't support the concept of the education corridor previously and also did not show interest in touring the area when it met in North Idaho when the opportunity presented itself. If this is approved, it could be a catalyst to get others on board in this movement to support the education corridor.
Board member Hall asked if any studies were done on the primary return ratio if this effort is undertaken. Lloyd Mues indicated that UI had not done so as yet, but funds for that effort have been set aside.
Larry Brannen of UI noted that a master plan had been under development this past year. The people supporting that were North Idaho College, Lewis-Clark State College, University of Idaho, and the City of Coeur d'Alene. Although it is not finalized it does lay out that this area is ideal for education. The next step is to acquire the site and then continue the master planning. He agreed that no master plan had been presented to the Board as yet, but the plan would come back to the Board in the future. He noted that the existing building is full. The next stage is to plan out the next building and they are waiting to have a site and the funds before moving forward with that. Mr. Hall suggested that it might be appropriate that the agreement be between the State Board of Education and the City of Coeur d'Alene rather than the UI and the City. Board President Terrell indicated he would like more time to digest the information in the document and to also get more input from the other institutions. He also would like to see a master plan.
Mr. Luna asked if this is a time-specific offer. Mr. Nelson indicated that while there is not a time-specific requirement, the City of Coeur d'Alene could decide, at anytime, to go in another direction.
To postpone continuation of this subject to an unidentified date in September when all Board members and the institutions can get together to weigh in on the matter - Motion carried 5-1 (Thilo voted nay)
||Board President Terrell appointed Blake Hall and Richard Westerberg to serve on the committee dealing with higher education lobbyist issues.
By unanimous consent the Board gave the Executive Committee permission to look at the issue of allowing the wives of presidents to work at the same institutions and to bring back a recommendation in August related to that issue.
In regards to the ISAT and Assessments, Rod Lewis will chair that committee; Sue Thilo and Tom Luna will also serve along with staff from the Governor's Office and the Department of Education. Board President Terrell indicated that he will also sit on the committee.
Board President Terrell asked for permission to look at long-term incentives for college and university presidents similar to the approach taken with contracts for coaches. He will bring some ideas back in August.
|BAHR - New Positions
||By unanimous consent, the Board approved the request by the University of Idaho to establish eight (8) new positions (8.0 FTE) and reactivate four (4) positions (4.0 FTE) supported by appropriated and non-appropriated funds.
|PPGAC - Alcohol Permits Issued by University Presidents
||This is an information item only
|Alcohol Waiver Request for ASUI Pre-Game Activities for 2008 Football Season
||To approve the request by the University of Idaho to establish an additional secure area for the purpose of allowing the above specified pre-game activities (ASUI Student Pre-Game) for the 2008 home football season, such events to be incompliance with Board policy section I.J. and the following conditions:
1. The service area shall be secure, surrounded by a fence to control access to and from the area.
2. The pre-game events shall be limited to three hours, ending at kick-off.
3. Alcohol making or distributing companies may not sponsor the activities or tents.
4. UI shall use a color-coded wrist band or pass admission system to identify attendees. and invited guests.
5. UI shall send companies sponsoring a corporate tent a letter outlining the Board alcohol policy and further conditions set by the Board. The letter will state that the minimum drinking age in Idaho is 21 and that at no time may they allow any underage drinking and/or serving of alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons.
6. There must be no more than two entry points, each manned by security personnel, for the secure area.
7. Security personnel shall be located throughout the secure service area to monitor use of wristbands, patron behavior, and entrance and exit.
8. No person may exit the secure area with alcoholic beverages.
9. Tent sponsors shall insure and indemnify the State of Idaho, the State Board of Education and Board of Regents of the University of Idaho and the University of Idaho for a minimum of $2,000,000, and shall obtain the proper permits and licenses.
10. The area is for sponsors to entertain clients/guests for the fall of 2008 home football games, including the sales and service of alcohol.
11. This exception is only for the 2008 football season; the University shall bring the matter back to the Board after the conclusion of the 2008 football season for reconsideration for 2009.
12. Be required to provide a drawing that outlines the University's intent - Motion FAILED unanimously
Board member Hall asked about the difference between UI's request for 3 hours rather than 4 hours. UI agreed to change it to 3 hours. Mr. Hall and Ms. Thilo agreed to that change in their motion.
Garrett Albreche ASUI President presented this request from the students to have separate area on campus for those over the age of 21 to purchase and consume alcohol prior to the games. Several Board members voiced a concern that it promotes alcohol use among the students. State Superintendent Luna indicated that this biggest concern is that the student body association is getting into the business of creating and sponsoring events where alcohol is served.
|Law School Implementation Plan for the Two-Location Concept and Legislative Appropriation in FY 2010 Budget Request||Steven Daley-Laursen, Interim President of the University of Idaho introduced the panel of presenters. He discussed the proposal for a two-location concept noting that the proposal fits with the University's role as a land-grant institution. Mr. Laursen assured the Board that the law school's primary location will always be in Moscow. He suggested that this is a time of urgency in terms of making a decision. He indicated that the University's Foundation enthusiastically endorsed the proposal.
Dean Don Burnett addressed the Board. He provided details as he reviewed information provided in the Board materials. He suggested that if the two-location concept is approved, the University's law school will be stronger academically, able to serve a bigger population, and will add value to the existing programs. He discussed a detailed year-to-year operating and capital budget which goes through FY 2017. He noted that there would be phased-growth with counter claims that the intent is to permanently move the law school to Boise, Dean Burnett pointed out that the Attorney General's ruling makes it clear that the law school cannot move out of Moscow.
Chief Justice Schroeder spoke on behalf of Chief Justice Eismann. Chief Justice Schroeder noted that this cooperative effort of the Supreme Court and the law school was presented to the Legislature in 2007 so it could receive extensive public comment and scrutiny. One driver of this effort is that the role of law is critical in our society. He emphasized that this effort will benefit the Courts, the students, and the public at large.
Senator Denton Darrington addressed the Board. He suggested that Idaho cannot remain static; it needs to be progressive or it will regress. He clarified that this proposal has come as a result of many years of discussion. Initially, it started with discussions about what to do with the Law Library. He noted that a recommendation went before the Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee last year to fund a study regarding the need for a Law Center. Senator Darrington indicated that he hadn't heard of any attempt by anyone involved with the proposal to move the entire law school from Moscow to Boise. Rather, it's been emphasized that the desire is simply to move some functions to Boise because it is the center of population growth. He suggested that controls can be put into place to make sure the school does stay in Moscow. Senator Darrington asked the Board members to be progressive in their thinking related to the law school coming to Boise.
Justice Linda Copple-Trout spoke on behalf of the Law Advisory Council. She addressed the concern that the branch in Boise is just a prelude to moving the entire operation to Boise. She assured the Board, on behalf of the Advisory Council, which has a large number of UI alums on it, that is definitely not the case. In terms of there being enough lawyers in Boise, she observed that people with a law degree also pursue a number of different careers in a number of different areas outside of law, so it isn't just the number of lawyers that should be considered.
Richard Morgan a consultant who has worked on the development of this plan indicated he favored the dual location approach. It keeps a substantial presence in the Boise area while maintaining a significant role in Moscow. He noted that the budgets presented with this plan are reasonable. It will take additional funds from the Legislature as well. He suggested that a dual location approach will allow for increased enrollments. He said he was optimistic that this will be a successful enterprise because there is a need in Idaho, and in Boise. Also, the University, the faculty, and the Law Center are committed to this effort.
Brian Williams a recent graduate from the University of Idaho, College of Law addressed the Board. He said the prospect of a dual location means that there will be greater opportunity for students in Moscow and elsewhere in Idaho. He discussed how this would benefit place-bound students and their families, and indicated he was very confident this would be a good move.
State Superintendent Luna asked about a tuition fee comparison between having a private sector entity fill the void versus the UI filling the void. Dean Burnett indicated that tuition at the University is $11,000 (out of state is $21,000) while the tuition for other northwest private schools ranges upwards from $29,000.
Board member Agidius passed along concerns that have been expressed to him. One is that the specialty areas that would stay in Moscow are not areas of growth; the areas of growth are those being shifted to Boise. He applauded the collaborative effort between the law school and the law library, but suggested that the need for a presence in Boise is not as great as is being proposed. He expressed concerns about funding the operation as well. Dean Burnett indicated that the basic J.D. curriculum would be offered at both locations and that moving the specialty areas will enhance what the University is already doing. He indicated that the upper level specialties tend to be seminar size programs which could be shared between the two campuses via distance learning.
President Daley-Laursen addressed the concerns about the areas that are suggested to stay in Moscow and pointed out that there is data to support that each one is viable, has high visibility, and expects greater growth in terms of need for legal services and representation.
Board member Hall suggested that while there is a health care crisis in the U.S., there isn't a growing demand for attorneys. Dean Burnett pointed out again that Boise is the only state capitol in the United States without a law school. He reiterated that the concept is also to have phased-growth.
Board member Hall raised a question about the small numbers of applicants who actually come to the University of Idaho, College of Law. Dean Burnett indicated that there are several factors, but a primary one is that Idaho doesn't have a law school in the largest population area of the state. He reiterated that because this is viewed as a drawback by many applicants, they often choose to go elsewhere in the end.
Board member Hall expressed a concern that the quality of education may suffer if limited resources are divided between two locations. Dean Burnett suggested that the investment of funds to improve the program doesn't detract from the idea that improvement includes strategically advancing the program by an enhancement presence in Boise.
Board member Lewis noted that Board policy requires that, before programs are increased or approved, the Board fully understands the implications in terms of economics and policy. He observed that while many programs would be enhanced by being in Boise that has not been the direction those programs, institutions, or this Board have taken lightly. Mr. Lewis suggested that the statistics presented in the materials provide argument not for growth or expansion, but for moving the law school to Boise altogether.
To approve the request by the UI for (1) authorization to proceed with its Implementation Plan for two locations of the UI College of Law as described in the Implementation Plan presented to the Regents, and (2) authorization to include a legislative appropriation in the FY 2010 budget to prepare the program for the initial incoming class as provided in the Plan. Information on the progress of the implementation plan will be brought routinely to the Regents for updates, and any further approvals required by Board policy will be brought to the Regents in a timely manner.
Board member Westerberg said that he found some merit in the proposal, but would like to see market information that demonstrates there are jobs in Idaho. He wondered if applicants would be considered separately for each separate location. Dean Burnett indicated that applicants would be asked about career paths, but ultimately the University will determine which location should accept the student, based on faculty workload and saturation.
Board member Lewis referred to page 23 of the study provided by the University of Idaho and indicated the chart on that page demonstrates his concern that as a percentage, University of Idaho graduates have a harder time finding jobs compared to those from other states because many University of Idaho graduates end up in public sector positions. Dean Burnett explained that UI students do tend to start out in public sector jobs not because of the quality of the student or the school, but because of the limitations that deprive students in Moscow from the relevant partnerships and networking opportunities that would be available to them if the law school expands to Boise.
AMENDED Substitute Motion (Thilo/Terrell): To authorize the UI to expand its offerings in Boise to a full third year curriculum and to include a legislative appropriation in the FY 2010 budget for this expansion. The Regents recognize the statewide mission of the UI for legal education and approve the concept of a full three-year branch curriculum in Boise. The UI is instructed to re-visit the funding model for the full three year branch curriculum, to continue collaboration with the Idaho Supreme Court on the Idaho Law Learning Center, and return to the Regents for further discussion.
Second Substitute Motion (Lewis/Thilo): To authorize the UI to expand its offerings in Boise to a full third curriculum and to include a legislative appropriation in the FY 2010 budget for this expansion. The Regents recognize the statewide mission of the UI for legal education. The UI is instructed to re-visit the issue of funding and support for a full dual location model, including a full three (3) year branch curriculum in Boise, to continue collaboration with the Idaho Supreme Court on the Idaho Law Learning Center with respect to those programs to be delivered in Boise, and to return to the Regents for further discussion - Motion carried 6-2 (Agidius and Hall voted Nay).
Board member Lewis clarified his intent in the motion is to have an experience with a third year program to see how it works before considering going with something more. It allows for a continuation of the discussion.
|Employment Contract - Head Women's Soccer Coach||To approve the University of Idaho's employment contract with head women's soccer coach Peter Showler - Motion carried 7-0 (Lewis absent during vote)||8/20-22/2008||16
||To approve the Line Items for the agencies and institutions as listed in Attachment 1, to forward to the Division of Financial Management and Legislative Services Office the remaining Line Items as listed in Attachment 2, and to authorize the Executive Director to approve the MCO and Line Item budget requests, pending adjustments for increases in the Health Insurance Premium, for agencies and institutions due to DFM and LSO on September 1, 2008 - Motion carried 7-1 (Edmunds voted Nay).
Board member Westerberg presented this item and explained the process for prioritizing the line items. Board member Hall raised a question about the line related to the University of Idaho law school. He indicated he was uncomfortable in approving that particular line item until UI could adjust the costs, based on the fact that the scope of that effort was downsized from the original proposal. He asked that the Board instruct the Executive Director to review the number and to amend the number in the list of line items. Lloyd Mues of the University of Idaho spoke up and reported that the he had already been in touch with the budget officer at UI to adjust that number. He will get the revised number back to the Board.
By unanimous consent the Board agreed to this.
|Amendment to Board Policy - Section V.K. Construction Projects - First Reading||To approve the first reading of the amendment to Board Policy V.I. - Real and Personal Property and Policy V.K. Construction Projects - Motion failed 5-3 (Terrell, Edmunds and Westerberg voted in favor of the motion).
Board member Agidius raised a concern that this amendment would increase the amount that can be approved without Board review. Scott Christie of the Board office explained it was an aggregate amount, not an incremental amount. Board member Agidius said he was still not comfortable with the idea of the Board not being able to review amounts under $1,000,000 because a project could come in at $999,999 and the Board wouldn't see it. Board member Hall indicated he would vote against it for the same reason and that it hasn't been cumbersome for him to review items. Board member Westerberg suggested that work needs to take place on clarifying the intent. Another motion will come back before the Board at another time.
|Amendment to Board Policy - Section V.W., Litigation - First Reading
||To approve the first reading of Board Policy V.W.-Litigation - Motion carried unanimously
Board member Hall asked for clarification on the motion. Board member Edmunds asked about the amounts indicated. Jeff Schrader, the Board's legal counsel, indicated the ultimate dollar thresholds are solely the discretion of the Board.
|Nancy Cummings Center Project||To approve the request by the University of Idaho to increase the Capital Project Authorization for the Residential Facility, UI Nancy M. Cummings Research, Education & Extension Center, Salmon, Idaho from $1,5000,000 to $2,213,410 to allow for the full implementation of the construction phase.
To postpone this item until the next meeting -Motion carried unanimously
Lloyd Mues explained that when this project was approved in 2006, construction costs were lower. The qualified bidders came in higher than what was anticipated. Board President Terrell indicated he was very disturbed by the numbers and would vote against this proposal. Board member Agidius agreed with Board member Terrell about the numbers and suggested that the architect was wrong in his original projections. Mr. Terrell said he would like to see the justification for the amounts. Board member Hall said he would like to see a justification from the institution that the additional costs are worth it to the institution. He raised a concern as to where the additional money will come from.
|Interdisciplinary- Studio Complex - Art and Architectures Project
||To authorize the University of Idaho to proceed with project planning and design for an interdisciplinary studio complex, at a cost not to exceed $400,000, to be funded with private in-kind donations and gift funds - Motion carried unanimously
Lloyd Mues of the University of Idaho presented this item. Board President Terrell clarified that this is tied to $3.5 million of other funding.
|Litigation Collection Action 1
||To approve filing of the complaint discussed in executive session and authorize the General Counsel of the University of Idaho to sign the complaint and all other documents necessary for filing the complaint - Motion carried unanimously||8/20-22/2008
|Litigation Collection Action 2||To approve filing of the complaint discussed in executive session and authorize the General Counsel of the University of Idaho to sign the complaint and all other documents necessary for filing the complaint - Motion carried unanimously||8/20-22/2008||19
|Litigation Collection Action 3||To approve filing of the complaint discussed in executive session and authorize the General Counsel of the University of Idaho to sign the complaint and all other documents necessary for filing the complaint - Motion carried unanimously||8/20-22/2008||19
|Other Business||Board member Terrell explained that the Executive Committee still has on its agenda to look at the idea of providing incentives for college presidents as part of their contracts. He asked Board member Lewis to take part in that discussion.||8/20-22/2008||22
|Performance Measure Presentation||Steven Daley-Laursen congratulated the Board on this effort and agreed it needs to be further refined. In terms of performance measures, the University of Idaho sees a big gap in what the state can provide and what the UI views as its vision. The UI has a long-range goal and recognizes it needs a wide variety of resources. Board member Hall raised a question about concurrent enrollments. Provost Baker noted that UI will forward actual numbers to the Board by the end of the day if possible. Board President Terrell asked the Board to consider how the Board looks at concurrent enrollments, specifically should it be in terms of regional or statewide enrollments. A general comment from the Board is to have head count and credit hour enrollment provided.||10/9-10/2008||4|
|Foundation Agreements for BSU, ISU and UI||To approve the Memorandum of Understanding between the BSU Foundation and Boise State University, and to recognize the Boise State University Foundation as an affiliated foundation to benefit Boise State University - Motion carried unanimously
To approve the Operating Agreement between the ISU Foundation and Idaho State University, and to recognize the Idaho State University Foundation as an affiliated foundation to benefit Idaho State University - Motion carried unanimously
To approve the Operating Agreement between the UI Foundation and the University of Idaho, and to recognize the UI Foundation as an affiliated foundation to benefit University of Idaho - Motion carried unanimously
Board member Lewis joined the meeting by telephone at this time to report on the work of the Audit Committee related to the relationships of the foundations and the universities. He noted that the agreements are included in the Board materials. Mr. Lewis suggested that the Board continue to review the agreements and make changes as the Board sees the need.
With respect to this review, the Audit Committee tried to focus on the relationship of the actual staff members to the foundation and university employees. The Audit Committee took the view that the foundation director should not be a person who is a university employee. Likewise, university employees should not serve in an executive position on the foundation. In that regard the foundation executive should report directly to the foundation board and the power to hire and fire that person should rest with the foundation board. The person employed by the university in a fund raising position will report directly to the university. A separation of funds and a separation of access to funds shall also by maintained.
Mr. Lewis said another important point is that the foundation cannot accept any gift that requires a commitment of some sort on the university or the Board until prior approval was given by the Board. Mr. Lewis noted the clear line of delineation between the foundation and the university is outlined in a Memorandum of Agreement.
|New and Reactivation of Positions||To approve the request by the University of Idaho to establish five (5) new positions and reactivate two (2) positions supported by appropriated funds - Motion carried unanimously
Lloyd Mues presented the details of this item.
|Employment Contract - Co-Head Track and Field Coach||To approve the University of Idaho's employment contract with co-head track and field coach Carla "Yogi" Teevens as submitted - Motion carried unanimously||10/9-10/2008||12
|FY 2008 Carry-Over Funds||To approve the requests by Boise State University, Idaho State University, University of Idaho, Lewis-Clark State College, ISU Dental Education Program, ISU Museum of Natural History, UI Agricultural Research and Extension Service, UI WWAMI Medical Education Program, and Division of Professional-Technical Education, to carry over authorized but unspent funds in the amounts specified in the agenda materials from FY2008 and FY2009 - Motion carried unanimously||10/9-10/2008||12
|Proposed Amendment to Board Policy - Section V.R., Fees||To direct staff to bring forward an amendment to Board Policy V.R.3., adding differential fees -Motion carried 5-3 (Hall, Lewis, and Luna voted nay)
There was discussion about the reasoning behind this request. It was noted that certain programs and courses have higher lab and operating costs such as the engineering program, health programs, business programs, and others. In order to be able to maintain the quality of those offerings it is necessary to charge a higher fee. The institutions explained that all increases would come to the Board for review and approval.
|Lionel Hampton School Renovation||To approve the request by the UI to execute all necessary contracts in support of design for the renovations and expansion of the Music Building and for construction of renovations within the Recital Hall, for a total project budget of $1,590,686 - Motion carried unanimously
Board member Hall asked for clarification on the use of HUD funds. Lloyd Mues indicated that email correspondence and phone conversations have taken place.
|Nancy Cummings Research Center Project||To approve the request by the University of Idaho to increase the Capital Project Authorization for the Residential Facility, UI Nancy M. Cummings Research, Education & Extension Center, Salmon, Idaho form $1,500,000 to $2,213,410 to allow for the full implementation of the construction phase -Motion failed unanimously
Lloyd Mues presented this item. He introduced Dean John Hammel and Ray Pankopt, Director of Architectural Services at the University of Idaho to provide clarification. Mr. Pankopt explained that in the last two years, since the original bids, there have been great and unpredictable fluctuations in the construction industry. He noted that when UI came to the point of advertising the project in the spring of 2008, another round of value engineering and scop examinations were undertaken. He pointed out that the bid prices received were from six contractors and that they were very tightly grouped. UI is asking to pursue the project at that level since the bids have expired. It may have to go out to bid again and it may be the bids will be even lower this time. The Board suggested there be some change in the scope of this project.
|Status of Family and Graduate Student Housing and Potential Development Option||This information item has materials in the agenda materials.||10/9-10/2008||13
|Settlement Agreement 1||To approve the settlement and to authorize the VPFA of the UI to sign all necessary settlement documents - Motion carried unanimously||10/9-10/2008||13
|Settlement Agreement 3||To approve the settlement and to authorize the Vice President of Finance of the University of Idaho to sign all necessary settlement documents -Motion carried 4-1-1-0 (Hall voted Nay, Thilo abstained, Lewis was absent for the vote).||10/9-10/2008||14
|Litigation Collection Action||To approve filing of the complaint discussed in executive session and authorize the General Counsel of the UI to sign the complaint and all other documents necessary for filing the complaint - Motion carried unanimously||10/9-10/2008||14
|GEAR-UP Evaluation Contract||To direct the GEAR UP staff, working with the Executive Director and Division of Purchasing, to develop and release a request for proposal leading to the award of a contract for evaluation services not to exceed $173,300 per year - Motion carried unanimously.
Executive Director Rush indicated that the maximum created in this motion is based on the experience of other GEAR-UP programs across the US; it is at the low end. There was discussion about sending this out to an RFP. Dr. Rush noted that the dollar figure was included in order to give the Board a level of comfort.
|New and Reactivated Positions||Lloyd Mues of the UI indicated the the university is asking for five reactivations. These positions have been vacant for up to twelve months. Student fees will not be used to pay for these positions. Ui operates with a position-pause which means if does not fill a vacant position without further consideration of its necessity. Significant dollars savings have resulted to date using this approach. Mr. Mues indicated that the university is looking at the possibility of notifying faculty on December 15 of not-renewal of contracts, but it has not been decided to do so at this time. As far as exigency, UI has a heightened awareness due to the situation, but is not planning on exigency. To approve the request by the UI to establish two (2) new positions and reactivate five (5) positions supported by appropriated funds - Motion carried 7-1 (Hall voted nay).||12/4-5/2008||12-13
|Kibbie Dome - Life Safety Improvement Project||To approve the request by the Universit of Idaho to implement the Initial Construction Phase for the life safety improvements in the ASUI Kibbie Activity Center, at a cost not to exceed ten million dollars ($10,000,000), resulting in a total project authorization value up to twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) - Motion carried unanimously
Lloyd Mues presentd this item. He noted it is not a new issue. UI is asking for permission to move forward with construction on life safety improvements of the Kibbie Dome. He presented more details and gave a status report to the Board.
Board member Lewis indicated that the financing question is critical to consider given the current economic picture. Lloyd Mues explained the UI had anticipated bonding, but right now their credit rating would drop so much UI was advised not to take the route. UI has worked with its bank which agreed to give the University a shrot-term construction loan. He explained the University's plan in terms of financing to make sure payments can be made.
State Superintendent Luna asked if UI is still comforable with their financial plan. Mr. Mues said this plan is already in place and will play out in such away without asking for any increase to their plan. Board member Edmunds asked if construction estimates have been determined and if a construction design person has been hired. Mr. Mues noted that last week a construction design person was hired. He also indicated that UI found some efficiencies on the design so that the original early cost estimates have been reduced.
|Kibbie Dome - Life Safety Construction Loan||To approve the request by the University of Idaho for a non-revolving line of credit with a principal amount not to exceed ten million dollars ($10,000,000) and with a term of 24 months, requiring payments of interest only at an interest rate set at the Wells Fargo Prime less .65%, and to authorize the President of the Board to sign the Authorizing Resolution and to further authorize the Vice President of Finance to execute the Loan Agreement and Promissory Note, all in substantially the same form as attached to the board materials under this agenda item, as well as such other associated documents necessary to carry out the Loan Agreement - Motion carried unanimously.
Board President Terrell asked how UI will secure the note. Lloyd Mues indicated that UI has already coordinated with Wells Fargo and they have already looked at the draft and are convinced that their risk is fine. Mr. Mues noted that the activity fee is the collateral. Board member Lewis directed Mr. Terrell to the details provided in the Board materials.
|Educational Broadcast Service Lease||To approve the request by the University of Idaho to enter into a lease of its EBS FCC License to Digitalbridge Spectrum Corporation in substantially the same for as the attached lease and to authorize the Financial Vice President to execute all necessary related documents - Motion carried unanimously.||12/4-5/2008||16
|Research Dairy Progress Report||Board member Westerberg introduced Rich Garber and Kent Nelson of the UI to present this item. Handouts were provided to the Board. It was noted this is a report on the concept. UI expects to bring back a full proposal to the Board alond with a complete funding package.
At this time, the Board returned to item 3 of the Human Resources Agenda.
|Fee Increases in Excess of Ten Percent||Approval to submit fee increases in excess of ten percent - this item was pulled from the agenda.||12/4-5/2008||18
|Amendment to Board Policy - Section V.W. - Litigation||To approve the second reading of Board Policy V.W. - Litigation with a revision of the threshold for institution approval increasing to $50,000 for both initiation and settlement of legal matters -Motion carried unanimously.
Board member Westerberg presented this item. Board member Agidius indicated this is a good threshold. He noted that the Board would still be advised of all litigation and settlements regardless.
At this time Dr. Kustra of Boise State University acknowledged the role that Dennis Griffin has played in getting the College of Western Idhao established. He also thanked Sona Andrews, Stacy Pearson, and Kevin Satterlee of Boise State University for their leadership and patience. He expressed appreciation to Rod Lewis and Milford Terrell of the Board of Education for their hard work as well. Dr. Kustra presented Mr. Griffin with a framed picture of the CWI campus as an expression of his thanks.
|Dual Credit Task Force Update||Jason Hancock presented a report on the Dual Credit Task Force. He noted that the Taskforce was charged to study and develop a plan for implementing concurrent secondary/postsecondary courses offered to qualifying eleventh-grade and twelfth-grade students in Idaho's public high schools. In addition, the task force was to develop a statewide unified plan for delivering concurrent college credit coursework to high school students. The task force recommendations include having the state help pay the credit fees for students so that classes are more affordable and accessible t the general population. A reporting andpayment structure would be put into place so that SDE could pay those fees directly to the postsecondary institutions. The funds for this would come out of the Public Education budget. It is anticipated that the Dual Credit Task Force will finalize their work in December and make recommendations to the Governor and the Idaho Legislature in 2009. Mr. Hancock acknowledged that the budget cuts could impact the extent of what can be approved in FY 2010.
Board member Agidius raised a point about the possibility some districts have suggested that the postsecondary institutions give them a portion of any money they collect for offering dual enrollment courses. He suggested that serious issues could result if that is the case. Mr. Luna indicated that he is not award of that situtation happening, but would look into it further.
|Presentation of Annual Financial Audit of the Colleges and Universities||To accept from the Audit Committee the Fiscal Year 2008 financial audit reports for BSU, ISU, UI, LCSC and EITC as presented by Moss Adams, LLP -Motion carried unanimously.
Board member Lewis presented this item. He introduced Mary Case and Scott Simpson of Moss Adams, LLP to give a report on the audit.
Mary Case summarized the process undertaken by Moss Adams, LLP in conducting the audit of the institutions. She indicated that they had found clean financial statements for all of the institutions this year. There was a delay in finalizing the report due to change in the reporting methods used by the Idaho State Foundation. Ms. Case reported that Moss Adams, LLP had met with the Board's audit committee last week to go over everthing in detail.
Scott Simpson reviewed the internal controls and findings for the Board. A handout was provided to the Board members with the details of the report. Mr. Simpson clarified that a materiality threshold was net in conducting the audit to make sure the financial statements were presented in accordance with general accounting principles.
Mr. Simpson discussed the required communications with the Audit Committee. He noted that it is each institution's responsibility to prepare the financial statements and be sure they are complete. If there are any audit adjustments, Moss Adams, LLP is required to report those. If there are any disagreements with management, those are reported to the Board. Any consultationswith other accountants, on the part of the institutions, are required to be reported by Moss Adams, LLP. All the audits went smoothly this year.
Mary Case noted that this past year, there was a suite of standards imposed on the audit board that were greater than before. As a result, the institutions were required to document their internal controls. She commended the institutions for their cooperation.
Board member Lewis thanked Moss Adams, LLP for their presentation. He followed up by reporting on the work of the Board's Audit Committee. The Audit Committee is making good progress and its professional members are highly qualified for the assignment. The Audit Committee would like to have the internal auditors of the institutions report to the Audit Committee on a regular basis in order t have a current grasp of the details and be able to address concerns sooner. The Audit Committee wants to improve the coordination between the foundations and the Board so it's considering having the foundation auditors also report to the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee is concerned about the timing of the financial statements so, as a result, is considering asking for quarterly reports from the institutions. Mr. Lewis indicated that the State Controller's Office is requesting all information be provided to them under one standard. As a result, the Board has requested that the foundations and institutions provide the Board all of their information according to the State Controllers request.
Board member Lewis pointed out that the primary function of the Audit committee is t look at quality controls, procedures, etc. He noted that the Board's Business Affairs and Human Resources (BAHR) Committee has the responsibility to review the institutions' financial statements. The Audit Committee believes it is important that it has access to that information as well, so it will begin to meet on a quarterly basis with BAHR in order to rview the financial statements and have open discussions as a Board.
Mr. Lewis indicated the Audit Committee will request the institutional Finance Vice President bring the Board updates as to how they have, and will continue to handle their responses to the audit findings. Board member Edmunds noted that it is essential to have more timely information from the institutions in order to address issues on a timely basis.
Board member Edmunds asked Moss Adams, LLP if the Board is where it needs to be with the foundations. Mary Case indicated that the Board is going in the right direction and continuing in that direction is prudent. He asked about the segregation of dities between the foundations and the institutions. Ms. Case indicated that there is a level of cross over taking place between the University of Idaho and its foundation which needs to be addressed. She noted that there is cross over between Idaho State University and its foundation as well, but the accounts are segregated so it's not the same concern. This is the same at Boise State University. Mr. Edmunds asked if the Board needs to do more and if the foundation agreements are adequate. Ms. Case said the Board has mre work to do in that area. Ms. Case commended the Board for strengthening the Audit Committee to the degree it has over the past few years. It is a strong committee and a good example to the institutions.
At this time, Board President Terrell took time to commend Lewis-Clark State College Baseball Coach Ed Cheff who was named the winner of the American Baseball Coaches' Association's 2009 Lefty Gomez Award for his lifetime contributions to amateur baseball. Coach Cheff received the award at the ABCA's annual convention awards dinner held on January 3, 2009. Mr. Terrell reported that Coach Cheff also received the ABCA's NAIA Region I Coach of the Year award for 2008.
Board President Terrell also acknowledged Wayne Hammnd and Joyce McRoberts from the Governor's Office.
|Concurrent Resolution - Research Dairy||To authorize the University of Idaho to submit concurrent resolutionto authorize the Building Authority to work with and enter into contract with the University of Idaho, either for itself or in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and the Land Board, for financing and development of the Research Dairy Project as long as such contracting to be done is in compliance with the policies of the State Board of Education and that neither the Building Authority nor the University of Idaho move beyond the approved planning phase without any such agrements being approved by the State Board of Education.
To postpone item D until the February meeting - Motion carried unanimously.
Board member Hall asked for discussion if item D - Concurrent Resolution - Research Dairy, to clarify where the funds for the project will come from. Lloyd Mues of the University of Idaho responded to the Board's inquiries. After lengthy discussion, the Board agreed to postpone this item until the February meeting when University of Idaho staff can be present to give additional details and explanation. Board member Edmunds clarified that the University of Idaho already has the Board's permission to engage in planning efforts.
|2010-2014 Strategic Plan Direction||Board member Hall introduced this time. He noted that the intent at this point is to make the Baord aware of the staff efforts under way to assist the Board with its strategic planning efforts. Dr. Rush provided background information. He noted that the original strategic planning process occurred too late in the year to fit with the Board's planning calendar. An attempt has been made to change that. The next step is to give the Board a preview prior to February when this will come before the Board.
Board member Hall indicated that the Board requires the institutions to provide the Board with their five-year plan. He suggested that there needs to be a better understanding between the Board and the institutions just what those five-year plans entail or are to be used for. He asked the Board, as they go through the strategic planning process, to be mindful of the need to clarify that point.
Board member Edmunds expressed concern that there is too much competition in the state for limited dollars. He suggested exploring that issue more fully as part of the strategic plan. He would like to better understand the role of the Board in regards to K-12.
Board member Westerberg pointed out that the mission and vision statements are quite a bit different than in the past. He urged the Board members to speak up if they have issues because when the strategic plan is finished it will be more concrete in terms of performance measures.
The question arose as to whether enough time has been given to overhauling the Board's strategic plan. Board President Terrell agreed that more time needs to be spent on the plan to be sure it fits with what the Governor has directed the Board to do in terms of reorganization. A meeting will be arranged prior t the February meeting to continue the work of strategic planning.
President Vailas of Idaho State University was invited to speak. He agreed that the institution's plan should align with the Board's plan. He suggested that there needs to be clarification regarding the role of the Board's plan in terms of the economic development goals of the state. In addition, it needs to be determined if the time spent by the institutions in creating their plans is a good use of resources. Board President Terrell directed staff to go back to see what the Board has already approved from the institution plans.
|Student Housing Report||Lloyd Mues discussed this item for the Board. It was noted that the Lewiston Tribune had not reported the story about co-ed housing correctly. He emphasized there is not intention by the University of Idaho for male and female students to share rooms.||1/26/2009||8
|Dual Credit Legislation||State Superintendent Luna presented this information item. He summarized the work of the task force and the process undertaken to come up with final recommendations. He noted the recommendations will be presented t the Legislature this month. The recommendations include the proposal for a statewide dual credit fee reimbursement. A copy of the draft legislation related t that was provided to the Board in their agenda materials. Mr. Luna noted that the committee that was put together had 24 individuals participating and 16 of those came from the education field.
Board member Hall asked for clarification on the fee. Mr. Luna indicated that the current fee that ws agreed upon is $65 per credit; the state will reimburse $50 of that fee and the student will pay the rest. He indicated that Board policy will set the per credit fee on an annual basis.
Mr. Hall raised a concern about the significant reduction in dual enrollments at ISU and NIC and asked the institutions to speak to those enrollments. There was discussion between the Board, Board staff, the SDE staff, and the institutions about the accuracy of the numbers and the reliability of 10th day numbers. The numbers in question will be reviewed. Mr. Hall asked that the Board staff and the institutions provide footnotes and explanation for the data they turn in.
There was discussion related to issues raised by the provosts and vice presidents. Dale Bower of the Board office reported that the concerns expressed had to do with the governance role of postsecondary institutions in the area of dual enrollment. Dr. Vailas indicated that the concerns related to a lack of written instructions at the state level as t how the oversight will be executed by the institutions. He noted that the accrediting bodies have expressed concerns about this as well. He urged the Board to provide a required set of detail that all higher education and secondary education institutions must follow to give assurance to the accrediting bodies that the postsecondary institutions are in compliance.
Board member Lewis asked for clarification related to the comments from the institutions about changing the definition of eligible institutions and also deleting language under the heading of Courses According to Agreements. Dr. Bower indicated that CAAP members felt they wanted something more substantive to accreditation and that it would be meaningful to have those as part of the language of the legislation. As far as proximity of services, it was felt it would be better for the high schools to work with the institution in their region.
State Superintendent Luna reported that the task force had discussed at length the topic of regional monopolies. The task force had agreed that by giving students the option of selecting an institution outside of the region they lived in, students would have a greater opportunity to take the courses they needed or wanted. The task force found that people around the state were in agrement that they didn't want to be limited geographically. Mr. Luna reiterated that half of the task force members were from postsecondary institutions. Everyone except BSU supported the idea of allowing students to work at the institution of their choice to obtain the education they are seeking.
Selena Grace of the Board staff indicated that the biggest concern of the institutions is that high schools will go out and shop for the best deal, thereby pitting the postsecondary institutions against one another. She noted that some institutions are able to provide services or deals that other institutions cannot. State Superintendent Luna reminded the Board that this legislation relates to a scholarship program that allows students to participate in the dual credit opportunities already out there; students who may not be financially able to afford to take the courses otherwise. He urged the Board to base their decision on what is best for the student, not what is good for the bureaucracy. Board membre Lewis suggested, on the regional issue, that the Board be involved in the discussion.
At this time, Board member Hall was excused from the remainder of the meeting to attend to other business.
Board President Terrell took the opportunity to commend the University of Idaho for the initiative to take a hard look at cutting and downsizing programs.
|New Positions and Reactivation||By unanimous consent, the Board agreed to approve the request by the University of Idaho to establish one (1) new position and reactivate one (1) position (2.0 total FTE) supported by reallocation of appropriated funds.||2/25-26/2009||3
|Strategic Planning Presentation||M/S (Terrell/Westerberg): To approve the State board of Education Strategic Plan as submitted. Specific performance measures and benchmarks included in this plan may be modified, as appropriated, by the Executive Director - Motion passed 5-0 (Luna absent during the vote)
Executive Director Mike Rush and Traci Bent of the Board office presented the Strategic Plan. Ms. Bent discussed the updated Vision Statement and Mission Statement. She also discussed the new goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan. The Board discussed the process and the plan itself at length.
Board member Edmunds expressed his view that the goals in the proposed plan are not where the Board wants to go in the future. He would like more work to be done before approving the plan. Board member Westergerg agreed that there is work to be done, but that progress has been made. Board President Terrell concurred. Ms. Bent pointed out that the intent is for the Board to approve the proposed Strategic Plan with the understanding it is the starting point. More work will be done by the Board in May at its retreat, and in the coming months and year to building on the approved plan.
Dr. Rush explained that because of the changes in external and internal factors, as well as in the entities involved, the strategic planning process, by virtue of what it is, remains an ongoing effort. He suggested the idea of a task force being appointed to focus just on strategic planning, and that it be driven by the State Board of Education. Board member Thilo reinforced what Dr. Rush said noting that the strategic plan is an evolving document. She indicated that she is please with the fact that what is before the Board today is something the Bard cna work with.
Board member Edmunds emphasized that he is disconcerted that this plan doesn't get to the next level of planning. Board member Westerberg suggested that a strategic plan is broad and identifies the destination while an operational plan provides the more detailed things that need to be accomplished. Board member Westerberg reminded the Board that it is up against a deadline and urged the Board to approve the plan today and then move forward. Dr. Rush suggested that one of the objectives that can be added to the plan is to define the mission and role of the institutions.
Ms. Bent discussed the voluntary system of accountability by the institutions. While participation is voluntary, Board staff asked the Board to consider requiring all the institutions participate. Ms. Bent pointed out that the Board isn't being asked to vote on this suggestion at this time, but to consider it in the future.
Dr. Rush invited recommendations for modifications. boardmember Edmunds suggested there be an objetive included that relates to an annual evaluation of the mission statements of the colleges and universities, beginning with a comprehensive review of the mission statements; and that it is updated annually - By unanimous consent, the Board agreed.
Board member Thilo asked to have an objective related to lifelong learning, to include re-education and retraining to improve the quality of life - By unanimous consent that such an objective will be included in the document.
Board member Edmunds suggested an objective to evaluate and determine the method for expanding the population of postsecondary students. Board member Westerberg suggested that the Board's responsibility was to put forward the goal and not specifically tell the colleges and institutions how it gets done, but let that be in their plan. Mr. Edmunds agreed, but he expressed concern that there are certain items that cross all the institutions so it seems that the Board should give a directive in such cases. Mr. Westerberg agreed, but reiterated that if too much detail is included, it gets confusing. Board President Terrell agreed with Mr. Westerberg.
He noted that the Board has been directed to stay out of the day-to-day details. He suggested that the objective stay broad.
Board member Edmunds asked about the direction the Board is headed in terms of its focus. He suggested that the Board should take responsibility for how that is determined. Board member Westerberg observed that this starting point will take the Board to those in depth discussions in the future.
Board President Terrell suggested that the Board go through a portion of the strategic plan at every Board meeting. Board member Westerberg pointed out that there will be time in May to have detailed discussion and help the Board staff have the mind and will of the Board. Board member Edmunds suggested having work groups appointed to look at various parts of the plan to identify issues, and then report back to the Board with their ideas and recommendations. Executive Director Rush asked about putting together a plan for a planning task force - By unanimous consent, the Board agreed that Dr. Rush should do this.
Board member Edmunds suggested there be a position statement to send to the Legislature each year clarifying the key items the Board would like to address. Dr. Rush explained that there are several aspects to consider. First, the items that require specific legislative language have to be submitted in August. Dr. Rush suggested that the Board could identify those items at its retreat in May, and forward them to the board for approval at the June meeting. Dr. Rush indicated that the second aspect to consider is that the Board's annual budget request frames the position the Board has determined to take; and this provides the Legislature with a focus. The third aspect is a general philosophical director, based on the strategic plan, the Board might want the Legislature to take in the decisions it makes; it could be drafted at the May retreat. Board member Edmunds indicated that the third point is what he is recommending.
Dr. Rush thanked the Board staff and the institutions for the significant amount of time that they have spent on the strategic planning process.
|Audit Committee Charter||To approve the charter of the Audit Committee as presented on pages 3-13 - Motion carried 5-0 (Luna absent during the vote).
Board member Edmunds presented this item. He discussed the various aspects of the charter. He noted it does make significant changes to the internal audit mechanism. He reported that the internal relationship will change with the external audit. It will also allow the Audit Committee to have more input to what is going on at the institution.
Board President Terrell invited input from the Presidents' Council. Dr. Kustra from BSU suggested that there needs to be an opportunity for institution presidents to call upon the internal auditors to address issues of concern. He asked for clarification related to the reporting relationships of the internal auditors. Mr. Edumunds noted that the reporting relationships are defined to avoid internal conflicts. The explained that this charter is modeled after best practices. It was felt that there needed to be an ongoing role for the internal auditor at the institutions, but the ultimate responsibility of this position will be to the Audit Committee.
Dr. Vails of Idaho State University suggested that a schematic be included that shows the reporting relationships. It might be helpful to have a reporting plan for the institutions that clarifies whtat the Audit Committee wants and also what the institutions need. Mr. Edmunds indicated that is already part of the language and that those issues are covered. In terms of intent, Dr. Vailas expressed concern about time and effort on the part of the institutions in regards to the various cycles that they have to conform to already. Mr. Edmunds indicated that there will not be a significant change in time and effort, just in how they report.
Board member Agidius clarified that the internal auditor will do their normal jobs. Mr. Edmunds indicated that since the Audit Committee is directing the plan, they will effectively direct the work of the internal auditor. It is not expected that there will be a significant change in how they do their work at this point.
Chet Herbst indicated that Lewis-Clark State College supported the idea and the intent behind the new charter. The institution can live with the spirit of the charter. He noted that at LCSC some staff currently perform dual tasks because of the size of the institution. He indicated that there are tactical lines of reporting and virtual lines of reporting. LCSC hopes that if the Board has a specific task it needs done, it would directly approach the institution so that the appropriate person can follow up.
Board President Terrell indicated that he has discussed various issues with Board member Lewis who chairs the Audit Committee. He noted that the institutions are encouraged to direct their concerns or questions to the chair of the Audit Committee. Mr. Terrell reiterated that this is a focus of the Board. It is something that the Governor desires as well.
Jim Fletcher of Idaho State University noted that from an operational financial point of view, the most important thing the internal auditor can do is internal control. That is why there is always a difference between the internal and external auditors. The internal auditor has to be invested. They need to look at policy compliance. It may not be part of an audit plan, but rather as a result of an issue that has been reported. He suggested that the charter be worded in such a way that it recognizes that the primary role of the internal auditor is internal and that it is not compromised in any way. Mr. Edmunds noted that the Audit Committee is complying with the best practices which are key to the points that Mr. Fletcher raised.
Board member Westerberg noted that the day-to-day control issue is important. He asked what mechanism is in place by the Audit Committee to address unexpected issues that come pu. Mr. Edmunds said that expectation is that there will be flexibility and time allowed to handle situations. From a practical standpoint, the Audit Committee meets quarterly for updates. The plan will have flexibility. At the same time, there will be certain instances laid out in advance that the instituations will need to address and time will be allocated to manage them. Mr. Westerberg clarified that on a day-to-day basis, not much will change for the internal auditor.
There was discussion about who would approve the hiring and termination of internal auditors.
To amend the charter as approved to provide for the Audit Committee's approval for the institutions to terminate the internal auditors - Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Edmunds referred to a paragraph that was deleted from the charter having to do with authority to conduct special investigations and engage experts. He asked the Board to discuss that point separately and determine if that was a function it wanted to turn over to the Audit Committee.
To approve that the Audit Committee shall be authorized to conduct special investigations and engage experts or professional consultants as necessary. Also, that the Audit Committee shall determine available funds in the Systemwide Needs budget of the Office of the State Board of Education before authorizing any expenditure -Motion FAILED by unanimous vote.
|2008 Financial Reviews||Board member Westerberg presented this item. Each institution was invited to give a brief analysis of the financial information being presented. The point was raised that it would be helpful to disaggregate the data in order to make this a better management tool for the institutions. It was also noted that this type of review is generic and doesn't consider that the institutions are all different from each other. It was also suggested that the Board look at the weighting factors because they haven't been reviewed or modified for a number of years.||2/25-26/2009||11
|Tenant Improvements at Legacy Point, Idaho Water Center||To approve the request by the University of Idaho to execute all necessary contracts in support of design and construction of the tenant improvements at Legacy Point in the Idaho Water Center, with a project budget not to exceed $875,000 to be funded solely from private donations - Motion carried unanimously.||2/25-26/2009||12
|Transfer of Real Property - Nez Perce County||To approve the transfer of real property to the University of Idaho and authorize the University of Idaho's Vice President for Finance and Administration to execute the necessary documents in substantial conformance to the form submitted to the Board in Attachment 1 - Motion carried unanimously.||2/25-26/2009||12-13
|Research Dairy||To authorize the University of Idaho to seek a concurrent resolution of the Idaho Legislature pursuant of Idaho Code Section 67-6410 in substantially the form as attached to the Board materials. Any agreement or agreements between the University of Idaho and the Idaho State Building Authority, as contemplated in the concurrent resolution, shall be submitted to the Board of Regents for approval at a future meeting, prior to the University entering into any such agreement and prior to the transfer of any funds from the Division of Public Works to the Building Authority - Motion carried unanimously.
Board member Westerberg introduced this item. He noted it had come before the Board previously, but that there was a request for clarification. He pointed out that the Board agenda materials include additional details for the benefit of the Board.
|Amendment to Board Policy - Section V.T. - Fee/Tuition - First Reading||To approve the first reading of Board Policy V.T. - Fee/Tuition Waivers - Motion carried unanimously.
Board member Westerberg presented this item. It was noted this policy amendment is first reading.
|Other Business||Board President Terrell once again thanked Board member Thilo for her service. He indicated that Ms. Thilo will continue to serve on the Medical Education Committee as a not-Board member in order to help facilitate it because of her experience with the committee.||2/25-26/2009||14
|Don Soltman - new SBOE member||At this time, Board President Terrell introduced Don Soltman in the audience. Mr. Soltman was recently appointed by Governor Otter to serve on the Board of Education. He will be appearing before the Legislature for confirmation hearings later this week.||4/06/2009||1
|Student Tuition & Fee Rates for Academic Year 2009-2010||Board member Westerberg outlined the day's schedule for setting the FY2010 student tuition and fee rates for the colleges and universities. Scott Christie of the Board office explained that policy directs the Board to consider recommended fees as compared to fees at peer institutions, percent fee increases compared to inflationary factors, fees as a percent of per capita income and/or household income, and the share students pay of their education costs. Other criteria may be considered as appropriate. It was noted that an institution cannot request more than a ten percent increase in total full-time student fee unless otherwise authorized by the Board.
Mr. Chrisite noted that the Council on Academic Affairs and Programs (CAAP) had reviewed the professional fee requests from Idaho State University and the University of Idaho, and is supportive of the requests. Also, per Board policy, the institutions notified students of proposed fee increases and conducted public hearings. Mr. Christie reviewed the various chart details provided to the Board in their agenda materials having to do with general fee-related background.
|Student Tuition & Fee Rates for Academic Year 2009-2010||President Steven Daley-Laursen presented the proposed fee recommendation and introduced Vice President of Finance Lloyd Mues to discuss the details. Student Body President Garrett Holbrook and Student Lobbyist James Smith were also introduced.
Dr. Laursen explained that the proposed increase for FY2010 is 8.5%. Students pay about 17% of the total revenue that comes into the institution. UI does not want to reduce the array of student development opportunities or increase the amount of time it takes for students t complete their education. The process undertaken to arrive at the proposed fee increase was thorough. The request is about minimizing the impact on students and their families at the same time staying focused on quality. At the time of the proposed fee increase discussion there were about 80 faculty positions that were targeted to be cut. UI has a solid plan and is not relying solely on fees to fund the needs of the institution. In the last few years the UI reallocated internally, and has realized increased enrollments as a result. Strategic enrollment management has also been successful in helping the UI to project enrollment numbers. In regards to advancement, UI has been successful. UI has utilized strategic program utilization to target programs that were light in enrollment or heavy in costs. A request from the departments for suggestions of efficiencies and effective use of funds brought forward many ideas that can be used by UI to save and better utilize investments.
Garrett Holbrook presented concerns and issues raised by students related to fees. In terms of student involvement, the process has been thorough and transparent. Students worry that if UI can't keep up or pay staff and faculty a salary that will keep them there, they may leave UI. That situation would be to the detriment of the students. Also, without sufficient staff and faculty, students are more likely to miss classes they need to graduate, etc. Mr. Holbrook indicated that the students at UI have approved the proposal even though it will be a hardship because the hardship is outweighed by the desire of the successful, strong, and quality education and future.
Lloyd Mues presented additional details to the Board. UI anticipates enrollment going up by one percent. As to the reserves, UI will continue to work to build that back up. Mr. Mues reviewed the matriculation fee which covers student services, institutional support, and plant operations. He discussed the scope of the facilities fee, the technology fee, and the activities fees. Mr. Mues emphasized that even with the stimulus dollars and the recommended fee increase, there will still be a significant negative of about $2 million at the UI. UI has taken about 80 positions out of its base already. There will potentially be additional personnel and program cuts of one sort or another. Mr. Mues emphasized again that the strategic reserve fund balances need to go up because they are currently at the lowest that UI can tolerate.
|Student Tuition and Fee Rates for Academic Year 2009-2010||M/S (Westerberg/Edmunds): To approve the annual full-time resident student fee rates for FY2010 for UI at an overall increase of 6.5%, to include matriculation, facility, technology, and activity fees; and to approve the annual full-time student fee rate increase for nonresident tuition of 0% - Motion carried unanimously.
M/S (Westerberg/Agidius): To approve all other fees other than the annual full-time resident and non resident student fee rate for FY2010 for UI as contained in the UI Fee motion sheet which will be made part of the written minutes- Motion carried unanimously.
M/S (Westerberg/Agidius): Provided that if the Idaho Legislature approves a personnel cost reduction that is less than 5%, then all resident and non-resident general education fees, including feeds for tuition/matriculation for full-time, part-time, summer, and graduate students, shall be adjusted to account for the additional general funds realized by any change to the personnel funding apropriation - Motion carried unanimously.
|New Board member Don Soltman||The Board met for its regular business meeting on Thursday, April 16, 2009 in the Clearwater/Whitewater Room at the University of Idaho Commons Building in Moscow, Idaho. Board President Milford Terrell called the meeting to order at 8:07am. Mr Terrell took a few monents to thank President Steven Daley-Laursen for hosting the Board at the University of Idaho.
Board President Terrell introduced Don Soltman, the newest member of the Board. His appointment was recently approved by the Legislature. The Board members welcomed him. Mr. Soltman thanked the Board for the opportunity to serve along side of them.
|Open Forum||Lee Shellman of Coeur d'Alene briefly addressed the Board. He represented the Kootenai County Boosters and indicated that they would like the Board to consider having a separate group of people act as the Bard of Regents for the University of Idaho. Their feeling is that the University would be better represented that way. The Board thanked Mr. Shellman.||4/15-17/2009||2
|Progress Report||Dr. Steven Daley-Laursen presented the status report for the University of Idaho to the Board. He thanked all of the staff at the University of Idaho who worked to make arrangements for the Board meeting and for their hard and commitment all year long.
Dr. Daley-Laursen reported that in spite of a year filled with great uncertainty, the University of Idaho continued to stay on the cutting edge, and worked well internally and also with its outside partners in that regard. He summarized the University's strategic course and processes noting that UI is focused on transforming students, impacting complex issues through interdisciplinary creative and research activities, building prosperous communities and industries through outreach and engagement, and building a sustainable work environment. He noted that UI is engaged in applied learning, service, and research to make a difference in both rural and urband Idaho. Dr. Daley-Laursen spoke about the University's goal to build a sustainable work environment while being efficient in its operations, continuint to offer quality educational opportunities, and advancing the mission of the University. He discussed the University's strategic plan as it aligns with the Board's plan.
Rod Lewis and Tom Luna joined the meeting by conference phone at this time.
|Medical Education Update||M/S (Westerberg/Edmunds): To embrace the principles that appear in the board materials, as prepared by Board members and staff, and that the Board refers the matter to a medical education subcommittee of the Board what will work out the implementation plan, engaging appropriate stakeholders - Motion carried unanimously.
Mike Killworth from the Board office presented this item and provided background details for the Board. Mr. Killworth reminded the Board that this whole initiative began as a result of the physician shortage in the state. He reported that the Board established a medical education subcommittee which met throughout the past year. The subcommittee submitted findings to the Board in January 2009 and the Board accepted the findings.
Mr. Killworth explained that the major recommendations put forward by the subcommittee were: to expand medical residency opportunities in Idaho; to expand Idaho WWAMI seats and evaluate adding a first year cohort at ISU; to add the WWAMI second year of medical education in Idaho; and to complete development of an Idaho based M.D. program. Key provisions include implementing a single plan approach with collaboration between ISU, UI, and other stakeholder groups. Mr. Killworth pointed ut that the planning, coordination, and goverance of medical education in Idaho would remainwith the State Board of Education. Another key provision would be to add a second year of medical education in Idaho. This would make it possible to have all four years of the medical education in Idaho through the WWAMI program. This plan encourages a phased-in approach for a timely and efficient resolution of the physician shortage problem in Idaho.
Board member Lewis, who chaired the Board's medical study subcommittee, reiterated that the primary goal of this effort is to address the physician shortage in the state. He emphasized that process was thorough. The hope at this time is for the Board to move forward with the implementation of the recommendations made by the medical subcommittee. Mr. Lewis noted that the subcommittee would like to put together a mechanism and process ot implement the recommendations. He explained that it was important to have a staff position within the Board office to oversee this particular area. Mr. Lewis emphasized that the process is intended to be collaborative and comprehensive. The goal is to develop an Idaho-based M.D. program. Board member Westerberg applauded the work done to date.
At this time, the board took up the election of officers for the Board of Education to serve for the 2009-2010 year.
|Election of SBOE Officers||M/S (Edmunds/Westerberg): To appoint Paul Agidius as President of the Board of Education for the coming term - Motion carried unanimously 6-0 (Agidius abstaining)
M/S (Agidius/Edmunds): To appoint Richard Westerberg as the Vice President of the Board for the coming term - Motion carried unanimously 6-0 (Westerberg abstaining)
M/S (Soltman/Westerberg): To appoint Ken Edmunds as the Secretary for the Board for the coming term - Motion carried unanimously 6-0 (Edmunds abstaining)
Board member Agidius, speaking as the President-Elect of the Board, took the opportunity to appoint Board members to the various committees of the Board. He appointed Ken Edmunds to chair the IRSA committee with Rod Lewis and Tom Lunda serving on that committee as well. He appointed Milford Terrell to chair the PPGAC committee and indicated that he (Paul Agidius) would serve on that committee too. He appointed Richard Westerberg to chair the BAHR and asked Don Soltman serve on that committee with him. He appointed Milford Terrell as the chair of the Medical Study Committee and asked Ken Edmunds, Rod Lewis, and Don Soltman to also serve on that committee.
Board member Lewis took a moment to thank Board President Milford Terrell for the dedication, integrity, and strenght with which he has served and led the Board over the past two years. He noted that Mr. Terrell had faced some very difficult situations during that time and that he had represented the Board well. The other Board members also commended Mr. Terrell.
Mr. Lewis and Mr. Luna signed off for the remainder of the meeting at this point.
At this time, the Board returned to the PPGAC agenda.
|Strategic Plans - Institutions, Agencies, and Health and Special Programs||M/S (Edmunds/Westerberg): To approve the 2010-2014 Institution, Agency, and Special/Health Program Strategic Plans as submitted with the condition that each group provide a supplemental report by the next Board meeting addressing the questions that were reaised today by the Board -Motion carried unanimously.
Executive Director Rush reminded the Board that last year it introduced a new planning calendar. He explained that Idaho requires that all strategic plans be submitted to the Division of Financial Management by July 1. In order to meet that date and also make the strategic planning process useful and applicable, the Board's calendar was crafted so that it aligned with that due date. This new calendar also allows the agencies and institutions, and thereby the Board, to use the current strategic plans to develop budget recommendations and requests for the coming year.
Dr. Rush introduced Tracie Bent of the Board office to present the agency and institution plans. Ms. Bent pointed out that the strategic plans for all the agencies, institutions, and programs are included in the Board's agenda materials. She invited the agencies, institutions, and their representatives ot present highlights of their individual plans. Each plan was briefly discussed and commented on by the Board.
Dr. Steven Daley-Laursen presented highlights of the strategic plan for the University of Idaho. Dr. Daley-Laursen indicated that UI is tightending its vision. It plans to set the benchmarks and share that information. UI also wants t make progress on tying the planning, budgeting, implementing, and modeling processes. The University also wants to align its plan better with the Board's plan. He introduced Dr. Doug Baker to comment as well. Dr. Baker discussed the strategic planning process and the need to have it cascade both up and down. It was noted that the University ha sbeen engaged for some time in restructuring its institution.
Ms. Bent briefly summarized the strategic plans for the community colleges, noting that each community college hs its own governing board.
Board President Terrell thanked Ms. Bent and all the institutions. He noted that the Board will continue to address the concerns brought forward during this discussion.
|Report on Proposed Program Closure Process||Dr. Doug Baker of the University of Idaho updated the Board on the proposed program closures at the University. He noted that the University undertook a carefully thought out process to identify programs and determine which ones should be closed. A number of factors were considered in the process including the need for relevance, operating in the areas of strength, and living within the available means and resources. Dr. Baker noted student concerns were addressed through an internal vetting process. A timeline was laid out for taking action, including implementing a two-year teach-out program for students currently enrolled, and offering degree alternatives for other students including a combination of programs where that was applicable. This continuous improvement process was intended to be accomplished by reducing the scope of offerings, focusing on priorities, and rethinking the Unviersity as a whole. Dr. Baker noted that in the effort to see increased efficiency and effectiveness, some pilot programs and initiatives were undertaken by the University. He noted that one interesting thing in this process is that as things are reshaped, good ideas have come forward and new projects will be undertaken. Dr. Baker discussed the impact of the budget changes in terms of this process. The University realizes that this process will need to move along more rapidly than originally planned.
Executive Director Rush indicated that the program closures effort was important to report to the Board. No action is necessary by the Board.
|Personnel||M/S (Westerberg/Edmunds): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to establish two (2) new positions (2.0 FTE) and reactivate one (1) position (1.0 FTE) supported by appropriated and non-appropriated funds - Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Terrell asked about the difference of reactivating a position and how long the University has to fill the position. Mr. Mues indicated this position was vacant for 12 months. The reactivations are part of the internal planning. Other vacated positions have been frozen, but strategically the University must hire certain positions in order to move forward. That is what this request is about.
|Office of Planning and Budget||M/S (Westerberg/Soltman): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to establish one (1) new Chief Planning Officer position (1.0 FTE) and reactivate one (1) Budget Director position (1.0 FTE) supported by appropriated and non-appropriated funds - Motion carried unanimously.
Board member Westerberg noted that this part of the University's strategic initiatives.
|Student Health Insurance Program (SHIP) Contract||M/S (Westerberg/Agidius): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to (1) approve the agreement between the University and Moscow Family Medicine, in substantial conformance to the conract submitted to the Board in Attachment 1; and (2) to approve the SHIP premium iwth no increase for the 2009-2010 academic year - Motion carried unanimously.||4/15-17/2009||16
|Promise A Scholarship||M/S (Westerberg/Terrell): To approve the amount of the Idaho Promise Scholarship, Category A, at $3,000 per year ($1,5000 per semester) for those applicants who are selected to receive or renew the Idaho Robert R. Lee Promise Category A scholarship for the academic year 2009-2010 - a roll-call vote was taken; all members were persent; motion carried unanimously.||5/7/2009||2|
|Promise B Scholarship||M/S (Westerberg/Soltman): To approve the amount of the Idaho Promise Scholarship, Category B, at $250 per semester per student ($500 annually) for those current receipients who maintain eligibility and for qualified first-year entering students under the age of 22 in academic year 2009-2010 - A roll-call vote was taken; all members were present; motion carried unanimously.||5/7/2009||2
|FY2011 Budget Development Guidelines||M/S (Westerberg/Edmunds): To direct the agencies and institutions to use the following categories and in priority order to develop FY2011 Line Item budget requests:
1. Occupancy Costs
2. PTE Nondiscretionary Adjustments
3. Center ofr Advanced Energy Studies (CAES)
4. Opportunity Scholarship
5. Recommendations from the Medical Education Committee
6. Veterans Administration Biomedical Research Collaboration
7. One-time projects with extraordinary and unique circumstances
A rool-call vote was taken; all members were present; motion carried unanimously.
There was general discussion about the process used to arrive at these categories. The institutions provided input. The discussed various aspects of the motion and the factors that would be used to consider the requests that came from the institutions. The motion went forward as originally made.
|New Positions & Reactication of Position||By unanimous consent, the Board approved the request by the University of Idaho to establish one(1) new position and reactivate two (2) positions (3.0 total FTE) supported by a reallocation of appropriated and non-appropriated funds.||6/17-18/2009||3
|Senate Joint Resolution||Senator Joe Stegnar was introduced to discuss Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) 101 which relates to the University of Idaho charging tuition. Senator Stegnar explained that a constitutional amendment is necessary, and that requires a vote of the people. The passing of SJR 101 moves the question forward for a vote of the people in the next general election.
Senator Stegnar noted that this is an important issue becuase there is language in Idaho Code that limits the use of fees for instructional purposes. In addition, other institutions in Idaho are able to charge tuition, so it is important to extend that same option to UI. He reiterated that it is best to do that by changing the Idaho Constitution.
MS (Terrell/Luna): To endorse SJR 101 of the 2009 Idaho State Legislature and to thank Senator Joe Stegnar and co sponsors Senator Robert Geddes, Representative Scott Bedke, and Representative Lawerence Denney for their efforts on behalf of the University of Idaho. Motion carried unanimously.
Stephen Daley-Laursen of the University of Idaho thanked Senator Stegnar, the Idaho Legislature, and all those involved in the effort.
|University of Idaho - Pre game Alcohol Waiver||M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to establish secure areas for the purpose of allowing the above specified pre-game activities (Vandal Game Day, Coporate Tent Area, and President's Circle Pre-Game Function) for the 2009 home football season, such events to be in compliance with Board policy section I.J. and the following conditions as noted in items 1-11:
1. The service area shall be secure, surrounded by a fence to control access to and from the area.
2. The pre-game events shall be limited to four hours, ending at kick-off.
3. Alcohol making or distributing companies may not sponsor the activities or tents.
4. UI shall use a color coded wrist band or pass admission system to identify attendees and invited guests, and to differentiate people of drinking age.
5. UI shall send companies sponsoring a corporate tent a letter outlining the Board alcohol policy and further conditions set by the Board. The letter will state that the minimum drinking age in Idaho is 21 and that at no time may they allow any underage drinking and/or service of alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons.
6. There must be no more than two entry points, each manned by security personnel, for the secure area.
7. Security personnel shall be located throughout the secure service to monitor use of wristbands, patron behavior, and entrance and exit.
8. No person may exit the secure area with alcoholic beverages.
9. Tent sponsors shall insure and indemnify the State of Idaho, the State Board of Education and Board of Regents of the University of Idaho and the University of Idaho for a minimum of $2,000,000 and shall obtain the proper permits and licenses.
10. The area is for sponsors to entertain clients/guests for the fall of 2009 football season; the University shall bring the matter back to the Board after the conclusion of the 2009 football season for reconsideration for 2010.
It was clarified that at the University of Idaho persons not of legal drinking age are allowed into some areas and the wrist band concept is used to differentiate the two groups. Lloyd Mues of the University of Idaho explained that this is the same language and wording used in past years on the waiver request. The motion maker concurred with the changes to item four to include mention that color-coded wrist bands are used to differentiate people of drinking age. It was noted that there were no violations last year.
|EPSCoR Summary Report||Doug Baker of UI introdouced Greg Bohach to report to the Board. Mr. Bohach is the Director of EPSCoR. He discussed the current EPSCoR activities including the partnership with the Department of Energy. He pointed out that the list of eligible states changes as circumstances change. Mr. Bohach reviewed data that ranks states and noted Idaho made significant advances in that regard.
Board member Edmunds thanked Mr. Bohach for his presentation. He noted that the Board will be responsible to appoint new memebers to the committee. Mr. Bohach mentioned the upcoming meetings that are on the calendar and if Board members are interested in attending, Idaho EPSCoR may be able to help with the costs.
Board member Terrell asked that the Board be provided with the electronic version of the presentation. He asked that the Board's Executive Committee review where the Board is with EPSCoR at this time and to update the full Board in the future. Board memeber Lewis asked to see the list of current projects. Mr. Bohach noted that list is available on the websie, but he will also provide the Board with a written list. He explained that the current grant runs through 2013.
|Change to the Constitution of the University Faculty||M/S (Edmunds/Terrell): To approve revisions to the Constitution of the Faculty of the University of Idaho as set forth in the materials presented to the Board. Motion carried unanimously.
Provost Doug Baker presented this item. He briefly discussed the proposed changes to the Constitution of the University of Idaho Faculty. It will more broadly represent faculty around the state and also allow them to vote and participate via electronic medium.
|Head Women's Basketball Coach Contract||M/S (Westerberg/Terrell): To approve the request by the University of Idaho for a multi-year employment contract as submitted for Jon Newlee, Head Women's Basketball Coach. Motion carried unanimously.
Kent Nelson and Lloyd Mues of UI provided clarification to the Board on this item regarding supplemental compensation and the actual Academic Progress Rate. A vote on this motion was briefly deferred in order to allow time for Ui to make the calculations. The motion was restated by Westerberg. It carried unanimously.
|Room and Board Rates||M/S (Westerberg/Terrell): To ratify the Room and Board rates approved by each of the institution's presidents for Boise State University, Idaho State University, the University of Idaho, and Lewis-Clark State College as shown in the respective tabs, and to delegate to the institution presidents the authority to approve these rates. In the future, these reports will be submitted to the Office of the State Board of Education and made available to the Board on request. Motion carried unanimously.||6/17-18/2009||16
|Fire Improvements to Wallace Complex||M/S (Westerberg/Soltman): To authorize the University of Idaho to proceed with the planning and design phases only of a Capital Project for Wallace Residence Center Fire Detection, Alarm and Suppressions System Improvements, at a cost not to exceed $75,000, to be funded from University housing reserves. Authorization includes the authority to execute all necessary and reqquisite contracts to implement the planning and design phase of the project. Motion carried 6-0 (Terrell absent during vote).
Board member Soltman asked if the institutions are required to go out for bid. Lloyd Mues indicated that UI will go out for bid on this project because it is something the University is not equipped to do.
|Faculty/Staff Handbook Revisions||M/S (Westerberg/Edmunds): To approve the request by the Univesity of Idaho to amend the Faculty Staff Handbook section 5300 in substantial conformance to the amendments submitted to the Board in Attacchment 1. Motion carried 6-0 (Terrell absent during the vote).||6/17-18/2009||18
|Rennovation of Niccolls Building||M/S (Westerberg/Edmunds): To authorize the University of Idaho to proceed with planning and design for the renovations and improvements of the Niccolls Family and Consumer Sciences Building, at a cost not to exceed $125,000, to be funded with gift funds. Authorization includes the authority to execute all necessary and requisite contracts to implement the planning and design phase of the project. Motion carried 6-0 (Terrell absent during the vote).||6/17-18/2009||18
|Building Management Contract - Idaho Water Center||M/S (Westerberg/Edmunds): To approve the Management Agreement for building managment services at the Idaho Water Center between University of Idaho and Colliers Paragon, LLC, in substantial conformance to the form submitted to the Board in Attachment 1. Motion carried 5-0 (Terrell and Luna absent during vote.)||6/17-18/2009||18
|Idaho Alumni Association of Alpha gamma Rho, Inc. Purchase of TKE House||M/S (Westerberg/Soltman): To approve the sale of improvements and personal property and to approve the ground lease related to the real property owned by the University located at 745 Nez Perce Drive, Moscow, Idaho, to the Idaho Alumni Association of Alpha Gamma Rho, Inc., and to authorize the University's Vice President for Finance and Administration to execute the purchase agreement, ground lease, and related transactional documents in substantial consistency with drafts submitted as part of this request. Motion carried 6-0 (Terrell absent during vote).||6/17-18/2009||18
|Paradise Creek Realignment with Corp of Engineers||M/S (Westerberg/Edmunds): To approve the Paradise Creek Ecosystem Restoration Project at a cost not to exceed $6,691,000, of which the total commitment by the University of Idaho shall not exceed $2,342,000, comprised of $169,000 of in-kind contributions and the long-term land commitment of $2,173,000, and to approve the agreement between the University of Idaho and the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers in substantial conformance to the form submitted to the Board in Attachment 2, and to authorize the University Vice President for Finance to execute all other necessary and requisite agreements to complete the Project as described herein. Motion carried 6-0 (Terrell absent during vote).
Lloyd Mues explained this item and noted that the Unviersity will continue to own the property.
|Settlement Agreement||M/S (Westerberg/Soltman): To approve the settlement of the legal matter discussed in executive session and to authorize the Vice President of Finance at the Unviersity of Idaho to sign all necessary settlement documents. Motion carried 6-0 (Terrell absent during the vote).||6/17-18/2009||19
|School Counselor Focused Review Team Report||M/S (Luna/Westerberg): To accept the State Review Team Report, therby granting program approval of the M.Ed/M.S. School Counseling and School Psychology (CASP) blended program at the University of Idaho. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Luna presented this item. He noted that the Board had received the correct attachment as a handout. Board memeber Lewis asked for clarification related to program approval. Mr. Luna noted that SDE goes through a scheduled review of individual programs at the college and universities. This step is part of that process. The program is being approved by the Board for the purposes of the Department's approval process.
|Proposed Unviersity Policy to Require First Year Students to Live On Campus||Dr. Doug Baker, Provost at the Univresity of Idaho, provided background information on this item. This policy would require single undergraduate first year students who are under the age of 21 to live on campus. It is viewed as a key element in retention.
Ray Gasser, Director of University Residence, and Lloyd Mues, Financial Vice President, were introduces. Mr. Mues explained that this policy will affect only a few hundred students. The University has studied this possibility for several years. Mr. Gasser noted that this is one of eighteen initiatives that came out of the Student Retention committee discussions. The university plans to implement all of the initiatives over the next few years. He explained that studies show students living on campus do better academically, have fewer adjustment problems, and are more apt to graduate. Mr. Gasser pointed out that other universities nationwide have implemented this requirement.
On the question of exemptions and waivers to this policy, Mr. Gasser noted that waivers are available, but documentation is required. He pointed out that whether a student lives on campus or in private housing there is a financial cost involved. Board member Lewis raised a question about accomodations for students who don't want to live on campus or be part of the Greek system. Mr. Gasser noted that a wide variety of living environments are available.
Board member Westerberg suggested that this policy will likely have some negative impact, but that UI is anticipating that the improved retention numbers will offset the negative impact. Dr. Baker noted that 90% of students already live on campus. Mr. Gasser pointed out again that this is just one initiative that UI is implementing. Mr. Mues indicated out that this decision technically falls under the authority of the CEO of UI and that the Univesrity is bringing it to the Board as information item.
|Revision to Foundation Operating Agreement||M/S (Lewis/Terrell): To approve the request by the University of Idaho for revision to its Operating Agreement with the University of Idaho Foundation, and to authorize the transistion of operating functions from the University to the Foundation as described in the materials presented to the Board, such transition to be accomplished as expeditiously as is proctical while maintaining the necessary operations of the Foundation and the University. Motion carried unanimously.
Board member Lewis introduced this item. Lloyd Mues and Kent Nelson of the University of Idaho provided input. Board member Terrell commented on Article 5 under G, and asked if there is a policy that supersedes those points. It was noted that the second sentence of G clarifies that statement.
Board member Agidius noted that it is apparent that a lot of thought went into this agreement. He thanked the Audit Committee and the University of Idaho Foundation. Board member Lewis thanked the Foundation as well and indicated that the discussions have been open and professional.
As a point of information. Board member Lewis updated the Board that the contract with Moss Adams had expired. Sice the relationship with Moss Adams has been successful and beneficial the Audit Committee and the University of Idaho Foundation. Board member Lewis thanked the Foundation as well and indicated that te discussions have been open and professional.
As a point of information, Board member Lewis updated the Board that the contract with Moss Adams had expired. Sice the relationship with Moss Adams has been successful and beneficial the Audit Committee felt it appropriate to re-engage Moss Adams for another three-year period, and is negotiating a new contract.
|Coaches' Contract Modification||M/S (Westerberg/Terrell): To approve the request by the Unviersity of Idaho to modify terms of the multi-year contracts for the University's Head Football Coach, Women's Soccer Coach and Women's Volleyball Coach, and to authorize the University to execute amended contracts in substantial conformance to the proposed amended contracts attached to the Board materials. Motion carried unanimously.||8/19-20/2009||15
|Wallace Roof Repair Project||M/S(Westerberg/Terrell): To approve the request by the Unviersity of Idaho to proceed with the design and construction of the new roof for the Wallace Residence Center and to authorize the Unviersity to award contracts for the design and construction of the new roof for a total combined project budget not to exceed $533,000. Motion carried unanimously.||8/19-20/2009||18
|Settlement Agreement||M/S(Westerberg/Soltman): To approve the settlement considered by the Board in executive session and to authorize the University of Idaho to sign all necessary settlement documents. Motion carried 6-0 (Luna did not vote on this item for the reason that he was not in Executive Committee and therefore, not privy to the details related to this motion).||8/19-20/2009||18
|Kibbie Dome Life Safety Project Update||Lloyd Mues of UI briefly presented an update on the Kibie Dome project. He indicated the Permanent Building Fund did direct an additional $2 million toward the project. As a result additional repairs and improvements can be undertaken by the same contractor which essentially results in a cost savings.||8/19-20/2009||19
|Report on Research and Extension Regional Listening Sessions||Dr. Duane Nellis presented this item and introduced Dr. John Hammel, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Research Sciences, to discuss the progress of programs.
Dr. Hammel noted that the challenge was to match the College's operations with the state's financial situation and still remain healthy and able to move forward in the future. A blue ribbon task force was put together in 2009 to review programs. Representatives from many areas served on the task force. Recommendations included downsizing several sites. The University was encouraged to give additional time to the review of those recommendations and to consider other options. Dr. Hammel reported that public input was invited at hearings and meetings at the local sites. He noted that the research extension centers are important historically and also as a support system for local comunities. The stakeholders of each station raised questions about ways to find additional funds in order to keep the stations for the rest of the current fiscal year. That would give time for further review and consideration.
Dr. Hammel indicated that a two-phase process was put into place. Phase one is the attempt to find addition funds and funding sources. If those funds cannot be found by November 1, 2009, the particular station would be closed. If the funds are found, then phase two would go into place, which entails a more in depth review of that specific station icluding looking at new models. Those things will need to be indentified and established by April of 2010, or the College will need to go forward with shutting down that particular station.
Dr. Hammel pointed out that this effore takes into account the whole research and extension program statewide, not just a couple of local sites. The University recognizes that future deecisions will impact personnel and the communities so it will move forward in a sensitive way.
Dr. Nellis noted that this item is for informational purposes. Future plans and proposals will be brought back to the Board in December.
|Performance Measures Reports||University of Idaho - Dr. Duane Nellis came forward to respond to questions, and introduced Dr. Doug Baker, Mr. Lloyd Mues, and Dr. Archie George. Dr. Nellis reported that UI just completed its interim five year review and has made good progress over the past five years. Board member Edmunds asked about dual credit and Dr. Baker noted that the numbers show an increase over the last four years. He noted that UI is working on distance programs and offering higher level math courses online. Dr. Nellis reported that UI is slightly below thier peers in graduation rates, which is 60%. Dr. Nellis indicated that UI is looking aggressibely at how it may increase enrollment. Board member Westerberg asked about the fee tuition waiver policy in terms of how it compares to other institutions. Dr. Baker explained that a good portion of those fee waivers are offered to graduate students and an effort is made to attract them from all over the nation.||10/14-15/2009||5
|Building Conveyance and Ground Lease - Idaho Public Television||M/S (Edmunds/Terrell) : To authorize the University of Idaho and IPTV to complete the transaction, including the conveyance of the building and fround lease, and to authorize the Vice President for Finance and Administration of the University to execute a quitclim deed and ground lease in substantial conformance to the drafts submitted as part of this request and any other documents associated with the above authorized transactions. Motion carried unanimously.
At this time, the Board returned to the Performance Measures Updates.
|New Positions and Reactivation of Positions||By unanimous consent, the Board approved the request by the Unviersity of Idaho for three (3) new positions (3.0 FTE) supported by a reallocation of appropriated funds and to reactivate two (2) positions (2.0 FTE) supported by appropriated funds.||10/14-15/2009||7|
|Property Easement - Idaho Power - Cummings Research Center||M/S (Westerberg/Terrell): To approve the grant of an easement to Idaho Power Company in substantial conformance to the form submitted to the Board in Attachment 1, and to authorize the University's Vice President for Finance and Administration to execute the easement and any related transactional documents. Motion carried unanimously.
Board member Westerberg suggested that the Board determine some way to direct these types of routine property easement requests to the consent agenda.
|Property Sublease - CH2MHill at Idaho Water Center||M/S (Westerberg/Terrell): To approve the Second Amendment to the Sublease between the Unviersity of Idaho and CH2M Hill in substantial conformance to the form submitted to the Board in Attachment 1 and to authorize the Unviersity's Vice President for Finance and Administration to execute the Second Amendment to the Sublease and any related transactional documents. Motion carried unanimously.
Lloyd Mues of University of Idaho briefly reviewed the details of this agreement.
|SBOE Strategic Plan||Found in the SBOE minutes||11/9/2009||2-7
|Item||Motion||Meeting||Minutes Page Number|
|New Position and Reactivation of Positions||By unanimous consent, the Board agreed to approve the request by the University of Idaho to create one (1) new position (.75 FTE) and reactivate ten (10) positions (10.0 FTE) supported by appropriated and non appropriated funds.||2/17-18/10||5|
|Kibbie Activity Center- Dome Enhancements- Design Phase||
M/S (Westerberg/Soltman): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to implement the Design Phase for the Enhancement and Improvements project in the ASUI Kibbie Activity Center, at a cost not to exceed $671,000, funded from private donations. Authorization includes the authority to execute all requisite consulting, design and vendor contracts necessary to fully implement the design phase for the project. Motion carried unanimously.
Lloyd Mues of the University of Idaho presented this item. He explained that it will be funded by private donations.
|Kibbie Dome-Life Safety Project- East Wall Replacement||M/S (Westerberg/Soltman): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to implement the Additional Construction Phase for the ASUI Kibbie Activity Center (Kibbie Dome) Life Safety Improvements project at a total additional cost not to exceed $11,000,000.00. Total authorization for the complete ASUI Kibbie Activity Center Life Safety Improvements project is hereby raised to $23,000,000. Authorization includes the authority to execute all requisite consulting, design, construction and vendor contracts necessary to fully implement the project. This authorization is subject to approval of project financing. Motion carried unanimously. 2/17-18/10 15
Lloyd Mues reported that the University of Idaho has worked with its bank to get the funds to do the west wall. A bond will pay off the construction loan and also fund the remainder of the project in full. This is not the part that will be funded by donations. The bond will be financed by facility fees. Board member Terrell noted that facility fees do come out of the fees students pay as do the activity fee, and the technology fee. He reiterated that the plan for this facility has not changed; it has just slowed down.
M/S (Westerberg/Edmunds): To approve the request by the University of Idaho for a Supplemental Resolution for the Series 2010A, 2010B, 2010C, and 2011 Bonds, the title of which is as follows:
A supplemental resolution of the Regents of the University of Idaho authorizing the issuance and sale of (i) General Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2010 A, in the principal amount of up to $13,000,000 (the “Series 2010A Bonds”); (ii) General Revenue Bonds, Series 2010B, in the principal amount of up to $12,000,000 (the “Series 2010B Bonds”); (iii) Taxable General Revenue Bonds, Series 2010C (Issuer Subsidy-Build America Bonds), in the principal amount of up to $16,000,000 (the “Series 2010C Bonds”); and (iv) Adjustable Rate General Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2011, in the principal amount of up to $67,000,000 (the “Series 2011 Bonds” and collectively with the Series 2010A Bonds, the Series 2010B Bonds, and the Series 2010C Bonds, the “Series 2010/11 Bonds”), authorizing the execution and delivery of Bond Purchase Agreements related to the Series 2010/11 Bonds, and providing for other matters relating to the authorization, issuance, sale, and payment of the Series 2010/11 Bonds.
A roll-call vote was taken; motion carried unanimously.
Board member Westerberg introduced this item. Kimi Lucas, Kent Nelson, Rick Skinner, and Lee White were introduced by Mr. Mues. They are employed by the University of Idaho.
Board member Lewis asked about the debt and the life of the asset. Mr. White explained that the buildings in question have a long asset life. He noted that the longest term bond is for 31 years. He indicated there is interest rate exposure, but it is a very small amount of exposure. Mr. Lewis pointed out that, in the past the Board asked for a statement of the bond ratio of the institutions when it comes to the issuance of bonds. Board President Agidius agreed that the Board should return to that practice. Mr. Westerberg asked that he be provided with further information. Stacy Pearson of BSU explained that at one point the institutions had an eight percent of-debt-ratio that the institutions could not exceed. Mr. Westerberg noted that the Business Affairs and Human Resources committee will take it as an assignment to set policy on the debt-ration percentage and bring it back to the Board.
At this time Mr. Luna was excused from the rest of the meeting in order to attend to other business.
Also, the Board took up Tab 2 of Section 1 of the Business Affairs and Human Resources agenda.
|Property Easement- Bus Shelter||M/S (Westerberg/Soltman): To approve the grant of a temporary, non-exclusive easement to the City of Moscow in substantial conformance to the form submitted to the Board in Attachment 1, and to authorize the University’s Vice President for Finance and Administration to execute the easement. Motion carried 7-0 (Luna excused).||2/17-18/10||16
|Contract for Dining Services||M/S (Westerberg/Atchley): To approve the agreement between the University and Sodexho America, LLC, in substantial conformance to the form submitted to the Board in Attachment 1, and to authorize the Vice President for Finance and Administration to execute the contract and any necessary supporting documents. Motion carried 7-0 (Luna excused).
Board member Westerburg presented this item.
|Student Tuition and Fee Rates (Academic Year 2010-2011)||President Duane Nellis of the University of Idaho addressed the Board. He was joined by the ASUI Student Body President, Kelby Wilson, the Executive Director of Planning and Budget, Keith Ickes, the Provost and Executive Vice President, Doug Baker, and the Vice President for Finance and Administration, Lloyd Mues.
President Nellis reported that UI is proposing a 12% increase in fees. He spoke at length about the need to increase the student fee and tuition rates at the University of Idaho. He discussed the mission of UI as a land grant university and noted that the fee and tuition discussion is focused on that mission. Dr. Nellis pointed out that outreach, research, and quality education at an affordable price are the goals of the University. He reported that the University issues more degrees in science, technology, and math than any other institution in the state. He emphasized the seriousness of the University’s financial situation and discussed the steps the University has taken to address the budget reductions. Dr. Nellis reiterated that while every effort has been made to continue operating in the most efficient and effective way possible, the proposed fee increase will allow UI to stabilize its financial situation and continue to move forward in the present economic climate.
Kelby Wilson spoke to the Board. He indicated that the Student Activity Fee Committee looked carefully at the Student Activity Fee and came to agreement as to which programs were important to maintain. Mr. Wilson noted that the students at UI understand the tough economic situation that Idaho is currently in, as well as the difficulties that the University is facing. The students support the proposed 12% full-time fee increase. He encouraged the Board to approve the increase in order to allow UI to continue to offer quality.
Board member Lewis asked about the University’s net asset balances, reserve funds, and unrestricted funds, and the potential availability and usage of these funds. Mr. Ickes explained that those funds from those sources have been used already and so have the overall encumbered reserves in order to address the holdbacks. It was pointed out that those funds are also being tapped to address the strategic initiatives at UI. It was emphasized that there are still available funds, but there is a risk that if too much is taken away, the University will be at risk.
Board member Lewis asked about the flow of funds from stimulus package and Dr. Nellis noted that the stimulus money is one-time. In regards to the increase in the cost of Room and Board, Lloyd Mues explained that the University operated several years with an under-valued program and adjustments had to be made. Mr. Luna asked about the possibility of using dedicated funds if legislative action freed them up. Dr. Nellis explained that the use of dedicated grant funds are strictly regulated by the federal, state, and private entities that issue them. They can’t be used for other things.
Dr. Nellis indicated that UI has been strategic in approaching the issue of being able to provide students with financial aid to ensure accessibility. More distance learning education and outreach education opportunities are being offered in that regard. UI is very sensitive to accessibility and affordability. Institutional support and scholarship dollars are being used as well.
Dr. Nellis reiterated that the University of Idaho has a research mission. That mission requires more expensive curricula in order to deliver science, technology, and math. As the University is making an effort to move in new directions, it also operates five UI Centers in other parts of the state. During the discussion, it was pointed out that the Higher Education Price Index is used to calculate the cost of research equipment, lab materials, and chemicals. Those types of things drive the cost of education up. Dr. Nellis noted that none of the fee increases will go towards salary increases.
Mr. Ickes indicated that an open forum had been held for students to engage in the process. Also, the Student Fee Committee was very involved in the process. Dr. Nellis noted that UI follows the Board policies related to what goes into the athletic budget. He pointed out that the only way UI has been able to augment the athletic budget is through private giving. He noted that the athletic program does serve to draw people to the University. Mr. Mues explained that the athletic department is not close to the cap in terms of the Board policy and that the staff and faculty of the athletic department are also participating in the furloughs.
In terms of efficiencies, UI has recruited students into areas where there is room for them to discuss the proposed changes in the College’s professional fees. He explained that the College has proposed a structural reorganization of the College into a one-unit management structure. This new structure will allow for more flexibility in the delivery of integrated interdisciplinary teaching and research, and meet the call for more efficient management structures. The College proposes extending professional fees to all students in the College because they will all be enrolled in one administrative unit, although still pursuing unique majors. This request will unify the student fee structures in the College to correspond to the one-unit management structure and provide equity among all the students in the College. Students in CAA support this.
Ron Walters, Chair of AAA Advisory Council spoke to the Board related to this proposal. He encouraged the Board to send a message of support by unifying the professional fees within the College of Art and Architecture.
Board member Terrell encouraged the Board to approve the request, noting that the request from the College of Art and Architecture is necessary to support the program. He pointed out that the directive by the Board that approved the re-establishment of the College of Art and Architecture in 2006 added the unfunded mandate costs of the college office. The brunt of this cost is born by the student professional fee. Dean Hoversten noted that currently, art and design students do not participate in funding the College office as do all other students in the College. The request by the College would change that.
Board President Agidius observed that the way the College is now structures makes this request appropriate. He also encouraged the Board to support the request. Board member Edmunds discussed the need for the Board to address the problem at a statewide level with an ongoing approach that can be applied in all situations. For that reason, he is not in favor of the motion. Board President Agidius agreed that the Board should look at the statewide policy, but encouraged the Board to approve the request that is before the Board today because the need is immediate.
Board member Lewis agreed with Board member Terrell in terms of the situation created as a result of past decisions made by the Board related to the College of Art and Architecture. He also agreed with comments made by Board member Edmunds about looking at the statewide policy. He indicated that he is troubled by the situation that the Board helped to create by approving the re-establishment of the College.
Board member Westerberg noted that the Board has previously discussed taking a look at things done in other states in terms of professional fees. He reported that work is being done in that regard. He indicated that while this is a laudable request, he will vote against it because it sets precedence.
M/S (Terrell/Luna): To waive Board Policy V.R.3.b.iv. with respect to the imposition of a professional fee for all students in the University of Idaho College of Art & Architecture, and to approve the professional fee as requested. Motion PASSED 6-2 (Edmunds and Westerberg voted Nay).
|Board Action||Motion #1/S (Westerberg/Terrell): To approve the annual full-time resident student fee rates for FY2011 for the University of Idaho at an overall increase of 12%, to include matriculation, facility, technology, and activity fees for a total dollar amount of $5,524.00; and to approve the annual full-time student fee rate for nonresident tuition of 15% for a total dollar amount of $11,592.00. Roll call vote; motion FAILED 4-4 (Agidius, Terrell, Soltman, and Atchley voted Yes).||4/5/2010||13|
|Board Action||Substitute Motion #1- Motion #1/S (Lewis/Westerberg): To approve the annual full-time resident student fee rates for FY 2011 for the University of Idaho at an overall increase of 7.9% to include the matriculation, facility, technology, and activity fees for a total dollar amount of $5,322.00; and to approve the annual full-time student fee rate for nonresident tuition of 15% for a total dollar amount of $11,592.00. The institution shall have the discretion to allocate the increase between matriculation and fees as they deem appropriate. Roll call vote; motion FAILED 4-4 (Lewis, Luna, Westerberg, and Edmunds voted Yes).||4/5/2010||13|
|Board Action||Substitute Motion #2- Motion #1/S (Terrell/Westerberg): To approve the annual full-time resident student fee rates for FY 2011 for the University of Idaho at an overall increase of 9.5% to include the matriculation, facility, technology, and activity fees for a total dollar amount of $5,402.00; and to approve the annual full-time student fee rate for nonresident tuition of 15% for a total dollar amount of $11,592.00. The institution shall have the discretion to allocate the increase between matriculation and fees as they deem appropriate. Motion FAILED 1-7 (Westerberg voted Yes).||4/5/2010||13|
|Board Action||Motion #2/S (Soltman/Terrell): To approve the annual full-time resident student fee rates for FY2011 for the University of Idaho at an overall increase of 9.7% to include the matriculation, facility, technology, and activity fees for a total dollar amount of $5,412.00.||4/5/2010||13|
|Board Action||Substitute Motion #1- Motion #2/S (Westerberg/Lewis): To approve the annual full-time student fee rates for FY2011 for the University of Idaho at an overall increase of 9.5% to include the matriculation, facility, technology, and activity fees for a total dollar amount of $5,402.00 and to approve the annual full-time student fee rate for nonresident tuition of 15% for a total dollar amount of $11,592.00. The institution shall have the discretion to allocate the increase between matriculation and fees as they deem appropriate. Motion PASSED 6-2 (Atchley and Edmunds voted Nay).||4/5/2010||13|
|Board Action||M/S (Westerberg/Soltman): To approve all other fees for FY2011 for University of Idaho as contained in the UI Fees motion sheet as amended which will be made part of the written minutes. Motion PASSED unanimously.||4/5/2010
||A motion to hold an executives session pursuant to Idaho Code Sections 67-2345(1)(d) and (f) for the purpose of considering documents that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 3, title 9, Idaho Code; and to communicate with legal counsel to discuss legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation.||4/21-22/10||2
|Executive Session||A motion to hold an executives session pursuant to Idaho Code Sections 67-2345(1)(c) and (d) to conduct deliberations to acquire an interest in real property which is not owned by a public agency and for the purpose of considering documents that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 3, title 9, Idaho Code.||4/21-22/10||2
|New Positions and Reactivations of Positions||By unanimous consent, the Board approved the request by the University of Idaho to create two(2) new positions (2.0 FTE) and reactivate three (3) positions (3.0 FTE) supported by appropriated and non appropriated funds.||4/21-22/10||6
|Employment Agreement- Head Volleyball Coach||By unanimous consent, the Board approved the University of Idaho’s multi-year employment contract for head intercollegiate volleyball coach, Debbie Buchanan, for a 5 year term commencing on August 1, 2010 and terminating on July 31, 2015.||4/21-22/10||6
|Employment Agreement- Head Soccer Coach||By unanimous consent, the Board approved the University of Idaho’s multi-year employment contract for head intercollegiate women’s soccer coach, Peter Showler, for a 2 year, 9 month term commencing on March 31, 2010 and terminating on December 31, 2012.||4/21-22/10||6
|Amendment to Contract for Services- Fire Research and Management Exchange System (FRAMES)||By unanimous consent, the Board approved the request by the University of Idaho for authority to increase the amount of services to be delivered under the SEM, LLC contract (Service contract number 2010-343), and to authorize the Vice President of Finance and Administration of the University to execute the Amendment number 2 to such contract in substantial conformance with the amendment form submitted to the Board in the agenda materials.||4/21-22/10||6
|Annual Report-Information Item||Dr. Duane Nellis reported to the Board. He thanked the Board members for the opportunity to lead the University of Idaho. He discussed the critical mission of UI as a land-grant university. He noted that the University has applied strategic management and planning concepts to accomplish its goal even during this time of economic challenges. Dr. Nellis explained that UI continues to serve and engage Idaho’s people statewide through extension services, business partnerships, and the involvement of key practices.
The University takes seriously its role as the people’s university. UI has nationally recognized faculty and students and their accomplishments have brought positive recognition to the University. Dr. Nellis shared that the University of Idaho has been featured in the national media and also in high level publications related to the bold action it has taken to position itself for a new a better future.
Dr. Nellis reported that the University of Idaho is serving more students. It had a record fall enrollment and experienced additional growth in the spring. It has the highest graduation and retention rates in Idaho. The University continues to develop and strengthen community partnerships statewide as a key component of its immediate and future-focused success.
Dr. Nellis reported that UI will graduate its 100,000 student this year. He noted that UI leads its peers in a number of signature areas including natural resources, biomedical research, and in the number of national merit scholars. UI collaborates with other entities statewide to continue strengthening Idaho’s economy through competitive research dollars.
The University of Idaho strategic plan for 2010-2015 is called Leading Idaho. It focuses on core principles, and looks at the next quantum leap for the University. It is tied to the standards of the NWCCU.
The Board thanked Dr. Nellis his report and the University for its hospitality.
|Faculty/Tenure Policy Changes||M/S (Westerberg/Terrell): To approve changes to University of Idaho policies on faculty promotion and tenure as set forth in the materials submitted to the Board. Motion carried unanimously.
Board member Westerberg presented the item.
|Railroad Property Exchange Agreement||M/S (Westerberg/Edmunds): To approve the exchange transaction with Palouse River and Coulee City Railroad in substantial conformance with the Exchange Agreement submitted to the Board, removing there from acquisition of the reversionary rights described therein, and to approve the conveyance of an easement to the City of Moscow in substantial conformance with the easement form submitted to the Board; and further, to authorize the University’s Vice President for Finance and Administration to execute the documents necessary to carry out the exchange and conveyance as approved by this Board. Motion carried unanimously.
Board member Westerberg presented this item.
|Capital Project- Janssen Engineering Student Services Center Suite Renovations and Improvements||M/S (Westerberg/Soltman): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to implement the planning and design phases only of the capital project for renovations and improvements on the Janssen Engineering Building in the amount of $100,000.00. Authorization includes the authority to execute all necessary and requisite consulting and vendor contracts and to implement the planning and design phase of the project. Motion carried 7-0 (Board member Terrell excused himself from the vote due to a conflict of interest).
Board member Westerberg presented this item. Lloyd Mues of the University of Idaho provided additional details and noted that this project will be constructed totally out of donations.
Board member Terrell excused himself from discussion and vote on this item due to a possible conflict of interest.
|Approval of Notice of Intent: College of Natural Resources- Administrative Reorganization of College Departments||M/S (Edmunds/Terrell): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to reorganize the College of Natural Resources as set forth in the attached Notice of Intent. Motion carried unanimously.
Provost Doug Baker discussed the steps that the University has untaken over the past two years to restructure and reconfigure departments in order to streamline its management structure. This is one of the steps in that process.
|Approval of Notice of Intent: College of Art and Architecture- Administrative Reorganization of College Departments||M/S (Edmunds/Terrell): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to reorganize the College of Art and Architecture as set forth in the attached Notice of Intent. Motion carried unanimously.
Board member Edmunds presented this item.
|Request for Approval of Settlement Agreement||M/S (Terrell/Agidius): To approve the settlement considered by the Board in executive session and to authorize University of Idaho to sign all necessary settlement documents. Motion carried unanimously.||4/27/2010||1|
|Agency and Institution Strategic Plans||President Duane Nellis appeared to discuss the UI plan and answer questions from the Board. Dr. Nellis noted that it has been a challenging year for UI because of the economy, but the University has continued to carry out its mission through collaboration, business and industry partnerships, organizational efficiencies, and serving the state effectively. Board member Lewis observed that some of the performance measures and benchmarks in UI’s plan are not easily quantifiable or achievable in terms of what is accomplished. Dr. Nellis indicated that UI is in the process of updating its plan and will make sure it includes specific goals from the Board’s plan.||6/16-17/10||4
|Reactivations of Positions||By unanimous consent, the Board agreed to approve the request by the University of Idaho to reactivate four (4) positions (3.60 FTE) supported by appropriated and non-appropriated funds.||6/16-17/10||8
|President’s Compensation||M/S (Soltman/Terrell): To approve the annual salary for Dr. Duane Nellis as President of University of Idaho July 1,2010, in the amount of $335,000 (comprised of $298,000 in institutional funds, and $37,000, plus such additional amount required for benefits in supplemental compensation to be provided by the UI Foundation), and to direct staff to amend the current employment agreement with Dr. Nellis extending the current contract for an additional year, to be brought back for future consideration by the Board. Motion carried unanimously.||6/16-17/10||10
|Alcohol Waiver for 2010 Home Football Games||
M/S (Soltman/Agidius): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to establish secure areas for the purpose of allowing the above specified pre-game activities (North Kibbie Field, Student Activities Field, University Commons Building and Menard Law Building) for the 2010 home football season, such events to be in compliance with Board policy section I.J. and the following conditions:
Motion carried 6-1 (Lewis voted Nay).
Board member Terrell asked for clarification on the number of areas where alcohol will be served and the reasoning behind it. Dr. Nellis emphasized that UI takes the monitoring of alcohol on campus seriously. There have been no incidences with those areas in the past related to alcohol consumption. He explained that UI would like to be able to utilize the Commons during the cold weather versus using the tent and the heaters. The area in the Commons would be more secure and it is more isolated from the general population. The Menard Law Building area is a substitute area for use only in bad weather. These areas are not expansion areas.
Board member Lewis asked for clarification on the kind of access that will be allowed in these areas. UI explained that there are two things. One is an area where you have to be 21 to get in; the other is an invitation only area and where if you are over 21 you get a wristband. Mostly donors and supporters are invited to that second area and they often bring family members so the wristband method allows them to control alcohol. In regards to the Commons there will be security stationed at the doors and only patrons 21 or over will be admitted. In the Law Building it is an invitation only situation similar to what already exists.
Board member Lewis noted that this is a distinction where the Board needs to make a decision. In the UI situation there is a mixed use situation where the alcohol service area is not cordoned off. Board President Westerberg indicated that it is not clear to him what is appropriate and what isn’t. In some cases mixed ages is okay and in others it is not. As the Board reviews its policy that is a determination that probably needs to be made as to which side of the line it wants to stand on.
At this time the Board returned to item 6 which was deferred until this time to allow for remarks from the Humanitarian Bowl representative.
|Employment Agreement- Head Football Coach||M/S (Terrell/Atchley): To approve the University of Idaho’s multi-year employment contract for head intercollegiate football coach for a term commencing on July 1, 2010 and terminating on December 16, 2014 in substantial conformance with the employment agreement submitted to the Board in Attachment 1 with the change to Provision 3.1.1a which will now read, “shall be recommended by the President and approved by the Board.” Motion carried unanimously.
It was clarified for Board member Terrell that the base salary is the same as Coach Akey has been paid. Rod Spears of UI indicated that the University received a scholarship reduction from the NCAA this year due to the average number being below the APR average which is based on the retention and academic performance of the students. That reduction will continue for two more years although it is possible for UI to appeal the reduction in scholarships.
Mr. Lewis referred to provision 3.1.1a with language that was added that says Coach Akey will be eligible to receive supplemental increases not reviewed by the Board. Mr. Spears noted that this has been the standard language and UI will gladly add the language approved in the previous motion if it pleases the Board. Kent Nelson of UI noted that this language is related to things like CEC.
Mr. Lewis took a moment to congratulate the program and the work that Coach Akey has done on behalf of UI and Idaho.
|Consent Agenda Item 5. Athletics Actual, Forecast and Budget Reports||M/S (Terrell/Agidius): To accept the Intercollegiate Athletics reports as submitted and with the request of the chairman of BAHR and the request of the Chairman of the Athletics committee. Motion carried unanimously.
Institution representatives were invited forward to respond to questions related to this item. Board member Lewis pointed out that he had concerns about having these items in the Consent agenda because they are budget items. He asked that they be included in the regular agenda in the future.
Mr. Lewis asked about BSU’s expenditures. Stacy Pearson of BSU indicated that there is a payout on a current basketball coach and assistant coaches as well as a new coach. Mr. Lewis asked about ISU’s anticipated institutional support. Mr. James Fletcher of ISU agreed to check that and get back to the Board with details.
Mr. Lewis asked UI about a budget shortfall and what appears to be a significant deficit. Rob Spears pointed out that this number is a very conservative estimate. Lloyd Mues introduced Keith Ickes, Executive Director of Planning and Budget to provide additional details.
Board member Terrell noted that athletics bring positives to the campus and agreed that the University needs to pay close attention to how it manages its athletic program. Dr. Nellis emphasized that the University is committed to bringing in the resources and making the hard decisions regarding the management of the program. Mr. Ickes explained that this is the best evaluation UI is able to present at this time. It will do all possible to control costs, in appropriate fashion. Mr. Terrell asked UI to keep the Board posted as to positive moves and setbacks. Board member Agidius asked for a formal update to BAHR and the Board in October.
Board member Lewis raised a point about student fees and noted that the Board was unable to give UI the level of fees that they said they desperately needed. He suggested that UI should come back to the Board with a new budget. It was pointed out that unlike the area of student fees and other resources, the athletic budget is more difficult to predict. Mr. Lewis noted that the University’s reserves are critically low. He suggested that its budget should show a zero budget not a deficit budget.
Board member Terrell summarized that two directives had been mentioned. He noted that Board member Agidius had asked for the Athletic Committee to meet and also for BAHR to meet related to UI’s budget in order to go through some of the issues and see what can be done to make it work. Mr. Terrell noted that Mr. Lewis had asked for UI to submit a zero balance budget.
Board President Westerberg suggested that the Board wait until October to hear the action plan from UI, but reminded UI to work diligently to bring the numbers in line. Mr. Lewis suggested having an interim conference call to get a status report. Mr. Terrell agreed that a monthly update would be good. Mr. Agidius noted that a combined meeting of BAHR and the Athletic Committee could be arranged.
At this time, Paul Agidius was excused for the remainder of the meeting due to a scheduling conflict.
|Differential Fees||Matt Freeman of the Board office introduced this item. He provided background details for the benefit of the Board noting that the discussion on differential fees has been going on for a number of years. He explained that last fall the Financial VP’s began to earnestly look at the idea of differential fees and would like feedback from the Board at this meeting regarding a proposal they may make in the future.
Keith Ickes of UI addressed the Board on behalf of the Financial VP’s. He referred to a white paper included in the Board materials that summarizes the issue of differential fees. He pointed out that differential tuition refers to any tuition charged to the students of a particular group that is different than the tuition charged to other students, where the difference is based on certain factual criteria.
Mr. Ickes noted that professional fees are already being charged to students in certain programs that have a higher cost. There are also course-specific fees which are associated with direct and identifiable costs of taking a particular course. These course-specific fees are not generally considered differential fees for that reason. Methods of charging differential tuition include charging according to the student’s program major or program; another is to charge by the program.
Mr. Ickes shared that some of the concerns, related to differential tuition, are that it is another mechanism for raising tuition, it can complicate financial aid operational management, or it may raise a question of access. Any proposal brought to the Board will include an outline from each institution that includes a defensible proposal as to how it would apply a differential fee policy.
Board President Westerberg indicated that any proposal on how differential fees would be implemented has to make sense in a pricing mechanism within the institution. If one student pays more and another pays less, that needs to be included too. It was noted that revenue and the way institutions price education is one issue; how that education is delivered is another.
Board member Soltman suggested that this might simplify the current structure. Mr. Ickes explained there are several approaches that might be considered. One is to take an existing program like engineering and couch it in broader terms to give the Board an idea of how the framework might look.
Matt Freeman indicated that the institutions have discussed the possibility of bringing a draft policy to the Board for first reading in August; and also to present at that time a system-mockup using the engineering program. He noted that the institutions are looking for a go-ahead at this point. Board member Terrell recommended having a draft policy come forward before the first reading so the Board can build on it. Board President Westerberg agreed that having a draft policy first would make sense and should include a draft program.
Jim Fletcher of ISU added that ISU strongly supports the concept of differential fee, but with respect to having a pro forma model, it needs to be financially right and communicable and acceptable within the community. And, ISU would like the opportunity to review this with its students as well.
Stacy Pearson of BSU noted that the timeline does give some flexibility, and also allows the institutions to ask for differential fees at the April 2011 Board meeting. She pointed out that by tracking backwards from that date on the timeline, the institutions would need to bring something to the Board in August with a second reading in October or December.
Board President Westerberg reminded the institutions that the Board has the option to reject any proposal. Mr. Terrell clarified that the intent is to get the draft and move forward, keeping in mind that if the draft isn’t acceptable it gets returned to the institutions for reworking. The process would start in August with the draft copy. The institutions thanked the Board for allowing them to proceed on this issue.
|Outdoor Track Renovation Project||M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to implement the Dan O’Brien Outdoor Track and Field Complex Renovation and Improvements project for a total project cost not to exceed $2.5 million, and to authorize the University of Idaho to execute all requisite consulting, design, construction and vendor contracts necessary to fully implement the project. A roll call vote was requested; motion carried unanimously.
Board member Terrell expressed concerns about this request related to financing. He expressed concerns that this project deals with athletics and not academics. He expressed concerns that there are other deferred maintenance situations at UI that should receive attention first.
Lloyd Mues of UI walked through several of the issues with the Board. He noted that this facility happens to be an athletic facility, but it is heavily used by the University and the public, for educational and community purposes in addition to athletics. He explained that it is about 30 years old and it is falling apart. This is not a project that falls under the Permanent Building Fund. He reiterated that it serves more than athletics. This project came to the surface as a priority on its own merit. He agreed that other projects on campus need attention as well, but for this level of money and this level of assurance for payback, this project did rise to the top. Some of those other projects would fall under the Permanent Building Fund. This one will be funded by a short-term loan from a bank.
Mr. Mues explained further that the challenge for UI is that the construction window in northern Idaho is short. He reiterated that the project will be paid by fees, will require nothing additional and that it will be paid off in five years.
Board member Lewis indicated his only issue is with the process and suggested that UI come back in to the Board with the design plan. Board member Terrell made a motion to hold this item for a special Board meeting, but the motion died for lack of a second.
M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to obtain financing from a lender of its choice in the amount of $2.5 million for the purpose of financing the Dan O’Brien Outdoor Track and Field Complex renovation and Improvements project, and authorizing the Vice President for Finance & Administration to execute all necessary documents on behalf of the Board of Regents. Said financing shall be secured, if applicable, in accordance with Section 33-3804(j), Idaho Code, and at an interest rate not to exceed 5.50%. Motion carried unanimously.
|Request for Proposals-Television Cable Project||M/S (Terrell/Edmunds): To approve the agreement between the University of Idaho and Time Warner Cable, in substantial conformance with the Forms submitted to the Board in Attachments 1 and 3. Motion carried unanimously.||6/16-17/10||25
|Kibbie Dome Enhancement Project-Game Day Renovation||M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to implement the construction phase of the Kibbie Activity Center Enhancement Project, for a total project cost not to exceed $5,310,000, and to authorize the University of Idaho to execute all requisite consulting, design and vendor contracts necessary to fully implement the project. Motion carried 4-2 (Lewis and Edmunds voted Nay).
M/S (Terrell/Atchley): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to obtain financing from a lender of its choice for approximately $2.9 million for the purpose of partially financing the Kibbie Activity Center Enhancement Project, and to authorize the Vice President for Finance and Administration to execute all necessary documents on behalf of the Board of Regents. Said financing shall be secured, if applicable, in accordance with Section 33-3804(j), Idaho Code, and at an interest rate not to exceed 5.50%. Motion carried 4-2 (Edmunds and Lewis voted Nay).
Board member Terrell noted that in February 2010 the Board approved the design phase of this project. UI reported that the design phase is underway and this request is for the construction phase. Lloyd Mues indicated that this project is 100% funded by giving. Vice President Murray of UI provided details. It was noted that there is a mismatch between when the pledges come in and when the payment of certain construction costs are due. A bridge loan will be secured to meet that difference.
Board member Lewis asked for clarification on the point of the loan and expressed concern about the risk of a loan that is secured only by pledges. Dr. Nellis noted that this type of project is common. He explained that this project is a transformative project. He pointed out that if the Board looks at the pledges that have already come in, it is a positive. The bridge loan covers a gap. The commitment of the alumni is evident in terms of the amount of money already raised.
Mr. Murray emphasized that the revenue enhancement that this project will generate is significant. He pointed out that there is a pledge contingency built into the project. There is also a fee built into the project that can be used to backfill the pledges if necessary. Mr. Lewis noted that projects that are privately funded normally don’t have a risk like this one does. Dr. Nellis indicated that in terms of looking at construction costs and securing this loan which is a bridge loan, waiting too long to take care of this could impact the situation. Mr. Mues noted that the loan can be paid off ahead of time without penalty. That is the intent of the University.
Mr. Terrell asked for clarification about the cash available for projects. Mr. Spears noted that there is more than enough money in committed pledges and sponsorships to cover the project. The bridge loan is to cover the gap time-wise. He noted that this is not about athletics because the building is used 60% of the time by non-athletics.
Mr. Lewis clarified that he recollects that the Board hasn’t required 100% of the cash in hand before a private project is approved; the difference here is that there is a need for a loan to cover the gap. He indicated he will vote against this because it is not a good path to approve a privately funded project that has to be backed by a loan.
|Sponsorship Agreement-Litehouse, Inc.||M/S (Terrell/Atchley): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to enter into a sponsorship agreement with Litehouse, Inc. in substantial conformance to the form submitted to the Regents as Attachment 1, and to authorize the Vice President of Finance and Administration to execute the agreement. Motion carried unanimously.||6/16-17/10||26
|Formation of an Applied Research Entity||M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to participate in the formation of the applied research entity to be known as LASR in substantial conformance with the documents attached to the Board materials, and to then accomplish the transfer of operations of the Center for Advanced Microelectronics and Biomolecular Research to the applied research entity.
Subsidiary M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To postpone this to the August meeting and refer it to the BAHR Committee and bring it back. Motion carried unanimously.
Dr. Nellis noted that Dr. Jack McIver who was going to appear to report on this request had to leave for a family emergency.
Board member Edmunds expressed concern that this project appears to get around the issue of tech transfer policy. If that is the case, it would break up the effort that has been underway to build partnerships. Another issue for him is the governance structure through CAMBR and the way it is set up. Mr. Edmunds indicated he was expecting tighter controls by UI. He noted that he is struggling with this request.
Kent Nelson of UI spoke to the issues that Mr. Edmunds raised. He noted that the project helps form a bridge between the University and private industry. This is a concept of an applied research laboratory where experts can carry out more focused research projects to meet industry standards. This is not an attempt to make an end-run around policy. With respect to control, there has to be a distinct entity to qualify for the federal requirements of separation. This is a 501.3c entity. For purposes of LASR, this meets the requirement of working with an educational entity. In order for the entity to function it has to be a symbiotic relationship. If that doesn’t happen, the entity loses the 501.3c rating. Mr. Nelson noted as well that the intellectual rights of the University would be protected. The President of UI appoints all the members of the board. Dr. Nellis indicated that this is a common entity across the country as a way to create a dynamic for tech transfer. Mr. Nelson clarified that other documentation will be drafted when the entity and the University enter into projects.
Mr. Edmunds indicated that there could likely be control issues with the foundation after the University puts together the original slate of directors. Dr. Nellis referred to the articles of incorporation in the information that is available. Mr. Nelson referred to Article 4 that documents the connection between LASR and the University.
Mr. Lewis noted he would have expected an extensive service agreement between LASR and the University. He pointed out that the bylaws provide the scope, but do not include anything about the contractual obligations between LASR and the University. Mr. Nelson reiterated that for every project there would be whole set of agreements for that project that comply with Board policy. Mr. Nelson also indicated this is the first step in a series of steps.
Mr. Edmunds restated his concerns.
|Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) Annual Summary Report||Peter Goodwin, Rick Schumacher and Laird Noh presented the EPSCoR Annual Report to the Board. Dr. Peter Goodwin explained that the EPSCoR program is about building the science community within the state. It is doing that by building a cohesive research team of universities. The upcoming priorities of Idaho EPSCoR include the America Competes Act, the National Science Foundation Springboard Day, a proposal to host national EPSCoR Conference, and other EPSCoR major initiatives.
Dr. Goodwin indicated that Idaho’s share of regular National Science Foundation (NSF) research funding is increasing. The Research Infrastructure Improvement (RII) funds personnel, research, cyber-infrastructure, diversity and outreach, management/stewardship, and sustainability. One example of outreach is the Idaho STEM Pipeline. This has drawn national attention. EPSCoR is in the process of transforming data policy.
Dr. Goodwin indicated that Idaho EPSCoR needs to position itself nationally so it attracts attention in terms of cyber-infrastructure. He pointed out that there are three key positions to be filled related to this effort. This is a value-added enhancement to INL and other initiatives.
Senator Noh thanked the Board for the opportunity to report. He indicated that Idaho EPSCoR appreciates the patience and involvement of the Board during the period of transitioning back under the oversight of the Board. Idaho EPSCoR looks forward to having a cooperative working relationship with the Board.
|Approval of Notice of Intent: Consolidation of the Department of Statistics||M/S (Lewis/Atchley): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to create a new administrative unit, Bi-State Department of Statistical Science and change the existing degree name to Master of Science in Statistical Science. Motion carried 5-0 (Terrell absent during the vote).||6/16-17/10||30
|Approval of Notice of Intent: Reorganization of the College of Education||M/S (Edmunds/Soltman): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to restructure the College of Education from four academic units into three academic units. Motion carried 5-0 (Terrell absent during the vote).||6/16-17/10||30
|Approval of Notice of Intent and Full Proposal: New Professional Science Master’s in Natural Resources and Environmental Science||M/S (Edmunds/Soltman): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to create a new Professional Science Masters degree program in Natural Resources and Environmental Science. Motion carried 5-0 (Terrell absent during the vote).||6/16-17/10||30
|Chief Executive Officers Employment Agreements||M/S (Soltman/Terrell): To approve the employment agreements for Boise State University President, Dr. Robert Kustra, University of Idaho President, Dr. Duane Nellis, Idaho State University President, Dr. Art Vailas, Eastern Idaho Technical College President, Mr. Burton Waite, and the State Board of Education Executive Director, Dr. Mike Rush in the forms provided to the Board and to authorize the Board President to sign on behalf of the Board. Motion carried unanimously.
Superintendent Luna asked if there are any changes in salary or benefits.
Board President Westerberg said there are not and that all salaries and benefits remain flat.
|Proposed Institutional Peers||M/S (Soltman/Terrell): To approve the list of thirteen peers and three aspirational peers proposed by BSU, ISU, UI, LCSC, and EITC for use in instructional and institutional performance. Motion carried unanimously.
Selena Grace, State Board of Education, provided a presentation, history, and background for this item. The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) was contracted to provide a proposed list of peers using a MGT study. Peer recommendations were reviewed by the institutions and it was felt the institutions are in a better position to approve their own peers.
|Multi-Year Contract for the Director of Tennis||M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To approve the University of Idaho’s multi-year employment contract for Jeff Beaman, Director of Tennis, for a term commencing on July 2, 2010 and termination on June 30, 2013 in substantial conformance to the contract submitted to the Board in Attachment 1. Motion carried unanimously.
Rod Lewis indicated that the model contract included a clause that changes in salary were able to be made without further Board approval. Have those changes been made?
Mr. Freeman indicated there is no such clause in the contract under consideration.
|Multi-Year Contract for the Women’s Swim Team Head Coach||M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To approve the University of Idaho’s multi-year employment contract for the Women’s Swim Team Head Coach for a term commencing on August 15, 2010 and termination on August 14, 2014, in substantial conformance to the contract submitted to the Board in Attachment 1.Motion carried unanimously.||8/11-12/10||17
|Multi-Year Contract for the Men’s Basketball Team Head Coach||M/S (Terrell/Atchley): To approve the University of Idaho’s multi-year employment contract for the Men’s Basketball Team Head Coach for a term commencing on March 24, 2010 and terminating on March 23, 2015, in substantial conformance to the form submitted to the Board in Attachment 1, correcting Head “Football” Coach to Head “Basketball” Coach on Page 1003. Motion carried unanimously.||8/11-12/10||18
|Multi-Year Contract for the Women’s Basketball Team Head Coach||M/S (Terrell/Lewis): To approve the University of Idaho’s multi-year employment contract for the Women’s Basketball Team Head Coach for a term commencing on March 27, 2010 and terminating on March 26, 2015, in substantial conformance to the contract submitted to the Board in Attachment 1.Motion carried unanimously.||8/11-12/10||18
|Additional Authorization Request, Energy Services Performance Contract||M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To approve the request by the University of Idaho for authorization to expend up to an additional $2.2M in bond interest earnings on energy improvement projects consistent with the original bond. Total authorization for ESPC work will increase to $37.2M. Motion carried unanimously.
Milford Terrell clarified that the funds cannot be used for any other purpose than those approved, which is to pay down the interest on the bond. The expected payback is within ten years.
|Police Service Contract Approval Between the University of Idaho and the City of Moscow||M/S (Terrell/Atchley): To approve the agreement for police services between the University of Idaho and the City of Moscow, in substantial conformance to the contract submitted to the Board. Motion carried unanimously.||8/11-12/10||22
|Security Services Contract- AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC||M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To approve the agreement for private security services between the University of Idaho and AlliedBarton Security Services, LLC, in substantial conformance to the contract submitted to the Board. Motion carried unanimously.||8/11-12/10||22
|Changes in Policies on Promotion and Rank||M/S (Terrell/Westerberg): A motion to approve changes to University of Idaho policies on faculty promotion and tenure as set forth in the materials submitted to the Board. Motion carried unanimously.
Matt Freeman outlined two changes to the U of I faculty staff handbook that the University if seeking approval for. The primary one is the creation of a new faculty rank of “University Distinguished Professor”. The rank carry with it an annual stipend of $5,000 per year for five years, which would be funded with fundraising. The other was minor changes to the faculty promotion process.
Milford Terrell has concerns if the funding cannot be raised, would this go to appropriations.
U of I indicated that if the funds are not raised, stipends would not be conferred. There is a maximum amount of 15 appointments for a total of $75,000, but there is no minimum amount. If no funds are raised, the stipend would be zero. The stipend would be on a five year rolling award, with no more than 15 appointments at any given time.
Emma Atchley asked for clarification that the stipend would be awarded until retirement.
U of I indicated that is correct. If a professor was three years from retirement, the stipend would be paid until retirement and not for the full five years.
Richard Westerberg asked who confers the title.
U of I said the title is conferred through the Provost to the President and by approval from the University President.
Mike Rush indicated that any changes to the Faculty Staff Handbook are required by Board policy to receive approval by the Board and is the reason this item has been presented.
|Approval of Loan Authorizing Resolution- Dan O’Brien Outdoor Track and Field complex Renovation Project||M/S (Terrell/Atchley): To approve the request by the University of Idaho for a resolution of the Board of Regents of the University of Idaho as per Attachment 1 to the Board materials, and hereby adopting said resolution and authorizing the President of the Board and the bursar of the University of Idaho to execute the same. Motion carried unanimously.||8/11-12/10||23
|Loan Authorizing Resolution- ASUI Kibbie Activity Center (Kibbie Dome) Enhancement Project||M/S (Terrell/Lewis): To approve the request by the University of Idaho for the resolution of the Board of Regents of the University of Idaho as per Attachment 1 to the Board materials, and hereby adopting said resolution and authorizing the President of the Board and the bursar of the University of Idaho to execute the same. Motion carried unanimously.||8/11-12/10||23
|Approval of Notice of Intent: Change the Minimum Number of Credits for Baccalaureate Degree to 120||M/S (Edmunds/Westerberg): To authorize the institutions, under the governance of the Board, to reduce the number of credits for baccalaureate degrees for any program from 128 to 120 credits based on each institution’s determination of appropriateness. Motion carried unanimously.
Sona Andrew, Provost of Boise State University, presented this item to the Board. This change will reduce fees to students, improve graduation rates, and free faculty time.
Milford Terrell expressed concern regarding the change to the motion to include all institutions.
Provost Olson, Idaho State University, indicated that most states have a minimum and 120 is a standard across the country, as well as within the Pacific Northwest. The motion does not mandate changes, but give the institutions the opportunity to do so.
Ms. Andrews indicated that BSU raised this issue with CAAP some time ago and the other institutions were interested as well. This is not for a specific academic program, but gives the institutions the ability to look at each individual program.
Provost Baker, University of Idaho, stressed that this is only approval to reduce the credits to 120 if the university chooses to approve the reduction in credits required.
|New Positions||By unanimous consent the Board approved the request by Idaho State University for eight (8) new positions (7.5 FTE) and a title change on one faculty position (1.0 FTE) supported by grant, local and appropriated funds.||10/13-14/10||8
|FY 2010 Carryover Funds||By unanimous consent the Board approved the requests by Boise State University, Idaho State University, University of Idaho, Lewis-Clark State College, Idaho Dental Education Program, UI Agricultural Research and Extension Service, and WWAMI Medical Education Program, to carry over authorized but unspent non-General Funds in the amounts specified in the agenda material from FY 2010 to FY 2011 and to be used for non-recurring expenditures.||10/13-14/10||9
|Presentation of Institution Financial Statements||Lloyd Mues presented the FY 2010 Audit Summary for UI. Board member Terrell thanked Mr. Mues for his report and commented on the useful information he provided, and suggested the same kind of report from each institution would be useful. Along that same line, Matt Freeman noted that all the institutions will provide the Board with a net assets report and a ratios report in December.||10/13-14/10||14
|Financial Statements||M/S (Luna/Terrell): To accept from the Audit Committee the Fiscal Year 2010 financial audit reports for Boise State University, University of Idaho, Lewis-Clark State College, and Eastern Idaho Technical College, as presented by Moss Adams LLP. Motion carried unanimously.||10/13-14/10||15
|Unified Communications Initiative||This is an information item with details provided to the Board in their agenda materials.||10/13-14/10||18
|Theophilus Tower Elevator Modernization and Life Safety||M/S (Terrell/Agidius): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to implement a capital project to improve and upgrade the existing elevators in Theophilus Tower, a residential facility located on the Moscow campus of the University of Idaho, in the amount of $941,000. Approval includes the authority to execute all necessary consulting, construction and vendor contracts to implement the design and construction phases of the project. Motion carried unanimously.||10/13-14/10||18
|Formation of an Applied Research Entity||M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to participate in the formation of the applied research entity to be known as LASR and to enter into the proposed Operating Agreement, Loaned Employee Agreement and Services Agreement in substantial conformance with the documents attached to the Board materials. Motion carried unanimously.||10/13-14/10||18
|Research Strategic Plan||Dr. John McIver, Director of Research at the University of Idaho, addressed the Board on behalf of all the research directors from the other institutions. He briefly outlined their collaborative approach to increase research activity among Idaho’s public four-year institutions and the public and private sector in order to enhance opportunities for greater external funding.
Board President Westerberg noted there is a fair amount of information provided by the institutions. He asked for clarification to ascertain if those descriptions align with the role and mission of each institution. He urged the institutions to make sure that was the case.
Dr. McIver asked for feedback from the Board as they seek to move forward. Board member Soltman noted this is a great collaborative effort and urged them to continue.
|New Positions||By unanimous consent, the Board agreed to approve the request by the University of Idaho to create four (4) new positions (4.0 FTE) supported by appropriated and non-appropriated funds.||12/8-9/10||3
|Institution Emergency Operations Plans||Lloyd Mues reported that UI has an effective plan. Relevant exercises of various kinds are conducted on a regular basis to make sure all points are covered. UI works closely with Homeland Security to ensure UI’s plan lines up. UI uses its plan for every type of emergency. It trains hard and is active in preparing.||12/8-9/10||5
|Athletic Scheduling||M/S (Edmunds/Lewis): To approve delegating the decisions about scheduling athletic games and opponents to the chief executive officers of the respective institutions. Motion carried unanimously. Motion carried 5-3 (Agidius, Soltman, and Atchley voted Nay).
Mr. Soltman introduced this item. He noted that there is quite a bit of discussion underway on this subject, specifically in terms of BSU and UI continuing the tradition of playing a football game each year.
President Nellis of the University of Idaho was invited to comment on this. He agreed that this is a time of transition for BSU. Nevertheless, BSU and UI have a long tradition of playing football against one another and that game results in economic advantages to the state. He urged the Board to encourage the yearly games to continue.
|Board Policy I.J- First Reading||M/S (Soltman/Edmunds): To return this policy to staff and bring it to the Board in February as the first reading. Motion carried unanimously.
Board member Soltman introduced this item. Tracie Bent of the Board office discussed the changes. She pointed out that in reviewing the amendment to the policy it was noted that UI’s practice of allowing underage family members into the President’s tent location where alcohol was being served was a violation of the Board’s policy. As a result, additional changes in the amendment were made to address this and those changes are substantive in nature.
Kent Nelson, legal counsel for the University of Idaho, came forward to provide more information to the Board. Mr. Nelson noted that the redraft has substantial changes. He referred to the language in subparagraph C that notes that even though this policy is in place, the institutions will continue to come forward to the Board each year and allow for Board review. In addition, in section II.3.1 where there was a bar on minors, it would require specific approval from the Board each year which is how it has been done in the past.
Board member Lewis observed that the inclusion of language to present the proposal every year is helpful. He expressed concerns about the third sentence where it says that the Board will review the proposals. He noted that it appears, by the way it is written, that the criteria will be used as guidelines. He suggested that it needs to be more clearly stated. Mr. Lewis indicated that in the past when the criteria were set forth it was clear that advertising would not be allowed and that needs to be included in this policy as well.
Board member Agidius asked for clarification as to the points to be addressed in the reassessment of the amendments. Board member Lewis indicated that the change from “minimum requirements: to “criteria” should be reversed; it needs to remain as minimum requirements. Second is a change in nuances, in allowing persons below the legal age to be in the defined areas. Board member Terrell noted that the issue of advertisement be addressed as well and be clarified in the policy.
Board member Soltman explained that the amendments were written to reflect the Board’s current practice. Board member Agidius indicated that he wants to see Board approval if there are minors in the area where alcohol is being served. Ms. Atchley noted it is important to remember that these events are invitational events, not public events. She suggested the policy can be written to reflect and understanding of that fact. She referred to section I.1 for the benefit of the Board.
|Amendments to Board Policy- Section V.R.3-Definitions and Types of Tuition and Fees and Section V.Q.1- Revenue Deposited into Account- First Reading||M/S (Terrell/Atchley): To approve the first reading of proposed amendments to Board Policy Section V.R.3.a., and Section V.Q.1.a, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
Lloyd Mues of UI presented this item and explained it ensures policies on institution fees correspond to proposed revisions to the Idaho Code.
|Naming/Memorializing Buildings- Art and Architecture Interdisciplinary Studio Complex||M/S (Terrell/Atchley): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to name the proposed Interdisciplinary Studio Complex after Eduardo Alvarez, contingent upon receipt of a substantial gift from the Alvarez family in support of the project. Motion carried unanimously.||12/8-9/10||12
|New Positions||By unanimous consent, the Board agreed to approve the request by the University of Idaho to create five (5) new positions (5.0 FTE) supported by appropriated and non-appropriated funds.||2/16-17/11||4
|Intercollegiate Athletics- Financial Reports||Board member Terrell introduced this item. Board member Lewis raised a question about fund balances and Board policy related to negative balances. He asked about UI and its negative fund balance.
Lloyd Mues of UI discussed the revenue increases. He noted that there is a small increase that results from increases in the student activity fees. In addition, there have been changes related to ticket sales, the Lear Field services, and also an increase in the gender equity funds going to athletics. Keith Ickes, the Director of Planning & Budget at UI explained that the increase in expenditures related to the Lear Field contract. He pointed out that the gross ticket revenues and all the expenditures are a programmatic change. In addition, the ticket office was moved and now the full ticket activity is shown where it wasn’t before. Mr. Ickes explained that the coaches’ salaries and benefits went up, as well as the equipment and supplies.
Mr. Lewis suggested that the Board direct UI to come back with a recovery plan in April. Board President Westerberg directed UI to do so.
|Starbucks at UI Bookstore||M/S (Terrell/Agidius): To approve the master licensing agreement for a coffee service location between the University of Idaho and Starbucks Corporation in substantial conformance to the form submitted to the Board. Contained within this motion is a request by the University of Idaho to implement a Capital Project to improve an upgrade to the Bookstore to facilitate this retail operation in an amount not to exceed $528,000. Authorization includes the authority to execute all necessary and requisite consulting, construction, and vendor contracts to implement the design and construction phases of this project. Motion carried unanimously.||2/16-17/11||19
|Approval of Full Proposal- Doctorate, Athletic Training||M/S (Edmunds/Agidius): To approve the request by UI to create an advanced clinical Doctorate in Athletic training as set forth in the attached full-proposal.
Subsidiary M/S (Lewis/Terrell): To postpone this item to allow IRSA and CAAP more time to study this proposal and to bring it back to the Board in April. Motion carried 5-2 (Agidius and Atchley voted Nay).
Provost Doug Baker from the University of Idaho presented this item. Dr. Baker noted this is a self-sustaining program and the program has been reviewed by CAAP. He introduced Dr. Corrine Mantle-Bromley, the Dean of the College of Education, Dr. Kathy Browder, the Department Chair of Movement Sciences at the College of Education, and Jeff Seegmiller, Assistant Professor of Athletic Training and WWAMI faculty member, to provide additional details.
Dean Bromley outlined the details of the degree. It is a clinical doctorate. If it is approved at this time, it will become the first degree in the nation for athletic training. The degree is a six semester program and requires full-time attendance so it can be done in two years. Dr. Bromley reported that the proposal went through intense scrutiny by the College of Education, the University Faculty Senate, two external experts in the field, the Provost, and the Vice President of Finance.
Dr. Seegmiller discussed the particulars of the program. The program has a model that allows for measures to be made of the outcomes. Dr. Browder spoke about the rigor of the program. She explained that work has been underway for three years to make sure it has the rigor it needs. It is in accelerated format. She pointed out that it is a clinical doctorate, not an academic doctorate, and explained the differences for the benefit of the Board.
Board President Westerberg asked about the demand and need for the program. Dr. Browder indicated that they looked at the demand and, based on the labor market demand analysis, the conservative estimate is that there are currently 30,000 people nationwide who would be eligible for this program. In addition, the commensurate financial reward will be significant.
Board member Lewis raised a question as to whether this program really rises to the doctorate level. He expressed concerns about going down a path that demeans the degree. He emphasized that his struggle is that it is a clinical doctorate, and only a two-year program. He suggested that it lacks the intensive academic component.
Dr. Browder noted this is an advanced clinical doctorate in comparison to an entry level clinical doctorate. She made a point that athletic training is in transition nationwide, and this is a response to that transition. She explained again that the clinical doctorate differs from other doctorates, and gave some comparative information to help the Board better understand the concept.
Dean Bromley explained that throughout the program there will be intensive coursework that relates to each person’s practice. Dr. Seegmiller pointed out that the requirements of the program means that students coming into it must have met all the requirements of the practice. In terms of the curriculum, Dr. Seegmiller indicated that students must have foundational courses as part of their undergraduate degrees. At the doctorate level, students will be taking advanced courses and also conducting research in their related fields as part of that coursework. Dr. Browder reiterated that the standard competencies for accrediting programs demand that the rigor is high. Students must also be credentialed and certified by the national board.
Based on discussion, Board member Lewis asked if it was possible to postpone this item in order to have time to better understand the scope and nature of the proposal. A subsidiary motion was made for that purpose.
|Section II- Finance||Dr. Duane Nellis introduced Samantha Perez newly elected Student Body President, Steven Parrott outgoing Student Body President, along with Keith Ickes and Lloyd Mues.
Dr. Nellis noted that UI is trying to preserve things at the University. He explained that over the past decade there has been a fundamental change in the funding paradigm in Idaho, and nationally as well. As the amount of state funds has decreased, the amount of tuition/fee funding has increased. He noted that endowment funding has also decreased. Dr. Nellis noted that over the past decade, the purchasing power of students is down.
Dr. Nellis indicated that UI has addressed the funding situation by eliminating positions, closing programs, limiting hiring, reorganizing colleges, eliminating classes, and invested in energy savings to reduce future costs. The transformational changes include promoting entrepreneurial thinking to cut costs and raise revenues; increasing class and program efficiencies; expanding online and dual courses; refining interactive learning opportunities; revamping the financial aid program; restructuring research and economic development; overhauling recruiting and enrollment processes; and increasing community involvement.
Ms. Perez explained that one of the things the students will work on this year is evaluating the student activity fees to see if those activities actually benefit the students. Fees going to activities that are not beneficial will be redirected.
Dr. Nellis discussed the fiscal challenges UI is facing including reduction of state funding, increases in costs, the need to use reserves and bridge funds, and other unfunded state obligations. Dr. Nellis referred the Board to the current tuition and fee package.
Stephen Parrott discussed the proposed fee increase for this year. An 8.4% fee increase is proposed for resident students; the non-resident fee increase is 8%. The graduate fee proposed fee increase is 15%. The breakout of the student activity fee is $5.26 per year per student. It is part of the tuition and fee package. The technology fee and the facility fees are not increased. Mr. Parrott explained that the proposal was taken to the open forum for students to allow them the opportunity to respond. He noted that there has been a very positive response; they would rather see an increase than to see things get cut.
Dr. Nellis indicated that if the fee increases are approved. UI’s FY 12 tuition and fee rates still fall below the peer institutions fee and tuition rates. Dr. Nellis discussed how the fee increase will help UI meet the challenges. The internal budget cuts for FY 2012 based on the proposed fee increase will be $1.8 million. UI is building for the future. The University continues to be highly ranked for what it offers: the return students have for their investment; the quality of the education opportunities it provides; and its reputation nationally. UI wants to preserve what it has. This proposal has been thought through very carefully.
Steve Parrott thanked the Board for allowing them to attend the meeting. He pointed out that UI is very unique and has a great partnership between its students and administration. Administration has been open to listening to the students and their concerns.
Board member Terrell raised a point about the enrollment assumption. Dr. Nellis indicated that the funds that come in will be used as outlined in the proposal even if the enrollments are higher than estimated. Mr. Nellis added that UI is using a different approach to recruit new students.
Mr. Terrell asked for clarification on the Kibbie Center operations. Mr. Parrott pointed out the Kibbie Dome is the ASBU Kibbie Dome and used for many other events, classes, and activities in addition to athletics. Mr. Terrell asked why the Spirit Squad is funded with student activity fees and Mr. Parrott explained that the Spirit Squad helps with recruiting, and performs at other student activities beyond sporting events. Ms. Perez explained that UI does not fund the Spirit Squad fund so the students voted to fund them.
Mr. Terrell asked about UI’s strategy if the economic situation continues. Dr. Nellis noted that the Board needs to look at the transformational activities and programs that UI has initiated because they could generate revenue and offset costs. UI hopes to increase the out-of-state enrollments as well to increase revenue through gifts, grants, and foundation support. Dr. Nellis noted UI will continue to do business differently. He expects there will be increasing costs such as deferred maintenance, utilities, technology and software, etc. And, while UI is working with contractors and vendors to keep those costs under control, the needs won’t go away. Also, there have not been salary raises for staff in nearly five years and there are serious consequences related to that as the University continues to lose staff to other states.
Board member Edmunds asked about the multiplier used for non-residents and Mr. Ickes noted that the basic fee package is charged to every student; then the non-resident fee package is added on top of that.
Mr. Edmunds asked about the direction all of the institutions are going noting there seems to be a lot of duplication. He suggested that there should be serious talk about whether growth is the right thing. In terms of the overall cost of education in the state, if there was a different approach with more focus on programs and less focus on growth, there could be significant costs savings.
Ms. Atchley asked about the online courses offered at UI and whether an online course offered by one institution can be transferred to another institution in the state. Dr. Nellis noted that there is complete transparency, and transferability isn’t an issue. However, there are some for-profit institutions where it is an issue. In terms of costs savings, Dr. Nellis noted that there is such a range of online courses and such a variety in the types and requirements, online learning does not always guarantee that there will be a cost savings. It varies significantly depending on the subject matter, the design of the course, the enrollment in the course, the teaching staff, the assessment, etc. Provost Baker noted that there is confusion when the term online is used; it is good for some courses, and not good for others. Online learning is nor watching a video. A lot of active teaching is required and so there is cost factor there.
Board President Westerberg expressed his appreciation in having the students involved in the decisions and the Board presentation. He asked about the use of student tuition to fill the gaps. Dr. Nellis explained that UI used $4.2 million of its reserves this past year to fill in the gaps. It hopes to make up some of the loss of those reserves funds so they won’t drop too much lower.
Mr. Westerberg asked about ways to increase summer enrollments and summer rates. Provost Baker indicated that UI doesn’t believe price is the lever because it is already pretty low; so it is looking at place, price, and promotion. It is also looking at distance education as well in terms of summer courses.
Board member Terrell raised a point about the institutions going to self—funding of athletics. Steve Parrott noted that there would be immediate concerns for the students if that were the case. Currently, students benefit significantly from athletics. If the funds go away, students would have to begin to bear more of the cost in order to attend events. Also, the additional uses that students are able to take advantage of within the athletic department are important.
Mr. Edmunds returned to the idea of revenue streams and costs streams; Some of those grant/financial streams are drying up or diminishing significantly for students. The bottom line is how do students afford to go to school? The debt load when students come out of school is a serious issue. Mr. Ickes indicated that UI will have a research project underway to study this issue.
Mr. Luna asked if UI has looked at BYU-Idaho’s three semester system. Students are assigned which two semesters of the three they can attend; there is no summer school option. Provost Baker indicated UI has looked at this; but traditionally their students go home and work in the summer. Dr. Baker indicated UI may not have the same flexibility as BYU-Idaho in telling students they can only take two semesters when there are three semesters available.
|Student Tuition and Fee Rates (Academic Year 2011-2012)||M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To approve the annual full-time resident student fee rates for FY 2012 for University of Idaho at an overall increase of 8.4%, to include tuition, facility, technology, and activity fees for a total dollar amount of $5,856; and to approve the annual full-time student fee rate for nonresident tuition of 8% for a total dollar amount of $12,520. Motion carried 6-1 (Edmunds voted Nay).
M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To approve all other fees for FY2012 for University of Idaho as contained in the University of Idaho fees motion sheet which will be made part of the written minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
Board President Westerberg thanked the institutions for their presentation. Bill Goesling asked that the Board thank the student leaders for their participation and involvement by drafting a letter to them to that effect. They were a key component in the decisions today. Board President Westerberg agreed and directed the Board staff to do so.
|New Positions and Changes to Positions||By unanimous consent, the Board approved the request by the University of Idaho to create one (1) new position (1.0 FTE) and reactivate two (2) positions (2.0 FTE), supported by appropriated and non-appropriated funds.||4/20-21/11||15
|University of Idaho Annual Report||Dr. Duane Nellis reported on the progress of the University of Idaho over the past year. He welcomed the Board to Moscow. Dr. Nellis discussed the mission of UI as a land grant research university. The priority is to ensure student success through quality education. UI has made great strides to achieve this through transformational teaching and learning, preparation, outreach and engagement, and purposeful growth. The new strategic plan for 2011 through 2015 includes a formal strategic planning committee which will continually review the plan and progress.
Dr. Nellis noted achievements including increasing graduate enrollment, extending recruitment initiatives, and an emphasis on programs related to community and culture. They’ve adopted an enrollment and recruitment plan that extends beyond the Moscow campus. Over the past two years UI has seen the largest freshman enrollments; one third of them are the first in their families to attend college. They have 81 national merit scholars. As far as retention rates, 81% of freshmen are returning.
UI has many physical locations statewide and it continues to build for tomorrow. The facilities, the research enterprise, and the campus improvements have been addressed in spite of the financial constraints. UI is in the midst of a capital campaign; it will go public with it in 2012. The campaign focuses on students, faculty, programs, and facilities.
Dr. Nellis shared about the Polya Math Learning Center which gives students structure and an appropriate delivery model to maximize success. It is a national model. Dr. Nellis discussed the UI research enterprise. He noted that the total amount of awards received in FY 2011 have benefited the University and its students during difficult economic times. UI has transformative programs related to economic development underway including the University Economic Development Council and the Laboratory for Applied Science Research. Idaho businesses have sponsored a number of startup efforts as well.
UI is a leader in partnering with other businesses and institutions. The Center for Advanced Energy Studies in Idaho Falls (CAES) is one example and INBRE (the Idea Network) is another. UI has educational partnerships with WSU, BSU, and BYU-Idaho. Outreach and engagement are part of the mission of UI as a land grant university. Extension programs have earned national recognition. Budget line items that support key programs were mentioned.
Board member Soltman thanked Dr. Nellis for his report.
|Approval of Full Proposal- Masters of Science Degree in Athletic Training||M/S (Edmunds/Goesling): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to create an entry-level Master’s of Science in Athletic Training as set forth in the attached Full Academic Proposal. Motion carried unanimously.||4/20-21/11||25
|Approval of Notice of Intent- Expansion of Current Professional Practices- Doctor of Education||M/S (Edmunds/Atchley): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to expand the existing Ed.D. to offer a Professional Practices Doctor of Education as set forth in the attached Notice of Intent. Motion carried unanimously.||4/20-21/11||25
|Approval of Notice of Intent- Restructure and Consolidation of the Department of Microbiology, Molecular Biology, and Biochemistry||M/S (Edmunds/Soltman): To approve the request by the University of Idaho to reorganize and consolidate the Department of Microbiology, Molecular Biology, and Biochemistry (MMBB) as presented. Motion carried unanimously.||4/20-21/11||25
|McCall Outdoor Science School- Self Support Fees||M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To approve the establishment of a self-support fee of $14,222 per student FTE to fund the operation of a graduate residency program at the University of Idaho McCall Outdoor Science School (MOSS) in McCall, Idaho. Motion carried unanimously.
Lloyd Mues discussed this item. He noted that the biggest benefactor of this program is the K-12 students. It is a certificate-producing program and it is one of the programs that is very entrepreneurial.
|Farmhouse Ground Lease||M/S (Terrell/Soltman): To approve the proposed ground lease between the University of Idaho and Idaho Farmhouse Club, Inc., according to the terms submitted to the Board and to authorize the University’s Vice President for Finance and Administration to execute the ground lease in substantial conformance with the draft submitted to the Board as Attachment 1. Motion carried unanimously.||4/20-21/11||32
|Railroad Land Exchange||M/S (Terrell/Goesling): To approve closing the modified exchange with Palouse River and Coulee City Railroad under the terms of the Replacement Exchange Agreement presented to the Board, and to authorize the University of Idaho to enter into the site lease in substantial conformance to the form submitted to the Board in Attachment 2, and to authorize the University’s Vice President for Finance and Administration to execute the necessary documents for the closing and site lease. Motion carried unanimously.||4/20-21/11||32