Agenda, Meeting of the Utah State Board of Regents, December 8, 2000

Agenda, Meeting of the Utah State Board of Regents University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah Olpin Union Building December 8, 2000

AGENDA MEETING OF THE UTAH STATE BOARD OF REGENTS December 8, 2000 Utah State Board of Regents Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education 355 West North Temple 3 Triad Center, Suite 550 Salt Lake City, Utah 84180-1205 AGENDA MEETING OF THE STATE BOARD OF REGENTS University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah Olpin Union Building December 8, 2000 8:00 a.m. - BREAKFAST MEETING - STATE BOARD OF REGENTS, 9:30 a.m. UNIVERSITY OF UTAH BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PRESIDENT MACHEN, COMMISSIONER FOXLEY Parlor A 1. Open Discussion 2. Executive Session 9:30 a.m. - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 11:00 a.m. Saltair Room 1. USHE 2001-2002 Proposed Tuition Increase Tab A 2. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education's Measuring Up 2000: Tab B The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education 3. Discussion of Master Planning Issues Tab C-1 • ATE • Other 4. Higher Education's Legislative Agenda Tab C-2 11:00 a.m. - MEETINGS OF BOARD COMMITTEES 12:00 noon Academic and Applied Technology Education Committee West Ballroom ACTION: 1. Tenure and Post-Tenure Review Report Tab D DISCUSSION: 2. General Education Assessment Tab E 3. Preliminary Ideas for Updating the USHE Technology Master Plan Tab F INFORMATION: 4. Technologically Delivered Instruction Tab G 5. Policy R401, Approval of New Programs and Program Additions or Changes Tab H 6. USHE - Annual Report on T. H. Bell Incentive Loan Program Tab I Finance and Facilities Committee Saltair Room ACTION: 1. University of Utah - Financing Plan for East Campus Central Plant Part II Tab J 2. University of Utah - Long-Range Development Plan Tab K 3. USHE - Authorization to Seek Revenue Bond Financing Tab L INFORMATION: 4. USHE - Projected 20-Year Space Needs Tab M 5. USHE - Annual Leased Space Report Tab N 6. USHE - Fall 2000 Enrollment Report Revisions Tab O 7. Technologically Delivered Instruction (See Tab G) 8. Student Financial Aid - UHEAA Board of Directors Report Tab P CONSENT: 9. Consent Calendar, Finance and Facilities Committee Tab Q a. OCHE Monthly Investment Report b. UofU and USU Capital Facilities Delegation Reports c. Weber State University - Donated Property to be Liquidated d. Annual Money Management Report DISCUSSION: 10. Facilities Discussion with Governor Michael O. Leavitt 12:00 noon - LUNCHEON AND GOVERNOR MICHAEL O. LEAVITT'S 2:00 p.m. BUDGET PRESENTATION Ballroom 2:00 p.m. - REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF THE BOARD OF REGENTS 3:00 p.m. Saltair Room 1. Report of the Chair 2. Report of the Commissioner 3. Reports of Board Committees Academic and ATE Committee (Tabs D - I) Finance and Facilities (Tabs G, J - Q) 4. General Consent Calendar Tab R 5. Other * * * In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing specia l accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) during this meeting should notify ADA Coordinator, at 355 West North Temple, 3 Triad Center, Suite 550, Salt Lake City, UT 84180, or at 801-321-7124, at least three working days prior to the meeting. TDD # 801-321-7130. Tab A, Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM December 1, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: USHE-2001-2002 Proposed Tuition Increase Issue During the December 8th meeting, Regents will be asked to consider and take action on a general tuition rate increase for all USHE institutions for the 2001-2002 academic year. The increase considered at this meeting will apply uniformly to all USHE institutions. The Regents will be asked to consider a second tier of increases for individual institutions at a later date. This two-tier approach for setting tuition increases is the recommendation of the 2000 USHE Master Planning Task Force on Tuition and Financial Aid. The Commissioner's Recommendation, along with supporting information, will be hand carried to the meeting on December 8th. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF/NCT/BLM Tab B, Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM November 29, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education's Measuring Up 2000: The State-by-State Report Card for Higher Education The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education will be releasing its State-by-State Report Card for Higher EducationonNovember 30, 2000. Higher education, including public and private institutions, in each state was "graded" in six performance categories: (1) preparation for college, (2) participationof studentsgoing to college, (3) affordability, (4) completionrates, (5) economic benefits, and (6) educational performance or learning. Preliminary information about the report is attached. Since the actual report is being released tomorrow, there willbe media coverage ofhowhigher education inUtahis rated before next week's Board meeting. More information will be faxed to Regents and institutional Presidents when the embargo on the report is lifted tomorrow morning. Additional details of the report will be hand-carried to the December 8 meeting. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF:jc Attachment Tab C, Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM November 29, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: Discussion of Master Planning Issues-Legislative ATE Task Force Since the October 27 meeting of the Utah State Board of Regents, the Legislative ATE Task Force met three times. On October 30 the Task Force heard a presentation from ATE providers in Salt Lake and Tooele counties concerning working relationships between Salt Lake Community College and the Wasatch Front Applied Technology Center (See Attachment 1), and a joint proposal from Higher Education and Public Education (See Attachment 2). During the November 13 meeting, the Task Force discussed draft legislation that was prepared by John Fellows of the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. At the conclusion of that meeting, the Task Force asked representatives of higher education and public education to respond to the proposed legislation at a final meeting to be held on November 20. At the November 20 meeting, the Task Force finalized the language for the proposed legislation (See Attachment 3). The proposed legislation establishes a new applied technology education governance structure for Utah. A regional board is created for each of the nine existing educational regions and the powers and duties of these boards are defined. The act also establishes a state-wide Joint Applied Technology Education Council and defines the Council's duties and powers. If passed by the legislature, the act would take effect July 1, 2001. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF/MAP/GSW Attachments Tab C, 2 of 6 Comparison of Proposals/Issues Before the Applied Technology Education Task Force Including a Joint Proposal from the Utah State System of Higher Education and Utah State Office of Education Task Force Issues Task Force Position Senator Blackham Proposal Joint USBR/USBE Proposal Name Applied Technology Education Governing Committee Modified Statewide ATE Committee Joint Applied Technology Education Council (JATEC) Independence USBE or USBR veto with unanimous vote of either board subject to override by 2/3 majority of JATEC Jurisdiction Jurisdiction over the ATCS and ATCSRs; coordinates with school districts/State Board of Education for applied technology education provided by local districts and with Board of Regents for ATE provided by higher educational institutions. ATE statewide and within both public education and higher education through regional boards Jurisdiction over the ATCs and ATCSRs for all non-credit ATE training; coordinates with school districts/State Board of Education for applied technology education K-12 provided by local districts and with Board of Regents for credit ATE provided by higher education institutions. Membership Adopted Senator Blackham's Proposal 1 ea. 10 ATE regions (split southwest) 2 public education: State Superintendent plus one 2 higher education: Commissioner plus one 1 Dept. Workforce Services 1 ea. 10 ATE regions (split southwest) 2 public education: State Superintendent plus one 2 higher education: Commissioner plus one 1 Dept. Workforce Services The JATEC membership would include: 3 members of the USBE 3 members of the USBR 5 regional representatives chosen on a rotation basis (Alternating 2-3 from the urban regions and 2-3 from the rural regions on a two year cycle.) Ex Officio members from: 1 DCED 1 Utah Partners In Education Remaining regional representatives Tab C, 3 of 6 Task Force Issues Task Force Position Senator Blackham Proposal Joint USBR/USBE Proposal Appointment of Members Adopted Senator Blackham's proposal 15 members A representative of each regional board (10) Two members from Higher Education (Commissioner and one additional representative) Two members from Public Education (the State Superintendent and one additional representative) The executive director of the Department of Workforce Services 15 members The chair of each regional board (10) Two members from Higher Education (Commissioner and one additional representative) Two members from Public Education (the State Superintendent and one additional representative) The executive director of the Department of Workforce Services Regions will appoint a representative (5 voting and remaining non voting.) USBR 3 representatives. USBE appoints 3 representatives Ex Officio members: Chair DCED Chair Partners in Education Meeting Schedule Quarterly, and as needed At least quarterly, and as needed Compensation Per diem using stock state language Per diem using stock state language Staff Adopted Senator Blackham's proposal Dept. of Workforce Services Dept. of Workforce Services USOE and USHE shared responsibility Appropriation Powers Regional boards prepare and submit budgets to modified State-wide ATE committee for presentation to the Legislature Regional boards prepare and submit budgets to the JATEC which presents prioritized budget to the Governor and the Legislature Tab C, 4 of 6 Task Force Issues Task Force Position Senator Blackham Proposal Joint USBR/USBE Proposal Allocation Powers Funding for current public and higher education programs is frozen: eventually all ATE funds would be appropriated directly from Legislature to regional boards. ATE funds under an applied technology- funding unit would be appropriated directly to the ATC/ATCSR and higher education institution. Capital Facilities Powers Receives priorities from ATE providers, priorities a list, makes recommendation to the Building Board Prioritizing and presenting to the Legislature requests for ATE facilities (preference would be given to projects that are joint efforts of all entities involved and maximize the use of the facilities to meet the needs of all students in the region.) Regional boards prepare and submit capital facilities requests to the JATEC which presents prioritized requests to the Building Board, the Governor and the Legislature Appointment of ATC and ATCSR boards and Superintendents Regional Board membership would include: 1 representative from each school district in the region 1 representative from the higher education institution in the region. Other representatives of business and industry appointed jointly by higher and public education. The chair of the board would be selected from among the representatives of business and industry. ATC superintendents and ATCSR directors would provide staff support to the regional board. 1 representative appointed by local board of education; 1 representative from each higher education institution board of trustees; 3 (minimum) representatives of business and industry appointed jointly by public and higher education members Chair to be elected by the board members from membership of the board Superintendents or ATCSR directors are recommended by the regional boards and approved by the JATEC. Defining Duties and Responsibilities of ATC/ATCSR Boards and Superintendents The JATEC should establish duties and responsibilities by rule in consultation with USBR, USBE, and regional boards. Tab C, 5 of 6 Task Force Issues Task Force Position Senator Blackham Proposal Joint USBR/USBE Proposal Other Powers and Duties Regional boards conduct master planning, including programs, partnerships, facilities, etc.; and submit plans to state committee, which presents statewide plan ensuring fairness. Quarterly agenda items Ongoing strategic planning at state and regional levels. Interface with business and industry. Fast track ATE program approval when necessary. Issue annual report on ATE. Develop criteria for membership/clock hour counts. Determine ATE funding unit. Determine an articulation process for converting non-credit competencies to credit (higher education). ATE Funding Unit The Legislature would commit new monies to the ATE system and begin developing a WPU type funding mechanism for Adult Non-credit ATE. A funding unit should be established based on the audited non-credit membership hours produced at ATCs, ATCSRs, and higher education institutions. The funding unit would increase each year at the same rate as the WPU. This funding unit would begin to provide equity within the regions for adult non-credit ATE training. Tab C, Page 6 of 6 November 29, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: Higher Education's Legislative Agenda We have invited the members of the Institutional Boards of Trustees to join us for the Board of Regents December 8 meeting to discuss issues vital to higher education. Meeting together will give us an opportunity as an entire system to prepare for the 2000 Legislative Session by reviewing Utah System of Higher Education priorities and discussing some possible approaches to helping legislators better understand the vital link between an educated citizenry and a healthy economy. Materials for this discussion will be hand-carried to the meeting. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF:jc Tab D, Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM November 29, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: Tenure and Post-Tenure Review Report -Action Item The Issue Regents' Policy R481, Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility and Tenure, requires that all USHE institutions establish procedures requiring regular evaluations of tenured faculty members. Policy R483 requires an annual report to the Regents on the number of faculty members eligible for tenure and the number awarded tenure. This report addresses these policy requirements as well as other issues regarding tenure at USHE institutions. Report Findings Tenured faculty constitute about 60 percent of the 3,017 full-time faculty at USHE institutions compared to a national average of just over 64 percent. An additional 26 percent are tenure track, while 14 percent are in non-tenured positions. The process for awarding tenure continues to be rigorous and demanding at USHE institutions. The six to seven year process includes frequent evaluations from students, faculty peers, and administrative supervisors. Of a cohort of 213 tenure track faculty, evaluated for purposes of this report, 114 or 68 percent eventually received tenure status. Of the 69 not granted tenure, 28 left the institution before completing the tenure probationary period after having received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation. Thirty-one of the cohort left with satisfactory evaluations, six were denied tenure, and 4 were granted one year extensions. Regents Policy R481 requires a formal post-tenure review of tenured faculty consistent with requirements of accreditation standards. Policies requiring extensive post-tenure reviews, in compliance with such standards, are now in place in eight of the nine USHE institutions. The remaining institution is currently developing a comprehensive policy. Results of an evaluation of post-tenure reviews conducted in 1999-2000 show that nearly 32 percent of tenured faculty received such reviews. However, the percentage evaluated varied widely at the institutions ranging from 11.6 percent to 100 percent. Of the 573 faculty evaluated, 542 (94.6 percent) had satisfactory or better performance. Additionally, 24 were judged satisfactory with some deficiencies. Six were rated unsatisfactory and one was terminated. Tab D, Page 2 of 8 Policy Issues Tenure continues to be a needed feature of faculty governance at USHE institutions. It provides the basis for protecting academic freedom, both for faculty and for students, and it establishes a level of professional security that is necessary to attract highly qualified individuals to the profession. Further, it represents a level of achievement that appropriately reflects professional accomplishments of those faculty members who have completed the necessary academic preparation and rigorous scrutiny over a seven year probationary period at the institution. Tenured faculty should be, and are, held accountable by system-level and institutional policies that are rigorous and effective. The combination of recruitment practices, probationary reviews of tenure track faculty, and post tenure reviews are working effectively. Commissioner's Recommendation It is the recommendation of the Commissioner that the Regents accept the 2000 Report on Tenure and Post Tenure Review. It is further recommended that the Regents continue to support implementation of effective post tenure review policies at all USHE institutions, and require annual reports on the number of faculty who have been awarded tenure and the results of institutional tenure and post tenure review activities. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF/MAP/DRC Tab D, Page 3 of 8 Tenure and Post-Tenure Review Report 2000 Utah System of Higher Education State Board of Regents by Michael A. Petersen David R. Colvin November 29, 2000 Tab D, Page 4 of 8 Introduction The Tenure and Post-Tenure Review Report 2000 presents information required by Regent Policy R481, Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility and Tenure. This policy requires that all USHE institutions establish procedures requiring regular evaluations of tenured faculty members. Additionally, Regent Policy R483 requires an annual report to the Regents on the number of faculty members eligible for tenure and the number awarded tenure. This report addresses these policy requirements and other important issues regarding tenure at USHE institutions. Background All institutions in the Utah System of Higher Education have policies providing for the granting of tenure to full-time faculty members who are in tenure track positions. These policies must meet guidelines outlined in Policy R481. At the system level, tenure is also regulated by R483, which directs the institutions to have rigorous annual review procedures for nontenured faculty members and to report annually to their Boards of Trustees and the Regents on the number of faculty members who were eligible to receive, and the number who were awarded, tenure. Tenure insures that tenure track faculty members, after a probationary period that usually lasts for six or seven years, may thereafter not be dismissed without adequate cause. Tenure is intended to assure academic freedom, which is described in the following way in R481.3.3: The institutions are operated for the common good and not to further the interest of either the individual faculty member or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition. Academic freedom is essential to these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative with rights. Tenure is intended to provide a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to highly qualified individuals. Tenured faculty members may not be dismissed by the institution without adequate cause, nor without procedures being followed which satisfy minimum standards of due process. Causes for dismissal may include professional incompetence, serious misconduct or unethical behavior, serious violation of Board or institutional rules and regulations, or substantially impaired performance for medical reasons. (R481.3.6.1-3.6.4) Tenured faculty may also be dismissed because of bona fide financial exigencies. (R482.3.8) Procedures for dismissal for cause must include notice of the cause in sufficient detail to enable the faculty member to understand and rebut them; the names of the persons making the charges and the nature of the factual evidence; reasonable time and opportunity for the faculty member to present evidence in his or her defense; and a hearing before an impartial body of faculty peers. (R481.3.7.1-3.7.4) Tab D, Page 5 of 8 USHE Tenure/Tenure Track Faculty 1999-2000 Total Faculty Total Tenured Tenure Track Non-tenure Track Percent of Total Tenured U of U * 886 614 141 131 69.3% USU 640 418 137 85 65.3% WSU 430 249 100 81 57.9% SUU 205 95 76 34 46.3% SNOW 104 48 17 39 46.2% DIXIE 81 35 46 0 43.2% CEU 82 40 36 6 48.8% UVSC 270 134 125 11 49.6% SLCC 319 173 109 37 54.2% USHE 3017 1806 787 424 59.9% * Excludes medical school faculty. Number of Tenured Faculty at USHE Institutions At USHE institutions approximately 60 percent of the full-time faculty are tenured. Nationally, 64.2 percent of the faculty members at public institutions of higher education are tenured. Table 1 below reports the number and percent of faculty who are tenured or on the tenure track, and the number of non-tenure track faculty at each USHE institution. Of 3,017 full-time faculty, 1,806 or 59.9 percent are tenured. An additional 787 or 26.1 percent are tenure track, while about 14 percent of the full-time faculty are in non-tenure positions. Table 1 The decision at each of the USHE institutions to grant tenure to a faculty member is the result of rigorous recruiting and evaluative procedures extending over six or seven years. It begins with a highly competitive search to recruit individuals. In many cases candidates are recruited nationally, sometimes internationally, and bring with them extensive academic preparation, usually terminal degrees in their chosen fields, as well as other appropriate qualifications. The result is the selection of highly qualified individuals to tenure track faculty positions. This rigorous selection process increases the likelihood that a high percentage will successfully complete the probationary process and be granted tenure. Tab D, Page 6 of 8 Status of Tenure Cohort from 1993-94 to 1999-2000 Tenure cohort hired 1993-94 Left institution with unsatisfactory performance Left institution with satisfactory performance Denied tenure following probation and final review Granted one year extension of tenure probation Number Granted tenure in 1999-2000 U of U * 70 10 8 3 3 46 USU 33 3 6 0 0 24 WSU 29 3 4 1 1 20 SUU 11 1 4 1 0 5 SNOW 5 2 0 0 0 3 DIXIE 6 2 1 0 0 3 CEU 2 0 0 0 0 2 UVSC 22 4 4 1 0 13 SLCC 35 3 4 0 0 28 USHE 213 28 31 6 4 144 * Medical school faculty included. Evaluation Procedures for Tenure Track Faculty Once hired, faculty are evaluated annually by students in the classes they teach, their peers at the university or college, and by administrative supervisors. The evaluations are used to identify deficiencies, give assistance to faculty when improvements are required, and to recognize and reward excellent performance. If sufficiently serious deficiencies are found, the evaluations lead to recommendations for dismissal. As the probationary period ends and a decision to grant or deny tenure is to be made, an even more extensive evaluation of the faculty member is conducted. The procedures vary, depending on the mission and roles of the institution. For example, there is a greater focus on teaching ability of faculty at community colleges, while research plays a more prominent part at most departments at the University of Utah and Utah State University. The evaluation procedures used at USHE institutions for tenure track faculty members are demanding and effective. A cohort group of tenure track faculty who were hired during 1993-94 were followed during a seven-year period. This year was selected because all faculty hired would have completed the full probationary period during 1999-2000. The results of the study are summarized in Table 2 below. Two-hundred and thirteen new tenure track faculty were hired that year, and eventually 144 (68 percent) were awarded tenure. Twenty-eight faculty who did not complete the probationary period left the institution with an unsatisfactory performance evaluation. It may be assumed that most of these individuals were encouraged to leave because of the likelihood that they would not be granted tenure. Additionally, 31 faculty members had received satisfactory evaluations but left the institution before receiving tenure, because of other professional opportunities or because they were counseled to seek other options. Six of the cohort applied for and were denied tenure, while 4 others were granted one year extensions of their probationary period. Table 2 Tab D, Page 7 of 8 Post-Tenure Review Policy R481 requires a formal post-tenure review of tenured faculty in a " manner and frequency consistent with accreditation standards." The Commission on Colleges of the Northwest Association of Schools and Colleges requires that all members of the faculty be subject to substantive performance evaluation and review at least every third year. The procedures must include multiple indices, be related to the role of the faculty member in relation to the mission of the institution, and accordingly may require evaluation of teaching, scholarly performance and/or research productivity, and service to the profession, school, and community. This requirement does not necessarily mandate a post tenure review every third year but does require a substantive evaluation of all faculty at that frequency. At all institutions in the system, annual evaluations of tenured faculty are performed by students in their classes, and by their supervisors when decisions are made regarding merit salary increases. More extensive post tenure reviews are also conducted at most institutions. At the University of Utah, Utah State University, and the College of Eastern Utah, comprehensive evaluations occur on five-year cycles and involve evaluations by peers, students, and administrators and are usually overseen by a tenured faculty review committee. Weber State University and Salt Lake Community College conduct similar comprehensive evaluations of tenured faculty members every three years. At Southern Utah University, Snow College, and Utah Valley State College, tenured faculty members are evaluated annually, as are all faculty, by their immediate supervisors and by students. Utah Valley State College recently implemented a new policy which requires more extensive evaluation of tenured faculty who show deficiencies in performance during annual evaluations. Southern Utah University is currently developing a post-tenure review policy which will be in addition to its annual review procedure. Although the procedures that are used to evaluate tenured faculty differ at USHE institutions, the purposes are the same: to identify and correct deficiencies, to recognize and reward excellent performance, and in sufficiently serious cases to provide for dismissal of the faculty member. A recently completed study of post-tenure review shows that the procedures are effective. Table 3 on the following page summarizes the results of post tenure reviews conducted at USHE institutions during 1999-2000. Nearly one third (31.7 percent) of the tenured faculty in the system were evaluated last year. The percentage of tenured faculty who were evaluated varied extensively and ranged from 11.6 percent to 100 percent. The percent evaluated is affected by several factors including large numbers of tenured faculty serving as administrators at some institutions. Most tenured faculty were judged to be performing satisfactorily, although about 4 percent had some deficiencies. Only1.2 percent had deficiencies requiring serious corrective action or termination. The study reveals that while most tenured faculty perform their duties satisfactorily, the post tenure evaluations do identify deficiencies in performance making appropriate corrective or disciplinary actions possible. Tab D, Page 8 of 8 Post-tenure Review in USHE Institutions 1999-2000 * Faculty receiving post-tenure review 1999-2000 Percent of tenured faculty Satisfactory or better performance Satisfactory performance with some deficiencies Unsatisfactory performance needing serious correction Terminated or given notice of termination U of U ** 85 13.8% 75 8 1 1 USU 104 24.9% 99 3 2 0 WSU 113 45.4% 101 12 0 0 SUU 11 11.6% 9 1 1 0 SNOW 48 100.0% 48 0 0 0 DIXIE 28 80.0% 28 0 0 0 CEU 6 15.0% 6 0 0 0 UVSC 134 100.0% 132 0 2 0 SLCC 44 25.4% 44 0 0 0 USHE 573 31.7% 542 24 6 1 * Includes promotional reviews of tenured faculty. ** Excludes medical school faculty. Table 3 Conclusions Tenure continues to be a needed feature of faculty governance at USHE institutions. It provides the basis for protecting academic freedom, both for faculty and for students, and it establishes a level of professional security that is necessary to attract highly qualified individuals to the profession. Further, it represents a level of achievement that appropriately reflects professional accomplishments of those faculty members who have completed the necessary academic preparation and rigorous scrutiny over a seven year probationary period at the institution. Tenured faculty should be, and are, held accountable by system-level and institutional policies that are rigorous and effective. The combination of recruitment practices, probationary reviews of tenure track faculty, and post tenure reviews are working effectively. Tab E, Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM November 29, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: General Education Assessment- Discussion Item Issue In its Master Plan 2000, a major commitment was made by the Regents to be accountable to the people of Utah by establishing performance indicators to show the quality of student learning outcomes. A key indicator of student learning is the effectiveness of General Education programs at USHE institutions. Significant activities are now underway to establish value-added performance indicators of instructional effectiveness in General Education. Background An initial effort to measure effectiveness of General Education instruction was to conduct a pilot test using the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP) test, a nationally-normed examination. The pilot test was conducted during Spring, 1998. It revealed significant problems with the CAAP, such as a lack of connection between courses taught by USHE faculty and the test questions, and disparity between the CAAP test and General Education goals that had been developed by USHE faculty. Following the administration and analysis of the CAAP test, the Regents' General Education Task Force (comprised of faculty representatives of all USHE institutions) proposed plans to develop assessment instruments in Writing, Mathematics, and American Institutions (Political Science, History, and Economics). These areas were selected because all USHE institutions require students to complete the same requirements in these discipline areas, and common goals have been developed for these courses by faculty committees. Assessment in Writing. USHE writing faculty have agreed to pilot test a writing portfolio assessment project that will be used to indicate the effectiveness of USHE General Education writing courses. An expert in portfolio assessment has trained faculty to conduct portfolio assessments. Samples of student work written in the first semester of the freshman year and the second semester of the sophomore year are currently being collected and will be systematically compared to evaluate improvement in students' writing abilities. The results of the pilot test will be reported to the Regents after Spring Term, 2001. Tab E, Page 2 of 3 Assessment in Mathematics and American Institutions Disciplines. On Friday, November 3rd, the Regent's General Education Task Force convened meetings of faculty in Mathematics and the three discipline areas teaching American Institution courses (History, Economics, and Political Science). The purpose of the meeting was to develop plans for conducting assessment in each discipline, and the type and content of test items to be used. Following a short discussion on the expectations of the General Education Task Force, each academic discipline met to discuss and come to agreement on the assessment process. Each of the four groups determined procedures that would be followed for choosing test items, administering them as a pre-test, and imbedding these same items in final examinations. The pilot assessments will be giving during Spring Term 2001. A report on the pilot tests will be provided to the Regents after the results are available. The key principles for conducting assessments in Mathematics and American Institutions are as follows: 1. Student work will be assessed within the regular education context as part of faculty assignments and examinations. 2. The primary goal of this process is to assist institutions, academic departments, and faculty to improve teaching and student learning. A secondary purpose is to provide data to the Regents, legislature, and accrediting organizations on the effectiveness of courses in General Education. 3. Educational impact, or value-added, will be determined by the use of pre-tests and post-tests in each area. 4. Test banks will be developed by the USHE faculty committees, from which faculty who teach the classes will draw questions. Test items will vary from class to class, but identical items will be used by individual faculty for the pre- and post-tests in their classes. 5. Data from the assessment pilot will be presented in the aggregate to avoid competition among and comparisons of institutions that have different missions and goals and whose students are of varying competence at entry. 6. The General Education Taskforce will develop a questionnaire to determine faculty opinions on its usefulness of the pilot in furthering the teaching/learning process, and how to improve the assessment process. Next Steps The General Education Taskforce will hold its "Educated Persons" conference in February 2001 to continue the ongoing discussion of General Education issues and to begin planning for an assessment test of computer literacy. While all students take either a course or an examination to assess their computer skills, the courses tend to be offered in specific fields such as Business, Computer Science, Engineering, etc. Designing a similar test across the disciplines will be challenging. Tab E, Page 3 of 3 Assessment is not without costs. The Regent's 2001-2002 budget includes a $200,000 request for funding to support the system's assessment efforts. The General Education Task Force co-chair, Professor Ann Leffler, Utah State University, recently received a $64,000 grant from the Fund for the Improvement of Post Secondary Education (FIPSE) to develop and conduct assessment in General Education. The USHE effort may well become a model for the rest of the country. Commissioner's Recommendation This is a discussion item to inform the Regents of the efforts of the General Education Task Force and USHE faculty members to assess the effectiveness of institutional General Education programs. No action is required at this time. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF/MAP/PCS Tab F, Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM November 29, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: Preliminary Ideas for Updating the USHE Technology Master Plan-Discussion Item Issue The USHE Technology and Distance Learning Initiative Master Plan was developed in 1995 as a multi-year plan to be implemented in a series of phases. The Initiative has been successful in addressing many of the goals and objectives of the Plan. However, many essential elements of the Initiative have not yet been implemented. Information Technology (IT) continues to change higher education, and IT systems are strategic assets. It is now time to assess these IT assets and determine what will be needed for the future and how these needs can be funded. Background A Technology Initiative Task Force has been established to make preliminary recommendations to the Regents in order to update the current Technology and Distance Learning Initiative Master Plan. The Task Force is chaired by Assistant Commissioner Gary Wixom and includes institutional Chief Information Officers, and IT industry executives. Attachment A summarizes the initial discussions of the Task Force. It identifies several critical issues that need to be addressed, and the need for planning funds to conduct a thorough revision of the Plan. Commissioner's Recommendation This is a discussion item to inform the Regents about the preliminary work of the Technology Initiative Task Force to revise and update the USHE Technology and Distance Learning Initiative Master Plan. No action is required by the Board at this time. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF/MAP/GSW Attachment Tab F, Page 2 of 4 PRELIMINARY DRAFT November 28, 2000 Revising the Utah System of Higher Education Information Technology (IT) Initiative Master Plan Initial Ideas and Budget Request Information technology has radically changed Higher Education. The Internet and the advent of the World Wide Web in 1994 have made it possible to reach students, faculty and staff in new and effective ways. Our challenge is to continue to upgrade and fund IT services to be relevant in the future environment in which we work. Background All USHE institutional Chief Information Officers, IT Executives and Regents' IT Staff are united in calling for immediate action to assure the long term viability of information technology systems. Our IT systems have become a core strategic asset. Unfortunately, these systems are underfunded, and equipment and software are rapidly becoming obsolete. Information Technology at our institutions of higher education is at a crossroads. The two roads are the rising demand for IT services and the declining human, software and equipment infrastructure that provide these services. The number of services provided through computers and networks continues to grow exponentially each year and includes: library services; registration (85%), admissions; tuition payment by credit card; transfer of student transcripts; campus catalogs; directories; career guidance; student aid; degree audits; electronic submissions for grants and web enabled payroll, accounting, budgets, enterprise data and other e-business transactions. These services were once offered on the campus mainframe and are now available on the desktop in some institutions. Online courses are now being offered by the majority of our institutions. Online enrollments at Weber State University have grown significantly in the last three years. Other USHE institutions are also expanding their online course offerings. Online instruction requires upgraded equipment and software infrastructure, with increased security, protection against virus attacks, privacy, new software programs, upgraded computers, networks and increasingly reliable systems that are operational 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. When the campus network is down work stops in many departments. The salaries of USHE IT personnel are significantly lower than comparable positions in the state's competitive IT market. Consequently, turnover rates at some institutions are as high as 60%. Turnover is also the result of stress produced by keeping obsolete equipment and software operational and online. For the foreseeable future, the exponential growth in bandwidth and services will continue to impact institutional networks and computer services. Among the new services that we will be called on to provide will be: class rolls online, web enabled ticket purchases, disabled student access, desktop teleconferences, video streaming of lectures, voice over data networks, course evaluations, payment of Tab F, Page 3 of 4 fees for parking tickets, electronic keyless access into buildings, video surveillance, insurance clearances for payment, purchasing, and student, faculty, and staff portals. There will also be major initiatives to improve broadband connectivity to the homes of students, faculty and staff. We can not continue to travel these two roads of increasing services and declining resources at the present pace. We must either dramatically slow down the growth in the number of services provided by IT departments, or resources must be increased to support IT with adequate ongoing funding. The USHE has not yet developed a satisfactory way to fund the growing costs of IT. Initial Ideas to Revise the USHE IT Master Plan The revised Information Technology Master Plan must outline the IT needs of the USHE, the internal strengths, weakness, the external opportunities and threats, vision, goals and funding required to bring technology in line with the needs of USHE colleges and universities. The Plan must outline strategies to provide students, faculty and staff greater access to effective customized information, education and electronic transactions that are increasingly available in higher education institutions and businesses across the country. A. Vision and Mission The plan should focus on securing and delivering electronic research, teaching, library, administrative, and other services regardless of location or time, through seamless, high speed, efficient information technology that combines voice, video, and data applications to meet the diverse and expanded needs of colleges and universities. B. Major Goals The plan should consider the following strategic goals. These goals reflect the general directions identified by the CIO s to meet the identified needs of students, faculty and staff and to build services relevant to the environment of the future. These goals and the order of priority reflect the need at each USHE institution. 1. Salary upgrades should be provided for IT personnel of up to 10% over the normal salary increases. 2. Centrally coordinated and integrated IT and network services should be provided and monitored for performance and virus attacks with enough bandwidth for an adequate level of services to all departments. Baseline network services would include: a. Sufficient network bandwidth of 100 megabits to a gigabit b. Security c. Protection against virus attacks Tab F, Page 4 of 4 d. Common open standards e. 7/24 Help desk and IT/Network monitoring f. Trouble ticket system to track problems reported to the help desk g. System core and edge upgrades h. Upgraded wire and wireless connections where appropriate i. Web hosting for faculty, staff and students. 3. Institutional and administrative data processing (accounting, finance, human relations, budget, payroll, etc.) software upgrades must be planned to allow for movement into e-business and web-enabled access to institutional enterprise data bases. Funding must also be adequate to upgrade network and systems software. 4. Student system software must be upgraded and maintained to include e-mails, custom portals, admissions, financial aid, registration, electronic credit card payment of tuition and fees, electronic library services, and courses online. 5. Broadband connections from the campus networks to businesses and homes must be planned. C. Key Elements of the Plan The Plan should: 1. Outline steps needed to bring critical, core IT services and technology to all USHE institutions, consistent with their needs. 2. Recommend incentives to enhance central coordination, system-wide cooperation, and appropriate local control. 3. Identify the steps which must be taken, and the resources that will be needed to bring IT human, equipment and software infrastructure up to a common baseline, to eliminate any digital divide, and make many new services accessible to faculty, staff and students on the web on and off campus. 4. Identify efficiencies that will result from joint purchases, and propose incentives to standardize key system-wide data to assist the Regents and Legislature in meeting their responsibilities to plan for what is an increasingly dynamic higher education system. D. Funding Needed to Develop the Plan Funding in the amount of approximately $250,000 will be needed to develop the revised Information Technology Master Plan. These funds will be used for consultants in administrative systems, student systems, networks and campus remote access; travel to institutions with state-of-the-art IT systems; and other support the Task Force may require to prepare the plan. Tab G, Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM November 29, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: Technologically Delivered Instruction in the Utah System of Higher Education - Information Item. Issue Technologically delivered instruction continues to grow in the Utah System of Higher Education (USHE). Utilizing audio, video and computer technologies to provide educational programs, USHE institutions are increasingly able to meet the needs of a diverse student population for which traditional classroom methods alone are inadequate. Technologically delivered instruction, using all methods of delivery, increased by 20.6 percent in the USHE from 1998-99 to 1999-2000. The attached tables provide updated information on the status of technologically delivered instruction in the Utah System of Higher Education. Because the mechanism for reporting enrollment in technologically delivered courses was changed during the semester conversion, it is possible that the numbers reported here are lower than actual enrollments. USHE institutions are encouraged to ensure that all courses are coded accurately in future enrollment reports. Background Technologically delivered instruction is a formal educational process in which the majority of the instruction occurs through electronic communication. Through the Utah Education Network (UEN), programs are delivered via EDNET, KULC-Channel 9 and UEN Satellite Services. In addition, programs are increasingly delivered by computer via the Internet and other methods. Table One summarizes the USHE's enrollments by method of delivery. Table Two provides institutional breakouts. Table Three provides a comparison of annualized full time equivalent (FTE) enrollments, by type of delivery method, for USHE institutions in 1998-99 and 1999-2000. During this time period, programs delivered via KULC-Channel 9 declined by 8.5 percent, programs delivered through the EDNET system increased by 8.7 percent, computer-based programs delivered via the Internet increased by 65.5 percent, and other computer-delivered programs increased by 4 percent. These data indicate that Internet delivery of courses is becoming the preferred method of technology-delivered instruction in the USHE. This is an information item only. No action is required by the Board. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF/LF/NGM Attachments Tab G, Page 2 of 4 Table 1 Type of Delivery Fall 1999 Headcount 1/ Annualized FTE 2/ Sections/ Classes Broadcast Television 3/ 1,332 439 35 Interactive Video/Audio 4/ 3,643 1,381 233 Computer Based/Internet 2,864 1,134 181 Other Computer Delivered 295 102 8 Total - All Types of Delivery 8,134 3,056 457 1/ Headcount, duplicated among delivery methods 2/ Annualized FTE based on Summer 1999, Fall 1999, and Spring 2000 3/ KULC 4/ EDNET and UENSS Summary System Total, 1999-2000 Utah System of Higher Education Technologically Delivered Instruction Tab G, Page 3 of 4 Table 2 Fall Headcount 3/ AY FTE 4/ AY Classes/ Sections Fall Headcount 3/ AY FTE 4/ AY Classes/ Sections Fall Headcount 3/ AY FTE 4/ AY Classes/ Sections Fall Headcount 3/ AY FTE 4/ AY Classes/ Sections Fall Headcount 3/ AY FTE 4/ AY Classes/ Sections University of Utah 622 209 15 137 57 16 172 79 5 0 0 0 931 345 36 Utah State Univesity 0 0 0 1,680 815 64 0 1 3 0 0 0 1,680 816 67 Weber State University 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,652 705 86 0 0 0 1,652 705 86 Southern Utah University 0 0 0 379 125 31 148 43 45 0 3 5 527 171 81 Snow College 0 0 0 96 18 5 3 1 2 0 0 0 99 19 7 Dixie College 45 6 5 0 0 0 42 10 13 0 0 0 87 16 18 College of Eastern Utah 0 0 0 412 130 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 412 130 93 Utah Valley State College 428 149 11 847 225 19 417 154 17 0 0 0 1,692 528 47 Salt Lake Community College 237 75 4 92 11 5 430 141 10 295 99 3 1,054 326 22 Total 1,332 439 35 3,643 1,381 233 2,864 1,134 181 295 102 8 8,134 3,056 457 1/ KULC 2/ EDNET and UENSS 3/ Headcount, duplicated among delivery methods 4/ Annualized FTE based on Summer 1999, Fall 1999, and Spring 2000 Total - All Types of Delivery Utah System of Higher Education Technologically Delivered Instruction Total, 1999 - 2000 Broadcast Television 1/ Interactive Video/Audio 2/ Computer Based - Internet Other Computer Delivered Tab G, Page 4 of 4 Table 3 Utah System of Higher Education Technologically Delivered Instruction Historical Trend - 1998-1999 Compared to 1999-2000 % Change by Instit. 98-99 FTE3/ 99-00 FTE4/ 98-99 FTE3/ 99-00 FTE4/ 98-99 FTE3/ 99-00 FTE4/ 98-99 FTE3/ 99-00 FTE4/ 98-99 FTE3/ 99-00 FTE4/ 98-99 to 99-00 98 -99 99 -00 University of Utah 248 209 48 57 24 79 0 0 320 345 7.81% 1.51% 1.55% Utah State University 0 0 839 815 7 1 0 0 846 816 -3.55% 5.59% 5.18% Weber State University 0 0 0 0 436 705 0 0 436 705 61.70% 4.04% 6.15% Southern Utah University 0 0 60 125 42 43 4 3 106 171 61.32% 2.01% 3.15% Snow College 0 0 17 18 0 1 0 0 17 19 11.76% 0.68% 0.64% Dixie College 12 6 0 0 5 10 0 0 17 16 -5.88% 0.48% 0.44% College of Eastern Utah 0 0 103 130 0 0 0 0 103 130 26.21% 5.27% 6.47% Utah Valley State College 151 149 196 225 78 154 0 0 425 528 24.24% 3.68% 4.20% Salt Lake Community College 69 75 7 11 93 141 94 99 263 326 23.95% 2.15% 2.48% Total 480 439 1,270 1,381 685 1,134 98 102 2,533 3,056 20.65% 3.01% 3.43% Percent of Change by Method 1/ KULC 2/ EDNET and UENSS 3/ Annualized FTE based on Fall 1998, Spring 1999, and Summer 1999 4/ Annualized FTE based on Summer 1999, Fall 1999, and Spring 2000 Computer-based Other Total - All Types % of Total Television 1/ Video/Audio 2/ Internet Computer Deliv. of Delivery Instit. FTE Broadcast Interactive -8.54% 8.74% 65.55% 4.08% 20.65% Tab H, Page 1 of 11 MEMORANDUM November 29, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: Policy R401, Approval of New Programs and Program Additions or Changes - Information Item Issue Policy R401, Approval of New Programs and Program Additions or Changes, was approved conceptually by the Board during its November, 2000 meeting. As part of the conceptual approval of the Policy, several changes were necessitated. Commissioner's staff members were authorized to make the requested changes which are shown in Attachment A with underlined text. Background The following provisions have been added to Policy R401. Section 4.5 now specifies that the Commissioner's review of a new program will address not only the readiness of the institution to offer the program and the need for the program, but also the impact of the program on other USHE institutions. Section 9.1 requires institutions to analyze the impact that the new program would have on other USHE institutions, and how the program is consistent with and appropriate to the institution's board-approved mission, roles and goals. This is an information item and no action is required by the Board. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF/MAP Attachment Tab H, Page 2 of 11 R401, Approval of New Programs, Program Additions or Program Changes R401-1. PurposeTo provide guidelines and procedures for Board approval of new degree programs, program additions, other changes in academic and applied technology programs, administrative changes and initiatives, and to provide for approval of other program changes by institutional Boards of Trustees in the Utah System of Higher Education.R401-2. References2.1. Utah Code §53B-16-102 (Changes in Curriculum) 2.2. Policy and Procedures R220 , Delegation of Responsibilities to the President and Board of Trustees 2.3. Policy and Procedures R315 , Service Area Designations and Coordination of Off-Campus Courses and Programs 2.4. Policy and Procedures R355 , Planning, Funding, and Delivery of Courses and Programs via Statewide Telecommunications Networks 2.5. Policy and Procedures R411 , Review of Existing Programs 2.6. Policy and Procedures R465 , General Education 2.7. Policy and Procedures R467 , Lower Division Major RequirementsR401-3. Definitions3.1. Associate of Arts and Associate of Science Degrees- Programs of study primarily intended to encourage exploration of academic options, provide a strong general education, and prepare students to initiate upper-division work in baccalaureate programs or prepare for employment. Requirements include completion of a minimum of 60 and a maximum of 63 credits, 30 to 39 credit hours of general education coursework, and other requirements as established by USHE institutions. Based on compelling reasons, exceptions to the maximum credit hour requirement may be granted by the Board. 3.2. Specialized Associate Degrees - Programs of study which include extensive specialized coursework intended to prepare students to initiate upper-division work in baccalaureate programs. Requirements include completion of a minimum of 60 and a maximum of 63 credits, a minimum of 28 credit hours of preparatory, specialized coursework, general education requirements that are less extensive than in A.A. or A.S. degrees, and other requirements as established by USHE institutions. Because students do not fully complete an institution's general education requirements while completing a specialized associate degree, they are required to satisfy remaining general education requirements in addition to upper division baccalaureate requirements at the receiving university. 3.3 Associate of Applied Science Degrees - Programs of study intended to prepare students for entry-level professional careers. Requirements include completion of a minimum of 63 and a maximum of 69 credits, general education requirements that are less extensive than in A.A. or A.S. degrees, and other requirements as established by USHE institutions. Based on compelling reasons, exceptions to the maximum credit hour requirement may be granted by the Board.3.4 Bachelor's Degrees - Programs of study including general education, major coursework, and other requirements as established by USHE institutions. Requirements include completion of a minimum of 120 and a maximum of 126 credits. Based on compelling reasons, exceptions to the maximum credit hour requirement may be granted by the Board. 3.5 Master's Degrees - Graduate-level programs of study requiring a minimum of 30 and maximum of 36 credit hours of coursework beyond the bachelor's degree, and other requirements as established by USHE institutions. Based on compelling reasons, exceptions to the maximum credit hour requirement may be granted by the Board. Specialized professional master's degrees typically require additional coursework.3.6 Doctoral Degrees - Graduate-level programs of study in an advanced, specialized field of study requiring competence in independent research and an understanding of related subjects. Tab H, Page 3 of 11 3.7 Emphases, Specializations, Concentrations and Minors in Associate, Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral Degrees - In a previously approved degree, groupings of courses which are designated on students' transcripts, listed in the catalog as an option within the degree, and reported as an emphasis or specialization in IPEDS and Regents' reporting information. 3.8 Stand-alone Minors and Certificates - Minors or certificate programs that stand alone outside of a previously approved major or degree program. 3.9 Centers, Institutes, or Bureaus - Administrative entities which perform primarily research, instructional, or technology transfer functions, and are intended to provide services to students, the community, businesses, or other external audiences or to obtain external funds. 3.10 Applied Technology Education Programs - Organized education programs offering sequences of courses directly related to preparing individuals for paid or unpaid employment in current or emerging occupations requiring other than a baccalaureate or advanced degree. 3.10.1. One-year Certificate - Programs consisting of a group of specialized courses that prepare students for entry-level employment and include a general education component that satisfies regional accreditation requirements. The one-year certificate may be designed to lead to the subsequent completion of an associate degree. 3.10.2. Diploma - Programs that are generally between one and two years in length, consisting of a group of specialized courses leading to employment. The diploma is not designed for transfer and generally has a general education component that satisfies regional accreditation requirements embedded in the specialized course sequence. 3.11 Off-campus Programs - Certificate, diploma, and degree programs offered at locations that are not included in the designated service area of the institution, as provided in R315, including programs delivered technologically via statewide telecommunications networks and the Internet.R401-4. Procedures for Submitting New Programs or Program Changes for Board Consideration4.1. Approval or Notification of the Board - After being approved according to institutional procedures, requests for new programs or changes must be submitted for approval or notification of the Board of Regents. Proposals may be submitted to the Commissioner's Office of Academic Affairs at any time during the year, according to the annual schedule prepared by the Associate Commissioner for Academic Affairs. The appropriate template provided below in 9.1, 9.2, or 9.3 must be used for submission of proposals. 4.2. External Consultants - To help ensure quality, institutions may wish to enlist the assistance of external consultants in developing the proposed program. Because of a special concern that applied technology education programs relate directly to the requirements of business and industry, proposals submitted in this area should have the benefit of consultation from a program advisory committee regarding: (1) curriculum, including specific outcome-based competencies, (2) desired level of faculty qualifications, and (3) equipment and laboratory requirements. 4.3. Program Need and Quality - Proposals should reflect not only the need for the proposed program, but also the institution's ability to develop a program of high quality. 4.4. Timetable for Submittal - Proposals must be submitted to the Commissioner's Office of Academic Affairs, according to the annual schedule prepared by the Associate Commissioner for Academic Affairs, approximately two months before the date of the Regents meeting when the proposal will be on the agenda for the first time. At the same time, the institution's CAO will circulate the proposal to fellow CAO's at all USHE institutions for review and evaluation. Completed Tab H, Page 4 of 11 institutional reviews of the proposed new program or program change will be submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs and to all other CAOs approximately a month before the Regents meeting. If it is judged to be necessary, the Office of Academic Affairs may also request reviews from external evaluators. 4.5. Council of Chief Academic Officers -The Council of Chief Academic Officers will meet prior to the Council of Presidents and Regents meetings, during which the institutional proposal will be discussed on the basis of comments submitted by other USHE institutions, any external reviews that have been conducted, and initial evaluations from the Office of Academic Affairs. The CAOs will recommend whether or not the program should be approved by the Board, and whether the proposal should be placed on the Board agenda as a non-action, action, or consent item. This input will be reported to the Council of Presidents and considered by the Commissioner's staff in preparing materials and recommendations regarding the program for the Board's agenda. The Commissioner's review for the Board will address not only the readiness of the institution to offer the program and the need for the program, but also the impact of the program on other USHE institutions. 4.6. Board of Regents Consideration - Program proposals that have been reviewed according to the procedures described in 4.1. through 4.5 are placed on the Board agenda for consideration by the Regents. The Board's Academic and Applied Technology Education Committee reviews proposals for new programs or program changes and recommends action to the Board. The Board then takes action on the proposed program. 4.7. Votes for Approval - All new degree programs must be approved by a majority vote of the Board members in attendance, except that all new master's and doctoral degree programs require at least a two-thirds majority of the members in attendance to be approved. 4.8. Budgetary Considerations Separate - Program approval by the Board consists only of authorization to offer the program. Budget requests necessary to fund the program shall be submitted separately through the regular budget process. Programs must have been approved as described in 4.1 through 4.7 prior to being included by the Board in a budget request submitted to the Governor and the Legislature.R401-5. Programs Requiring Board Approval5.1. Action Calendar - The Board must approve the following programs on its Action Calendar:5.2 New Specialized Associate Degrees, and New Associate of Applied Science Degrees - Requests for new Associate of Applied Science Degrees and specialized Associate Degrees are to be submitted using the template and providing the information in 9.1. 5.3 New Baccalaureate, Masters, and Doctoral Majors and Degrees- Requests for new baccalaureate, masters, and doctoral majors and degrees are to be submitted using the template and providing the information in 9.1. 5.4 New Diploma and Certificate Programs that are not within Existing Programs that have Previously been Approved by the Board -Requests for new diploma and certificate programs that are not within existing approved programs are to be submitted using the template and providing the information in 9.1. 5.5 New Stand-alone Minors - Requests for new stand-alone minors which are not part of a previously approved major are to be submitted using the template and providing the information in 9.1.R401-6. Programs Changes Requiring Board Consent6.1. Board Approval Required - The following program changes must be approved by the Board as part of the Academic and Applied Technology Education Committee Consent Calendar: Tab H, Page 5 of 11 6.2. Reinstatement of Previously Eliminated Instructional Programs - Requests to reinstate previously eliminated instructional programs are to be submitted using the template and providing the information in 9.1. 6.3. Off-campus Delivery of Approved Programs - Requests to offer certificate, diploma or degree programs outside the institution's geographical service area, as defined in R315, including those offered via statewide telecommunications networks (KULC, EDNET, UEN Satellite System) and via the Internet shall be submitted using the template provided in 9.2. The Board must also approve delivery of programs out-of-state and out-of-country. Institutions may only offer programs at off-campus locations, or technologically, which have been previously approved by the Board. Board approval is not required to offer selected off-campus courses which do not comprise a certificate, diploma or degree. 6.4. Transfer, Restructuring, or Consolidation of Existing Programs or Administrative Units - Requests to transfer, restructure, or consolidate existing programs or administrative units shall be submitted using the template provided in 9.3. 6.5. Establishment of Centers, Institutes, or Bureaus - Requests to establish centers, institutes, bureaus, or other administrative entities which perform a primarily research, instructional, or technology transfer function, and are intended to provide external services and/or obtain external funds shall be submitted using the template provided in 9.3. 6.5.1. Temporary Approval - Institutions may seek temporary approval from the Associate Commissioner for Academic Affairs for a center, institute, or bureau which is being established on an experimental or pilot basis. The Associate Commissioner will evaluate and approve requests for temporary approval on the basis of the following criteria and conditions: 6.5.1.2. Temporary Source of Funds - Funding support is from temporary, non-public resources or from temporary institutional reallocation within a limited time frame. 6.5.1.3. Relatively Modest Effort - The proposed change requires a modest effort in terms of staff and space needs, normally with no permanent staff or no permanent facility assignment.6.5.1.4. Consistent with Role - The activities involved are consistent with established institution mission and role assignments. 6.5.1.5. Affiliation with Existing Program or Department - The administrative entity involved has programmatic affiliation with an existing academic program or department. 6.5.1.6. Three Year Limit - Temporary approval of centers, institutes, etc., may be granted for a period no longer than three years, after which an institution must request approval of the Board.R401.7. Program Additions or Changes Requiring Board Notification after Approval by Institutional Boards of Trustees7.1. Institutional Board of Trustees Approval and Board Notification - The following program changes and additions may be approved by institutional Boards of Trustees. After approval by the Board of Trustees, summaries of program changes and additions, and the rationale for modifications, are to be submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs and distributed to the Chief Academic Officers of USHE institutions. The summaries will be included on the Information Calendar of the Board of Regents. If necessary, the summaries may be reviewed by the Council of Chief Academic Officers, the Council of Presidents, and the Regents. 7.2. Certificates, Emphases, Specializations, Options, and Minors Within Existing Majors - Certificates, specializations, options, and minors that are within existing major degree programs previously approved by the Board may be established by approval of the institutional Board of Tab H, Page 6 of 11 Trustees. 7.3. School Personnel Programs Within Existing Majors - Endorsement and certification programs for teacher education, counselor, administrator, and other school personnel programs which are within existing major degree programs previously approved by the Board may also be established by approval of the institutional Board of Trustees and subsequent review and approval of the Joint Liaison Committee (JLC) Advisory Committee on Educator Development and the State Board of Education. Before submitting institutionally-approved proposals to the JLC Advisory Committee on Educator Development, proposals must first be reviewed by the Office of Academic Affairs and appropriate officials and faculty at other colleges of education at USHE institutions. 7.4. Elimination of Instructional Programs - Institutional Boards of Trustees are authorized to approve the elimination of instructional programs. 7.5. Name Changes of Existing Programs or Administrative Units- Institutional Boards of Trustees are authorized to approve name changes of existing programs or administrative units.R401-8. Fast-track Approval of Short-term, Non-credit Applied Technology ProgramsShort-term non-credit applied technology training programs leading to certificates of completion that meet the criteria in 8.1. may be approved according to the fast track approval procedure outlined in 8.3. The procedure is designed to accommodate the need for rapid action by institutions in providing opportunity for students to be trained to meet changing job requirements of business and industry. 8.1. Requirements of Short-term, Non-credit Programs - Short-term, non-credit programs must provide undergraduate training that prepares a student for gainful employment in a recognized occupation and admit as regular students persons who have not completed the equivalent of an associate degree. Programs must be less than one academic year in duration, and: 8.1.1. Require the equivalent of 15 weeks of instruction, beginning on the first day of classes and ending on the last day of classes or examinations and at least 600 clock hours of instruction, or 8.1.2. Require the equivalent of 10 weeks of instruction and at least 300 clock hours of instruction, beginning on the first day of classes and ending on the last day of classes or examinations. 8.2. Prior Approval of Institution's Program Approval Process- A prerequisite for use of the fast-track approval procedure set forth in subsection 8.3 is submission to the Commissioner of a statement describing in detail the institution's internal process for development and approval of short-term, intensive, non-credit, applied technology education programs, and the Commissioner's approval of the institutional process for purposes of this policy. 8.3. Fast-Track Program Approval Procedure - If programs meet the requirements in 8.1., and the Commissioner has previously approved the institution's internal program development and approval process for the programs, the Commissioner may preliminarily approve the program, effective immediately. The program is then placed on the next Academic and Applied Technology Education Committee Consent Calendar for final consent of the program by the Board.R401-9. Templates for Submitting Program ProposalsThese templates provide the formats and information to be used when submitting program proposals for review and Board action and approval. Please use Times New Roman 12 point font. 9.1 Template for submission of proposals for new specialized AA/AS degrees; AAS Degrees; Bachelor's Degrees; Master's Degrees; Doctoral Degrees; Diploma, Certificate, and Minor Programs outside of existing approved programs, and Reinstatements of previously Tab H, Page 7 of 11 eliminated Programs SECTION I The Request [Name of Institution] requests approval to offer [Name of Degree] effective [Semester and Year]. This program has been approved by the institutional Board of Trustees on [Date]. SECTION II Program Description [Complete Program Description - Present the complete, formal program description as it is proposed to appear in the institution's catalog and/or other publications.] [Purpose of Degree - State why are you offering this degree, what are the expected outcomes.] [Admission Requirements - List admission requirements specific to the proposed program.] [Student Advisement - Describe the advising process for students in the proposed program. ] [Justification for Number of Credits - Provide justification if number of credit hours exceeds 63 semester hours for AA, AS, 69 semester hours for AAS, 126 semester hours for BA, BS, and 36 beyond the baccalaureate for MS] [External Review and Accreditation - Indicate whether any external consultants were involved in the development of the proposed program, and describe the nature of that involvement. For an applied technology education program, list the members and describe the activities of the program advisory committee. Indicate any special professional accreditation which will be sought; project a future date for a possible accreditation review; indicate how close the institution is currently to achieving the requirements, and what the costs will be to achieve them.] [Projected Enrollment - Project both student FTE enrollments and the mean student FTE to faculty FTE ratio for each of the first five years of the program. If accreditation requirements specify a specific student to faculty ratio, indicate the ratio(s).] [Expansion of Existing Program - If the proposed program is an expansion or extension of an existing program, present enrollment trends by both headcount and student credit hours produced in the current program for each of the past five years for each area of emphasis or concentration, if appropriate.] [Faculty - Identify the need for additional faculty required in each of the first five years of the program. Describe the faculty development processes that will support this program.] [Staff - List all additional staff needed to support the program in each of the first five years; e.g., administrative, secretarial, clerical, laboratory aides/ instructors, teaching/graduate assistants.] [Library - Describe library resources required to offer a superior program. Does the institution currently have the needed library resources? ] [Learning Resources - Describe other learning resources required to support the program.] SECTION III Need [Program Necessity - Clearly indicate why such a program should be initiated.] [Labor Market Demand - Include local, state, and national data, and job placement information, what types of jobs have graduates from similar programs obtained.] [Student Demand - Describe evidence of student interest and demand that supports potential program enrollment.] [Similar Programs - Are similar programs offered elsewhere in the state or Intermountain Region? If Tab H, Page 8 of 11 yes, cite justifications for why the Regents should approve another program. How does the proposed program differ from similar program(s)? Be specific.] [Collaboration with and Impact on Other USHE Institutions - Describediscussions that may have occurred regarding your institution's intent to offer the proposed program with other USHE institutions that are already offering the program, and any collaborative efforts that may have been proposed. Analyze the impact that the new program would have on other USHE institutions. [Benefits - State how the institution and the USHE benefit by offering the proposed program.] [Consistency with Institutional Mission - Explain how the program is consistent with and appropriate to the institution's board-approved mission, roles and goals.] SECTION IV Program and Student Assessment [Program Assessment - State the goals for the program and the measures that will be used in the program assessment process to determine if goals are being met.] [Expected Standards of Performance - List the standards and competencies that the student will have met and achieved at the time of graduation. How or why were these standards and competencies chosen] [Student Assessment - Describe the formative and summative assessment measures you will use to determine student learning.] [Continued Quality Improvement - Describe how program and student assessment data will be used to strengthen the program.] SECTION V Finance [Budget - For each category below, present the projected budget for an ongoing, superior program for each of the first five years: Salaries and Wages Benefits Current Expense Library Equipment Travel TOTAL ] [Funding Sources - Describe how the program will be funded, i.e. new state appropriation, reallocation, enrollment growth, grants etc.] [Reallocation - If program is to be supported through internal reallocation, describe in general terms the sources of the funds.] [Impact on Existing Budgets - If program costs are to be absorbed within current base budgets, what other programs will be affected and to what extent?] Appendix A [Program Curriculum. New Courses to be Added in the Next Five Years - List all new courses to be developed in the next five years by prefix, number, title, and credit hours. Use the following format: Course Number Title Credit Hours Tab H, Page 9 of 11 All Program Courses - List all courses, including new courses, to be offered in the proposed program by prefix, number, title, and credit hours. Use the following format: (please include all course descriptions in appendix.) Course Number Title Credit Hours General Education Sub-Total Core Courses Sub-Total Elective Courses Sub-Total Track/Options (if applicable) Sub-Total Total Number of Credits Appendix B [Program Schedule - For each level of program completion, present, by semester, a suggested class schedule --by prefix, number, title and semester hours] Appendix C [Faculty- List current faculty within the institution, with their qualifications, to be used in support of the program.] 9.2 Template for Proposals to Offer Off-Campus Programs SECTION I The Request [Request - Briefly describe the program which is to be offered off-campus or technologically via a statewide telecommunication network or the Internet.] [Program Description - Indicate the proposed location(s) for the program, and suggested class schedule for each semester of the program (by course, title, number, prefix and credit hours)] SECTION II Need [The Need - Indicate the need or demand for the program. Include results of needs assessments or demand studies. Are similar on-campus programs offered by other USHE institutions in locations proposed by this request? If so, has there been consultation with these institutions? Who was consulted and what was the outcome of such consultation. Is the proposed program to be offered on a contract basis for a specific population only? ] SECTION III Institutional Impact [Institutional Impact - How will on-campus programs be affected by the off-campus offering? Can present faculty and staff offer both the on-campus and proposed off-campus programs? If additional Tab H, Page 10 of 11 faculty or staff will be needed, indicate how many, their anticipated roles, and required qualifications. Will new facilities, equipment, or library resources be needed? If so, describe. Will new facilities, equipment, or library resources be needed? If so, describe. SECTION IV Program Assessment [Assessment - How will the quality of the proposed off-campus program be assessed and maintained?] SECTION V Finances [Costs- What costs are associated with this off-campus program? Identify the costs by category, e.g., personnel, facilities and equipment, etc. How are these costs to be covered by the institution? If new funds are required, describe the expected sources of funds.] 9. 3 Template for Administrative Change Proposals and Proposals for Centers, Institutes, and Bureaus SECTION I Request [Request- Briefly describe the administrative change or new administrative unit being proposed. Indicate its primary activities, especially any instructional activities associated with the unit] SECTION II Need [Need- Indicate why such an administrative change or new unit is justified. Reference need or demand studies if appropriate. Indicate the similarity of the proposed unit with similar units which exist elsewhere in the state or Intermountain region.] SECTION III Institutional Impact [Institutional Impact - Will the proposed administrative change or new unit affect enrollments in instructional programs of affiliated departments or programs? How will the proposed change or new unit affect existing administrative structures? If a new unit, where will it fit in the organizational structure of the institution? What changes in faculty and staff will be required? What new physical facilities or modification to existing facilities will be required? Describe the extent of the equipment commitment necessary to initiate the administrative change.] SECTION IV Finances [Costs- What costs or savings are anticipated from this administrative change or new unit? If new funds are required, describe expected sources of funds. Describe any budgetary impact on other programs or units within the institution.]R401-10 Signature Page to Accompany Proposals Requiring Board Approval or ConsentThis signature page, with all appropriate signatures included, must be attached to proposals submitted for consideration of the Board for approval or consent. Institution Submitting Proposal: _______________________________________________ College, School or Division in Which Program Will Be Located: ______________________________________________ Department(s) or Area(s) in Tab H, Page 11 of 11 Which Program Will Be Located: ______________________________________________ Program Title: _____________________________________________________________ Recommended Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) Code: __ __ . __ __ __ __ Area(s) of Emphasis or Academic Specialty: (if appropriate) ___________________________________________________ Certificate, Diploma and/ or Degree(s) to be Awarded: ________________________________________________ Proposed Beginning Date: ___________________________________________________ Institutional Signatures (as appropriate): ____________________________________ Department Chair ____________________________________ Dean or Division Chair ____________________________________ Applied Technology Director ____________________________________ Graduate School Dean ____________________________________ Chief Academic Officer ____________________________________ President _____________________________________ Date (Approved November 7, 1972; amended September 25, 1973, February 21, 1984, April 27, 1990 and revised and combined with R402 October 27, 2000. [R402 was approved September 10, 1971, amended November 18, 1980, July 19, 1983, March 20, 1984, September 12, 1986, August 7, 1987, October 26, 1990, April 16, 1993, January 21, 1994, May 1, 1997, May 29, 1998, and revised and combined with R401 October 27, 2000.]) Tab I, Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM November 15, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: Annual Report on the Terrel H. Bell Teaching Incentive Loan Program: INFORMATION ITEM Issue The annual report on the Terrel H. Bell Teaching Incentive Loan Program (formerly known as the Utah Career Teaching Scholarship Program) is attached. An update on progress made to implement the program is also included. Background Information The Terrel H. Bell Teaching Incentive Loan (TIL) Program is administered by the Utah System of Higher Education in partnership with the Utah State Office of Education. The TIL Program was created to encourage highly qualified high school seniors and college students to select teacher education as an academic major. This program requires recipients to teach in Utah public schools one year for every year they receive the award, or make monetary repayment on their obligation. Legislation allows recipients up to two years following graduation to obtain a teaching position and begin teaching. As might be expected when students are asked to make a career commitment as early as the beginning of their freshmen year, some recipients leave the program because of a change in major or a decision not to teach. The Office of the Commissioner administers repayment procedures with these individuals. Funds received through repayment are used to supplement the ongoing loan forgiveness/scholarship program. The TIL program continues to accomplish its purpose of recruiting excellent students to teaching. Of 2,549 recipients, 1,403 individuals have graduated and either have begun teaching or repaid through teaching in a Utah public school. Approximately 82% of the program's recipients have satisfied or continue to repay their obligation by teaching in Utah or making monetary payments. Recommended Action It is the recommendation of the Commissioner that the Regents receive the report on the Terrel H. Bell Teaching Incentive Loan Program. No action is requested. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF/MP/AL Tab I, Page 2 of 6 PROGRAM AND PLANNING COMMITTEE Information Item Report on THE TERREL H. BELL TEACHING INCENTIVE LOAN PROGRAM formerly known as THE UTAH CAREER TEACHING SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM 1984-2000 Prepared for Cecelia H. Foxley by Angie Loving, Program Administator November 15, 2000 Tab I, Page 3 of 6 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW The Terrel H. Bell Teaching Incentive Loan Program (formerly known as the Utah Career Teaching Scholarship Program) was established by the Utah State Legislature in 1984 to enhance and expand the Normal Scholarship Program which originated in 1876. The Normal Scholarship, created originally by the Territorial Legislature to provide financial assistance for tuition and books for forty students, was refined to focus on an identified need of training and recruiting students to become teachers in the Utah Public School System. In an attempt to assist the state in fulfilling the need for teachers, the Utah Career Teaching Scholarship legislation was adopted to allow selected applicants (up to 365 annually) to receive financial assistance with tuition and fees for up to eight semesters. Eligibility requirements to apply for the scholarship were modified to require that applicants declare an intent to complete a prescribed course of instruction for a teaching certificate and plan to teach in a Utah Public School. In return for the scholarship funds, recipients accept the obligation to teach in a Utah public school for every year they accept the scholarship or make monetary payments on the total amount of funding received. Due to the obligation requirements associated with the New Century Scholarship, the program was renamed during the January 24, 1998 Board of Regents meeting to the Terrel H. Bell Teaching Incentive Loan program in honor of a nationally known educator/administrator from Utah. This change clarified to recipients that the award was part of a loan forgiveness program rather than a scholarship. PROGRAM UPDATE During this past year, the Utah System of Higher Education and the Utah State Office of Education awarded 168 new students as well as 244 returning students with the Terrel H. Bell Teaching Incentive Loan. Although the program awarded approximately 412 awards, not all were used by the students for various reasons as seen in Table 1. Decline in program awards are often the result of a change in major, dropping from the program or school, leave of absence for a LDS mission, etc. A total of $773,517.64 was spent for the 1999-2000 academic year to cover tuition, fees and premier awards. (Premier awards are $1,500 per semester given to eligible seniors certifying in a critical need area.) Tab I, Page 4 of 6 Table I TIL Award History by Institution 1992-1999 FALL QTR UU USU WSU SUU SNOW DIXIE CEU UVSC SLCC BYU WEST TOTAL 1992 74 131 56 46 4 6 1 5 7 12 - 342 1993 74 131 50 57 6 3 2 10 7 29 3 372 1994 63 125 51 46 0 2 3 6 5 31 4 336 1995 55 119 47 47 4 3 1 3 4 35 5 323 1996 59 105 48 42 3 3 2 8 7 37 5 319 1997 54 102 40 44 3 5 1 19* 5 42 5 320 1998 50 81 33 49 11 6 2 29 6 34 11 312 1999 50 82 32 49 13 9 4 22 7 58 20 346 * As a result of UVSC changing to a four-year institution, they have been awarded additional slots for the 1997-1998 school year. The increase in the number of incentive loan awards used during the 1999-2000 can be attributed to a positive response to the marketing efforts of the Commissioner's Office and the availability of an increased number of awards issued on the institutional level. Marketing efforts will continue in an attempt to make students aware of this program. Despite the increase in new awards for the year, there has not yet been a significant increase in the number of students who have graduated, started teaching, or completed their obligation by teaching as seen in Table II. However, it is positive to note that there has been a continued decline in the number of students who have dropped from the program. This indicates that more students are completing their education and pursuing a teaching career after graduation. Tab I, Page 5 of 6 Table II TIL Recipients by Category As of 12/14/99 Number Number Percent Categories of Students of Students of Identification Definition 1998-1999 1999-2000 Total 1999-2000 A Students (in school) 245 346 13.85 B Repaid through teaching 990 1079 43.21 C Repaying through teaching 320 228 9.13 D Need to begin repayment 17 8 .32 F Waived (approved cancellation) 46 46 1.96 G Graduated, seeking position 92 36 1.44 I Deferred, student status 18 26 1.04 K Deferred, LDS Mission 16 13 .52 N Repaying with money 178 194 7.76 Q Repaid with money & teaching 94 108 4.32 R Repaid with money 397 413 16.53 Total 2,413 2,497 100.00 The information in Table II also reflects that 70% of recipients have repaid or are currently repaying their obligation through teaching or partial teaching (categories B, C, and Q). It is also encouraging that 806 of the 1,187 recipients who repaid in full by teaching (categories B and Q) have continued to teach in a Utah public school beyond their obligation requirements. Although the intent of the Terrel H. Bell Teaching Incentive Loan Program is to keep excellent teachers in the state of Utah, some recipients have elected to repay their obligation through monetary means. As of June 30, 2000, 760 recipients (categories' N, Q, and R) have elected not to teach and have established a monthly payment plan or have paid their obligation in full. At the conclusion of the 2000 fiscal year the Office of the Commissioner collected a total of $247,839.68 which supplemented the $652,600 in legislative appropriations. By recapturing these funds, the Terrel H. Bell program has been able to sustain the same level of participation without an increase in state appropriations since 1987. Tab I, Page 6 of 6 At the end of the 2000 fiscal year, the Commissioner's Office projected that $670,533 was outstanding from recipients currently in the repayment. It was also estimated that $100,088 was uncollectible due to borrowers with a significant delinquent payment history. SUMMARY The Terrel H. Bell Teaching Incentive Loan Program continues to evolve by finding new ways to make this program a success for students wanting to become teachers. The data provided for the 1999-2000 school year indicates that marketing materials for the program were successful in generating new interest. As a result, marketing efforts will continue. It is the goal of program administrators to select excellent candidates for this program which will in turn enhance the Utah public school system. Program administrators will also continue to review and revise application processes and program procedures to assist current award recipients to better understand the terms of the award and the obligations associated with accepting it. Tab J, Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM November 28, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: University of Utah - Financing Plan for East Campus Central Plant Part II Issue University of Utah officials seek authorization to enter into a lease/purchase obligation that will provide for a high temperature water component to the University's East Campus Central Plant. The Regents previously authorized a similar financing plan for the plant building itself, its chiller component, and other east campus utility retrofits. Background The 1999 Utah Legislature authorized the University to proceed with the East Campus Central Plant project and to finance its development from energy savings accruing from the project itself. This creative financing arrangement has allowed the University to proceed with this urgently needed project without having to petition the State for scarce capital development funding. Legislation authorizing this development project requires the Board of Regents to approve final financing arrangements. Part II of the project--which will add a high temperature water component to the plant-- is now ready to begin. The plan that the Regents are asked to consider provides financing for Part II, as well as refinancing for Part I. University officials have been working closely with Viron Corporation to develop this project. Viron will supply necessary expertise, labor, equipment, physical facilities, and monitoring devices to verify the levels of savings that are made available from the project. In addition, Viron and its parent company, CMS Energy, guarantee that the University will experience a certain level of energy savings as a result of the project. This guarantee effectively reduces the University's exposure if sufficient savings are not realized to service the lease. Specific provisions of the proposed transaction are included as Attachment A. A copy of the lease document itself is included as Attachment B. An authorizing resolution prepared for Regent approval is included as Attachment C. Summary financial information on CMS Energy is included as Attachment D. Tab J, Page 2 of 2 University of Utah officials, including legal counsel, financial advisors, and cognizant administrators will be available to address questions the Regents may have. Recommendation It is the recommendation of the Commissioner that the Regents discuss with University officials specific provisions of the proposal to finance Part II of the East Campus Central Plant, review the attached lease/purchase agreement, and if satisfied that the proposed transaction is in the best interest of the University, authorize the resolution in Attachment C allowing the University to proceed with financing for Part II of the East Campus Central Plant. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF/NCT Attachments Tab K, Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM November 28, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: University of Utah - Long-Range Development Plan Issue The University of Utah is requesting Regents' approval for their Long-Range Development Plan (LRDP). They will specifically discuss the Concept Plan portion of the LRDP. Background The LRDP was completed in December of 1997 after three years of extensive dialogue with the campus and surrounding communities. Copies of the entire LRDP have been distributed at previous Board of Regents' meetings, and University officials will provide copies to new Regents as requested. The Concept Plan section of the LRDP is attached for review. University staff will be present to answer questions concerning development of the plan and the plan itself. Recommendation It is the Commissioner's recommendation that the Board of Regents review the University of Utah's Long-Range Development Plan, ask questions of University of Utah representatives at the meeting, and if satisfied, approve the University's plan. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF/NCT/BK Attachment Tab L, Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM November 28, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: USHE - Authorization to Seek Revenue Bond Financing Issue In past actions, the Regents have conceptually approved two non-state funded capital development projects for which revenue bond financing will be needed. The Regents are now asked to seek revenue bonding authority from the Legislature for these two projects. Background In most cases, bonds issued for capital development projects on USHE campuses are issued under the name and with the authority of the Board of Regents. To utilize such bonding authority, the Regents must have prior approval of the Legislature. Two USHE projects are to the point where such legislative approval is needed. Dixie Student Center Addition. This project was conceptually approved by the Regents in September 2000. Bonding authority not to exceed $2 million is sought. Debt service for the bonds will come from a combination of student fees and operating revenue of the student center. SLCC Cafeteria Remodel (Redwood Campus). This project was conceptually approved by the Regents in September 2000. Bonding authority not to exceed $6 million is sought. Debt service for the bonds will come from a combination of student fees and operating revenue of the cafeteria. If approved by the Regents, legislation authorizing bond issues for these two projects will be prepared and introduced during the 2001 General Legislative Session. Tab L, Page 2 of 2 Recommendation It is the recommendation of the Commissioner that the Regents authorize the preparation of legislation that would grant legislative authority to issue revenue bonds for the two projects outlined above. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF/NCT Tab M, Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM December 1, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: USHE - Projected 20-Year Space Needs Issue Presented here is an analysis that estimates 20-year space needs for the Utah System of Higher Education and its component institutions. Background At the joint meeting of the State Building Board and State Board of Regents held in August, members of both bodies requested staff to prepare an analysis showing 20-year space needs for the Utah System of Higher Education. These needs were to be based upon 20-year USHE enrollment projections that were presented at the joint meeting. The analysis has been completed. It shows projected space needs for the USHE as a whole, as well as for each of the nine USHE institutions. The attached materials show estimated space needs compared to estimated available space over the 20-year period ending in 2020. The first chart, which depicts USHE totals, estimates that 5,289,280 of current assignable square feet (ASF) will still be useable in the year 2020 without major renovation or replacement. This compares to a projected need for 11,134,950 ASF. The gap between these two figures, 5,846,670 ASF, is an estimate of what will be needed in new and/or renovated space over the next 20 years. The total development cost of this need, assuming an average of $150 per gross square foot (or $225 per ASF), would be $1,315,275,721 in current dollars, or an average of $65,763,786 per year. As with most statistical reports, the assumptions behind these numbers are important to note. Some of the more impactful assumptions will be briefly described here. In an effort to not overstate true need, staff has attempted to err on the side of conservatism in this analysis. Tab M, Page 2 of 4 Q&P Space Only - Space included in this analysis is only that considered to be Q&P space. Q&P is a term used by the USHE to define space for which state funding can be sought through Regent processes. Categories of space considered Q&P space include classrooms, class labs, computer labs, study space including libraries, PE space, office space, general research labs, etc. Categories of space that are not considered Q&P include auxiliaries, hospitals, television studios, museums, theaters, hangars, etc. By restricting this analysis to Q&P space only, the results certainly do not show total need for space. However, they do estimate the need for space of the type the Regents and Building Board prioritize for state funding. Projected Growth - Projected student levels underlying this analysis assume that 20% of all growth over the next 20 years will be accommodated through non-traditional means that do not have space implications (e.g., online, television, electronic correspondence). Currently, approximately 4% of USHE enrollments occur via technology. In all other ways, student estimates are based on official USHE enrollment projections. Space Needs - Projected space needs for the 20-year period are derived by multiplying projected students by Regent approved Q&P space-per-student standards. Space needs are shown in five year intervals through 2020. Useable Space - Calculating useable space over the 20-year period is a more difficult task. The ideal way of accomplishing this would be to use a direct method that calculates the useful life of each USHE building. Unfortunately, such data are not available. DFCM's Facilities Condition Assessments inventory may be able to be used for such purposes in the future. However, its completion is at least 12 months away. In the place of actual useful life information, a statistical heuristic has been employed to estimate useable space over the 20-year period. As with other assumptions, it is designed to err on the side of conservatism. Useable space is calculated according to the following table: Period Current USHE Space Built in Period Percent Needing Replacing by 2020 Before 1950 12.3% 35.0% 1950-1959 8.4% 35.0% 1960-1969 30.1% 80.0% 1970-1979 15.6% 35.0% 1980-1989 15.6% 0.0% 1990-2000 18.0% 0.0% Tab M, Page 3 of 4 The above table presumes that most of the current USHE space that was originally built before 1960 has already been renewed. Examples of such space include: UofU President's Circle, USU Old Main, Snow Noyes Building, and SLCC South City Campus. The presumption is that there will be another 35% needing renovation or replacement over the next 20 years. Examples include: UofU Engineering Building, SUU Old Main, CEU Main, and Snow Crane Theater. During the 1960's the State of Utah embarked on a major building effort to accommodate baby-boom students seeking access to college. More than 30% of current USHE space was built during this period. In fact, 20% was built between the years of 1965 and 1969. Presently, this space is between 30 and 40 years of age. All of it will exceed 50 years of age by 2020. Little of this space has been renewed. Consequently, the assumption is that 80% of the 1960's space will need renovating or replacing over the next 20 years. Current examples include: USU Engineering Buildings, WSU Collette Art Building, Dixie Graff Building, and SLCC Auto Trades Building. Space built in the early 1970's will be approaching 50 years of age by the year 2020. Much of the UVSC's Orem campus was built during this period. However, it is presumed that only 35% of the space built in the 1970's will need renovating over the next twenty years. No space built after 1979 is presumed to need renewing over the projection period. Other factors to consider in viewing this report include the following: Branches - Figures for institutions with major branch campuses represent institution-wide totals and are impacted by space conditions at the branch campuses as well as at the main campuses. Long-Term Orientation - The analysis should not be used as a means of evaluating current requests since its orientation is longer-term in nature and it is not specifically designed to be sensitive to current conditions. Educated Estimate - The analysis is not intended to be a 20-year building program but merely an educated estimate of 20-year space needs in the USHE. Should it be determined by the Regents and the Building Board that a more formal analysis is needed --such as a 20-year building program--such efforts will likely need to wait until the DFCM condition assessments are completed. Other Capital Needs - The needs estimated here are not all inclusive. Capital improvement Tab M, Page 4 of 4 funding designed to preserve a facility through its useful life or improve the facility's technological capacity will continue to be crucial. Infrastructure projects, such as the Heat Plant at USU will continue to be needed. Finally, any major renovation to the health sciences campus of the University of Utah will add substantial cost to this analysis. Pages 1 and 2 of the analysis quantify the 20-year space estimates in terms of ASF and current dollars. Pages 3 and 4 include individual USHE institutional information. Recommendation No action is required. This is an information item only. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF/NCT Attachments Tab N, Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM November 22, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: INFORMATION: USHE Annual Report on Leased Space Issue In June of 1993 the Regents adopted a leased space policy calling for an "annual report of all space leased by USHE institutions, including space leased for off-campus continuing education programs and space leased in research parks." Board policy requires institutions to obtain prior Board approval of leases funded from state appropriations that exceed $50,000 annually or that commit institutions to leases for a 5-year duration or beyond. Consistent with recommendations from a May 1993 report of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, this annual report is to be reviewed by the Regents and submitted to the State Building Board for inclusion in its comprehensive 5-year building plan. 2000 Institutional Lease Summary Institution Total Leases Total Square Feet Total Annual Lease/ Rent Expenditure UofU 80 719,553 $8,050,524 USU 19 128,523 $928,174 WSU 7 43,930 $73,578 SUU 13 35,732 $206,675 Snow 0 0 0 Dixie 1 5,840 $125 CEU 5 32,325 $63,126 UVSC 19 194,238 $735,652 SLCC 10 94,172 $667,444 Total 154 1,254,313 $10,725,299 Tab N, Page 2 of 2 Approximately $10.7 million is expended by Utah higher education institutions for 154 leases, totaling about 1.2 million square feet of space. A summary of changes in leases since the last report is included on the following three pages. Recommendation This is an information item only. No action is required. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF/NCT/BK Attachments Tab O, Page 1 of 12 MEMORANDUM November 14, 2000 TO: State Board of Regents FROM: Cecelia H. Foxley SUBJECT: Information: Fall 2000 Enrollment Report Revisions Issue The attached report replaces the original 2000 USHE Summer and Fall Enrollment Report presented at the October Regents' meeting. The updated report reflects minor reporting reclassifications. It presents institution-by-institution and systemwide data on Summer 2000 and Fall 2000 USHE enrollments. Total budget-related and self-supporting enrollments for Fall 2000 grew by 3,073 FTE, or +3.62% over Fall 1999. For the same period, headcount grew by 3.23%. Background Summer and Fall enrollment numbers are arrayed in the attached report and tables. Enrollments have been reported in compliance with Board policy. Budget-related and self-supporting figures for Summer and Fall are included. Estimated end-of-year numbers are included as well. These estimates which will be incorporated into the USHE 2001-2002 operating budget request can be found in Table 1 of the report. This item is for information only. No action is required. Cecelia H. Foxley, Commissioner CHF/NCT/NGM Tab O, Page 2 of 12 UTAH SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION SUMMER AND FALL SEMESTER ENROLLMENT REPORT Methodology At the end of Summer Semester and on the fifteenth day of Fall Semester, USHE institutions prepare an enrollment report that contains headcount and FTE enrollment data. From these data, the Office of the Commissioner prepares a report that summarizes institutional and system-wide enrollments for the two semesters. Actual Fall and Summer figures are used to estimate academic year FTE by utilizing weighted historical ratios. This report complies with Board policy requiring institutions to report budget-related and self-supporting enrollments according to a prescribed set of enrollment definitions. The report also complies with other systemwide enrollment definitions and standards. Table 1 shows budget-related figures only while Table 2 reflects self-supporting enrollments. Tables 3 through 6 report total (budget-related plus self-supporting) enrollments. Only the budget-related enrollment projections are used for requesting state operating funding. Summary Information Budget-related FTE enrollments for Fall 2000 Semester compared to Fall 1999 Semester are summarized below. Budget-Related FTE Enrollment Fall 1999 Compared to Fall 2000 Institution Fall 1999 Fall 2000 % Change UofU 20,175 20,649 2.35% USU 14,516 15,083 3.91% WSU 10,499 11,092 5.65% SUU 4,892 4,829 -1.29% Snow 2,778 2,845 2.41% Dixie 3,621 3,763 3.92% CEU 1,851 1,841 -0.54% UVSC 11,206 12,316 9.91% SLCC 11,799 12,227 3.63% Total 81,337 84,645 4.07% Tab O, Page 3 of 12 Self-supporting enrollments for the same period are summarized below. Self-supporting courses include correspondence courses, certain contract courses, conferences, workshops, out-of-state courses, external instruction courses, certain concurrent enrollment courses, and remedial courses at UofU, USU, and SUU. No state operating funding is requested for these courses. Self-Supporting FTE Enrollment Fall 1999 Compared to Fall 2000 Institution Fall 1999 Fall 2000 % Change U of U 168 129 -23.21% USU 758 768 1.32% WSU 360 427 18.61% SUU 132 193 46.21% Snow 330 314 -4.85% Dixie 35 68 94.29% CEU 105 100 -4.76% UVSC 1,565 1,187 -24.15% SLCC 139 171 23.02% Total 3,592 3,357 -6.54% Total enrollment, consisting of both budget-related and self-supporting enrollments, has increased over last year. The following table summarizes the increases in both headcount and FTE enrollments. Total Enrollment Headcount and FTE Summary Fall 1999 Compared to Fall 2000 Headcount FTE Institution Fall 1999 Fall 2000 % Change Fall 1999 Fall 2000 % Change UofU 25,788 26,180 1.52% 20,343 20,778 2.14% USU 20,865 21,490 3.00% 15,274 15,851 3.78% WSU 15,444 16,378 6.05% 10,858 11,519 6.09% SUU 6,025 5,963 -1.03% 5,024 5,022 -0.04% Snow 4,081 4,092 0.27% 3,109 3,159 1.61% Dixie 6,191 6,515 5.23% 3,656 3,831 4.79% CEU 2,688 2,704 1.35% 1,957 1,941 -0.82% UVSC 20,062 20,946 4.41% 12,770 13,503 5.74% SLCC 21,273 22,109 3.93% 11,938 12,398 3.85% Total 122,417 126,377 3.23% 84,929 88,002 3.62% Tab O, Page 4 of 12 Detailed Information The attached tables provide additional detailed information. Table 1 2000-01 Budget-Related Summer and Fall FTE, Academic Year FTE Projections and Annualized Year FTE Projections. Table 2 2000-01 Self-Supporting Summer and Fall FTE. Table 3 Total Budget-Related and Self-Supporting Enrollment: Fall 2000 FTE Enrollment Compared to Fall 1999. 2000-01 Academic Year FTE Projections and 2000-01 Annualized Year FTE Projections. Table 4 Total Budget-Related and Self-Supporting Enrollment: Fall 2000 Unduplicated Headcount Enrollment Compared to Fall 1999. Table 5 Total Budget-Related and Self-Supporting Enrollment: Summer 2000 FTE Enrollment Compared to Summer 1999. Table 6 Total Budget-Related and Self-Supporting Enrollment: Summer 2000 Unduplicated Headcount Enrollment Compared to Summer 1999. Table 1 Utah System of Higher Education 2000-01 Budget-Related Summer and Fall FTE, Academic Year FTE Projections and Annualized Year FTE Projections Summer 2000 Fall 2000 Projected Budget-Related Projected Budget-Related Budget-Related FTE Budget-Related FTE 2000-01 Academic Year FTE 2000-01 Annualized Year FTE INSTITUTIONS Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- University of Utah Education and General 4,822 850 5,672 16,864 2,972 19,836 16,440 2,709 19,149 18,851 3,134 21,985 School of Med (MD) 4 2 6 334 64 398 333 63 396 335 64 399 School of Med (Non-MD) 35 20 55 256 159 415 241 147 388 258 157 415 Total 4,861 871 5,732 17,454 3,195 20,649 17,014 2,919 19,933 19,444 3,355 22,799 Utah State University Education and General* 2,207 665 2,872 12,208 2,208 14,416 12,024 2,091 14,115 13,128 2,424 15,551 Southeast UT CE Center 63 2 65 111 0 111 112 0 112 143 1 144 Uintah Basin CE Center 186 8 194 556 0 556 550 0 550 643 4 647 Total 2,456 675 3,131 12,875 2,208 15,083 12,686 2,091 14,777 13,914 2,429 16,342 Weber State University* 2,157 177 2,334 10,434 658 11,092 10,277 621 10,898 11,355 710 12,065 Southern Utah University Education and General 950 113 1,063 4,336 465 4,801 4,355 450 4,805 4,830 507 5,337 St. George Center 12 1 13 28 0 28 29 0 29 35 1 36 Total 962 114 1,076 4,364 465 4,829 4,384 450 4,835 4,865 507 5,373 Snow College 118 28 146 2,230 236 2,466 2,229 227 2,455 2,288 241 2,528 Snow South Postsecondary 55 0 55 227 5 232 327 7 334 354 7 361 Snow South Secondary 30 0 30 147 0 147 216 0 216 231 0 231 Total 203 28 231 2,604 241 2,845 2,772 234 3,005 2,873 248 3,121 Dixie College 436 49 485 3,403 360 3,763 3,277 328 3,605 3,495 352 3,847 College of Eastern Utah Education and General 195 23 218 1,438 98 1,536 1,433 91 1,524 1,531 103 1,633 San Juan CE Center 95 2 97 304 1 305 308 1 309 356 2 358 Total 290 25 315 1,742 99 1,841 1,741 92 1,833 1,886 105 1,991 Utah Valley State College 2,385 607 2,992 10,706 1,610 12,316 10,820 1,536 12,356 12,012 1,839 13,852 Salt Lake Community College 3,239 230 3,470 11,718 509 12,227 11,719 481 12,199 13,338 596 13,934 TOTAL USHE W/OUT MEDICINE 16,985 2,774 19,760 74,966 9,281 84,247 74,355 8,689 83,044 82,847 10,077 92,924 TOTAL USHE WITH MEDICINE 16,989 2,776 19,766 75,300 9,345 84,645 74,688 8,752 83,440 83,183 10,141 93,323 * Includes University Center. Tab O, Page 5 of 12 Table 2 Utah System of Higher Education 2000-01 Self-Supporting Summer and Fall FTE Academic Year FTE Projections and Annualized Year FTE Projections Summer 2000 Fall 2000 Projected Self-Supporting Projected Self-Supporting Self-Supporting FTE Self-Supporting FTE 2000-01 Academic Year FTE 2000-01 Annualized Year FTE INSTITUTIONS Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- University of Utah Education and General 251 248 499 108 17 125 350 35 385 476 159 635 School of Med (MD) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 School of Med (Non-MD) 59 44 103 4 0 4 4 0 4 33 22 55 Total 310 292 602 112 17 129 354 35 389 509 181 690 Utah State University Education and General* 480 62 542 698 48 746 1,008 70 1,078 1,248 101 1,349 Southeast UT CE Center 18 0 18 1 0 1 1 0 1 10 0 10 Uintah Basin CE Center 14 0 14 21 0 21 22 0 22 29 0 29 Total 512 62 574 720 48 768 1,031 70 1,101 1,287 101 1,388 Weber State University* 496 117 613 243 184 427 983 196 1,178 1,231 254 1,485 Southern Utah University Education and General 486 11 497 138 5 143 294 7 301 537 13 549 St. George Center 0 0 0 49 1 50 49 1 50 49 1 50 Total 486 11 497 187 6 193 343 8 351 586 14 599 Snow College 4 1 5 314 0 314 208 0 208 210 1 210 Snow South Postsecondary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Snow South Secondary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 4 1 5 314 0 314 208 0 208 210 1 210 Dixie College 19 6 25 68 0 68 98 0 98 108 3 111 College of Eastern Utah Education and General 3 0 3 83 0 83 64 0 64 66 0 66 San Juan CE Center 3 0 3 17 0 17 19 0 19 21 0 21 Total 6 0 6 100 0 100 84 0 84 87 0 87 Utah Valley State College 116 3 119 1,135 52 1,187 767 81 848 825 82 908 Salt Lake Community College 62 12 74 162 9 171 1,545 30 1,575 1,576 36 1,612 TOTAL USHE W/OUT MEDICINE 2,011 504 2,515 3,041 316 3,357 5,414 419 5,833 6,419 671 7,090 TOTAL USHE WITH MEDICINE 2,011 504 2,515 3,041 316 3,357 5,414 419 5,833 6,419 671 7,090 * Includes University Center. Tab O, Page 6 of 12 Table 3 Utah System of Higher Education Total Budget-Related and Self-Supporting Enrollment Fall 2000 FTE Compared to Fall 1999 --- Academic Year FTE Projections and Annualized Year FTE Projections 2000 Difference 1999 Percent Difference Projected Total 2000-01 Projected Total 2000-01 Fall Semester 1999 Fall Semester 2000 From 1999 From 1998 Academic Year FTE Annualized Year FTE INSTITUTIONS Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total ---------------------------------------- ------------ ---------- ----------- ------------ ---------- ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ------------ ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------- ----------- University of Utah Education and General 16,873 2,661 19,534 16,972 2,989 19,961 99 328 427 0.59% 12.33% 2.19% 16,790 2,744 19,534 19,327 3,293 22,620 School of Med (MD) 347 58 405 334 64 398 -13 6 -7 -3.75% 10.34% -1.73% 333 63 396 335 64 399 School of Med (Non-MD) 261 143 404 260 159 419 -1 16 15 -0.38% 11.19% 3.71% 245 147 392 292 179 471 Total 17,481 2,862 20,343 17,566 3,212 20,778 85 350 435 0.49% 12.23% 2.14% 17,368 2,954 20,322 19,954 3,536 23,489 Utah State University Education and General* 12,408 2,246 14,654 12,906 2,256 15,162 498 10 508 4.01% 0.45% 3.47% 13,032 2,161 15,193 14,376 2,525 16,900 Southeast UT CE Center 101 0 101 112 0 112 11 0 11 10.89% --- 10.89% 113 0 113 153 1 154 Uintah Basin CE Center 518 1 519 577 0 577 59 -1 58 11.39% --- 11.18% 572 0 572 672 4 676 Total 13,027 2,247 15,274 13,595 2,256 15,851 568 9 577 4.36% 0.40% 3.78% 13,717 2,161 15,878 15,201 2,530 17,730 Weber State University* 10,058 800 10,858 10,677 842 11,519 619 42 661 6.15% 5.25% 6.09% 11,259 817 12,076 12,586 964 13,550 Southern Utah University Education and General 4,377 513 4,890 4,474 470 4,944 97 -43 54 2.22% -8.38% 1.10% 4,649 457 5,106 5,367 519 5,886 St. George Center 131 3 134 77 1 78 -54 -2 -56 -41.22% -66.67% -41.79% 78 1 79 84 2 86 Total 4,508 516 5,024 4,551 471 5,022 43 -45 -2 0.95% -8.72% -0.04% 4,727 458 5,186 5,451 521 5,972 Snow College 2,450 271 2,721 2,544 236 2,780 94 -35 59 3.84% -12.92% 2.17% 2,437 227 2,663 2,498 241 2,739 Snow South Postsecondary 257 2 259 227 5 232 -30 3 -27 -11.67% 150.00% -10.42% 327 7 334 354 7 361 Snow South Secondary 130 0 130 147 0 147 17 0 17 13.08% --- 13.08% 216 0 216 231 0 231 Total 2,837 272 3,109 2,918 241 3,159 81 -31 50 2.86% -11.40% 1.61% 2,980 234 3,213 3,083 248 3,331 Dixie College 3,315 341 3,656 3,471 360 3,831 156 19 175 4.71% 5.57% 4.79% 3,375 328 3,703 3,603 355 3,958 College of Eastern Utah Main Campus 1,541 79 1,620 1,521 98 1,619 -20 19 -1 -1.30% 24.05% -0.06% 1,498 91 1,589 1,597 103 1,699 San Juan CE Center 333 3 336 321 1 322 -12 -2 -14 -3.60% -66.67% -4.17% 327 1 328 376 2 378 Total 1,874 83 1,957 1,842 99 1,941 -32 16 -16 -1.71% 19.28% -0.82% 1,825 92 1,917 1,973 105 2,078 Utah Valley State College 11,321 1,449 12,770 11,841 1,662 13,503 520 213 733 4.59% 14.70% 5.74% 11,587 1,617 13,204 12,838 1,922 14,759 Salt Lake Community College 11,425 513 11,938 11,880 518 12,398 455 5 460 3.98% 0.97% 3.85% 13,264 511 13,775 14,914 632 15,546 TOTAL USHE W/OUT MED 75,499 9,025 84,524 78,007 9,597 87,604 2,508 572 3,080 3.32% 6.34% 3.64% 79,769 9,108 88,877 89,267 10,748 100,015 TOTAL USHE WITH MED 75,846 9,083 84,929 78,341 9,661 88,002 2,495 578 3,073 3.29% 6.36% 3.62% 80,102 9,171 89,273 89,602 10,812 100,414 * Includes University Center. Tab O, Page 7 of 12 Table 4 Utah System of Higher Education Total Budget-Related and Self-Supporting Enrollment Fall 2000 Headcount Compared to Fall 1999 2000 Difference 2000 Percent Difference Fall Semester 1999 Fall Semester 2000 From 1999 From 1999 INSTITUTIONS Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total --------------------------------------------- ---------------- ------------- ------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- University of Utah Education and General 22,028 3,090 25,118 22,086 3,412 25,498 58 322 380 0.26% 10.42% 1.51% School of Med (MD) 347 58 405 334 64 398 -13 6 -7 -3.75% 10.34% -1.73% School of Med (Non-MD) 488 199 687 541 218 759 53 19 72 10.86% 9.55% 10.48% Less Duplicates^ -328 -94 -422 -369 -106 -475 -41 -12 -53 12.50% 12.77% 12.56% Total 22,535 3,253 25,788 22,592 3,588 26,180 57 335 392 0.25% 10.30% 1.52% Utah State University Education and General* 17,016 2,560 19,576 17,467 2,552 20,019 451 -8 443 2.65% -0.31% 2.26% Southeast UT CE Center 222 0 222 237 0 237 15 0 15 6.76% --- 6.76% Uintah Basin CE Center 1,106 2 1,108 1,262 0 1,262 156 -2 154 14.10% --- 13.90% Less Duplicates^ -41 0 -41 -28 0 -28 13 0 13 -31.71% --- -31.71% Total 18,303 2,562 20,865 18,938 2,552 21,490 635 -10 625 3.47% -0.39% 3.00% Weber State University* 14,480 964 15,444 15,333 1,045 16,378 853 81 934 5.89% 8.40% 6.05% Southern Utah University Education and General 5,274 583 5,857 5,358 508 5,866 84 -75 9 1.59% -12.86% 0.15% St. George Center 244 3 247 153 3 156 -91 0 -91 -37.30% 0.00% -36.84% Less Duplicates^ -79 0 -79 -57 -2 -59 22 -2 20 -27.85% --- -25.32% Total 5,439 586 6,025 5,454 509 5,963 15 -77 -62 0.28% -13.14% -1.03% Snow College 3,021 266 3,287 3,298 240 3,538 277 -26 251 9.17% -9.77% 7.64% Snow South Postsecondary 489 2 491 380 5 385 -109 3 -106 -22.29% 150.00% -21.59% Snow South Secondary 467 1 468 392 0 392 -75 -1 -76 -16.06% -100.00% -16.24% Less Duplicates^ -165 0 -165 -222 -1 -223 -57 -1 -58 34.55% --- 35.15% Total 3,812 269 4,081 3,848 244 4,092 36 -25 11 0.94% -9.29% 0.27% Dixie College 5,663 528 6,191 5,977 538 6,515 314 10 324 5.54% 1.89% 5.23% College of Eastern Utah Main Campus 2,125 86 2,211 2,164 94 2,258 39 8 47 1.84% 9.30% 2.13% San Juan CE Center 475 4 479 493 2 495 18 -2 16 3.79% -50.00% 3.34% Less Duplicates^ -2 0 -2 -47 -2 -49 -45 -2 -47 --- --- --- Total 2,598 90 2,688 2,610 94 2,704 12 4 16 0.46% 4.44% 0.60% Utah Valley State College 18,235 1,827 20,062 18,825 2,121 20,946 590 294 884 3.24% 16.09% 4.41% Salt Lake Community College 20,532 741 21,273 21,364 745 22,109 832 4 836 4.05% 0.54% 3.93% TOTAL USHE W/OUT MED 111,250 10,762 122,012 114,607 11,372 125,979 3,357 610 3,967 3.02% 5.67% 3.25% TOTAL USHE WITH MED 111,597 10,820 122,417 114,941 11,436 126,377 3,344 616 3,960 3.00% 5.69% 3.23% * Includes University Center. ^ Duplicated headcounts between line items are subtracted from the total in order to obtain an unduplicated total. Tab O, Page 8 of 12 Table 5 Utah System of Higher Education Total Budget-Related and Self-Supporting Enrollment Summer 2000 FTE Compared to Summer 1999 2000 Difference 2000 Percent Difference Summer Semester 1999 Summer Semester 2000 From 1999 From 1999 INSTITUTIONS Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total ---------------------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- --------------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- University of Utah Education and General 4,630 783 5,413 5,073 1,098 6,171 443 315 758 9.57% 40.23% 14.00% School of Med (MD) 1 0 1 4 2 6 3 2 5 300.00% --- 500.00% School of Med (Non-MD) 86 45 131 94 64 158 8 19 27 9.30% 42.22% 20.61% Total 4,717 828 5,545 5,171 1,164 6,335 454 336 790 9.62% 40.58% 14.25% Utah State University Education and General* 2,614 647 3,261 2,687 727 3,414 73 80 153 2.79% 12.36% 4.69% Southeast UT CE Center 56 0 56 81 2 83 25 2 27 44.64% --- 48.21% Uintah Basin CE Center 111 1 112 200 8 208 89 7 96 80.18% --- 85.71% Total 2,781 648 3,429 2,968 737 3,705 187 89 276 6.72% 13.73% 8.05% Weber State University* 2,527 256 2,784 2,653 294 2,948 126 38 164 4.99% 14.84% 5.89% Southern Utah University Education and General 1,300 134 1,434 1,436 124 1,560 136 -10 126 10.46% -7.46% 8.79% St. George Center 21 1 22 12 1 13 -9 0 -9 -42.86% 0.00% -40.91% Total 1,321 134 1,455 1,448 125 1,573 127 -9 118 9.61% -6.72% 8.11% Snow College 107 36 143 122 29 151 15 -7 8 14.02% -19.44% 5.59% Snow South Postsecondary 69 0 69 55 0 55 -14 0 -14 -20.29% --- -20.29% Snow South Secondary 40 0 40 30 0 30 -10 0 -10 -25.00% --- -25.00% Total 216 36 252 207 29 235 -9 -7 -17 -4.17% -19.44% -6.75% Dixie College 383 41 424 455 55 510 72 14 86 18.80% 34.15% 20.28% College of Eastern Utah Main Campus 211 13 224 198 23 221 -13 10 -3 -6.16% 76.92% -1.34% San Juan CE Center 111 1 112 98 2 100 -13 1 -12 -11.71% 0.00% -10.71% Total 322 14 336 296 25 321 -26 11 -15 -8.07% 78.57% -4.46% Utah Valley State College 2,252 543 2,795 2,501 610 3,111 249 67 316 11.06% 12.34% 11.31% Salt Lake Community College 3,954 231 4,184 3,301 242 3,543 -653 11 -641 -16.51% 4.76% -15.32% TOTAL USHE W/OUT MEDICINE 18,472 2,731 21,203 18,996 3,279 22,275 524 548 1,072 2.84% 20.07% 5.06% TOTAL USHE WITH MEDICINE 18,473 2,731 21,204 19,000 3,281 22,281 527 550 1,077 2.85% 20.14% 5.08% * Includes University Center. Tab O, Page 9 of 12 Table 6 Utah System of Higher Education Total Budget-Related and Self-Supporting Enrollment Summer 2000 Unduplicated Headcount Compared to Summer 1999 2000 Difference 2000 Percent Difference Summer Semester 1999 Summer Semester 2000 From 1999 From 1999 INSTITUTIONS Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total Resident Nonres Total ---------------------------------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- University of Utah Education and General 9,513 1,716 11,229 10,027 2,199 12,226 514 483 997 5.40% 28.15% 8.88% School of Med (MD) 2 1 3 4 2 6 2 1 3 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% School of Med (Non-MD) 198 103 301 207 114 321 9 11 20 4.55% 10.68% 6.64% Less Duplicates^ -26 -9 -35 -48 -13 -61 -22 -4 -26 84.62% 44.44% 74.29% Total 9,687 1,811 11,498 10,190 2,302 12,492 503 491 994 5.19% 27.11% 8.64% Utah State University Education and General* 7,129 1,217 8,346 7,277 1,366 8,643 148 149 297 2.08% 12.24% 3.56% Southeastern Utah CE Center 191 0 191 301 5 306 110 5 115 57.59% --- 60.21% Uintah Basin CE Center 312 4 316 526 19 545 214 15 229 68.59% 375.00% 72.47% Less Duplicates^ -32 -2 -34 -36 -3 -39 -4 -1 -5 12.50% 50.00% 14.71% Total 7,600 1,219 8,819 8,068 1,387 9,455 468 168 636 6.16% 13.78% 7.21% Weber State University* 6,197 461 6,658 7,039 592 7,631 842 131 973 13.59% 28.42% 14.61% Southern Utah University Education and General 3,731 265 3,996 4,255 252 4,507 524 -13 511 14.04% -4.91% 12.79% St. George Center 55 1 56 31 4