Oregon University System logo

OREGON STATE BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
ROOMS 358/64, SCHOOL OF NURSING
OREGON HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
PORTLAND, OREGON

June 16, 2000

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting of the State Board of Higher Education was called to order at 1 p.m. by President Imeson.

ROLL CALL

On roll call, the following Board members answered present:

Dr. Herb Aschkenasy
Dr. Geri Richmond
Mr. Shawn Hempel
Mr. Don VanLuvanee
Mr. David Koch
Mr. Bill Williams
Ms. Leslie Lehmann
Mr. Jim Willis
Mr. Jim Lussier
Ms. Phyllis Wustenberg
Mr. Tom Imeson

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The Board dispensed with the reading of the April 21, 2000, meeting minutes. Mr. Willis moved and Mr. Koch seconded the motion to accept the minutes as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

The Board also dispensed with the reading of the May 19, 2000, meeting minutes. Mr. Willis moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to accept them as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

PRESIDENT'S REPORT

Continued Biennial Budget Planning

Noting the recent conclusion of an extended meeting of the Joint Budget and Finance/System Strategic Planning Committee, where the 2001-2003 biennial budget was the focus of discussion, President Imeson said that the proposal was not yet complete, but felt the Board, after receiving some additional analysis from staff, should be prepared to vote on the budget at the July meeting.

Thanks to OHSU

President Imeson expressed his appreciation to OHSU President Kohler and his staff for hosting a dinner the evening prior, which included presentations from the deans of the Dental and Nursing Schools, the vice president of Clinical Affairs, and Provost Hallick.

Koch's Last Meeting/Replacement Introduced

Recognizing that it was Mr. Koch's last meeting as a Board member, President Imeson shared his observations about Mr. Koch, including his high level of participation, ability to grasp of the issues, and his tenacity in learning as many details as possible about matters coming before the Board. "He's had a good, balanced approach and I think a very constructive one," remarked President Imeson, wishing him well on his upcoming move to Washington, D.C., to begin work as an attorney at the Department of Transportation.

President Imeson introduced Mr. Koch's replacement, Tim Young. A student at Portland State University and former student body president, Mr. Young will join the Board on July 1, President Imeson said. He also announced that several Board members were recently reappointed, including Dr. Richmond, Mr. VanLuvanee, and Ms. Wustenberg.

Reno's last meeting

Indicating that it was also President Reno's last meeting in the role of SOU president, Mr. Imeson said that he would return in October for the scheduled Board meeting at the University.

Commencement

Despite rain at several of the recent commencements, President Imeson said that all Board members found the events rewarding to attend.

Renewal Work Session Cancelled

President Imeson announced that since Mr. VanLuvanee and Mr. Lussier were unable to attend the scheduled Board meeting and renewal work session in July, the work session should not take place that month. Instead, he suggested that a planning session be held at the September 15 Executive Committee meeting, with a work session at the October 20 Board meeting devoted to discussing and finalizing the 2000-01 goals outlined by the Executive Committee in September. He encouraged all members to attend the September meeting. Board members consented to this plan of action.

CHANCELLOR'S REPORT

Grant Awards

Chancellor Cox congratulated UO and WOU for their recent grant awards in a national competition by the Department of Education for the program, "Preparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology." "This is significant recognition of the quality of the teacher education programs at the two institutions and the degree to which they have committed to technology," the Chancellor observed.

The Chancellor asked Mr. Grattan Kerans, OUS director of Government Relations to comment on the status of legislative concepts the Board had approved at its February meeting. Mr. Kerans reported that out of 11 concepts forwarded to the Department of Administrative Services, two were denied. The first, relating to an exemption of donor records from public record, met with statewide opposition from the media, particularly newspaper editorialists. The second, which sought to extend health insurance benefits to graduate students, was denied by virtue of the fact that it had a $6.8 million fiscal impact, considered to be outside the OUS budget. Mr. Kerans pointed out that it would likely become part of an ongoing budget discussion at the 2001 Legislative Session.

IFS Report

Below is an excerpt of IFS President Tiedeman's remarks:

"IFS convened on June 2-3 on the campus of Southern Oregon University. Highlights of that meeting included visits by Board member Williams, Senator Lenn Hannon, and Journalist Russell Sadler.

"I have just completed 30 consecutive years of service at Oregon State University. I've been arguing all of those 30 years for staff dependent tuition rates and I'm very pleased to see what the Budget and Finance Committee has done. I hope that the Board follows suit.

"On behalf of the faculty throughout OUS, I'd like to thank you for your diligent service, to make higher education in the state of Oregon the best it can be. You face the same resource limitations and procedural mysteries that frustrate your accusers. Differences of opinion arise, of course, but the spirit of dialogue that follows is fruitful, essential, and productive. You approach your critical tasks here seriously, and with a clear regard for doing what will best keep us vital and competitive. I want you to know that faculty really do appreciate your enduring efforts.

"IFS looks forward to working productively with you in helping resolve the challenges you face. Together we work toward a common goal."

TERMS OF APPOINTMENT: DR. SARA HOPKINS POWELL

Chancellor's Recommendation to the Board

Chancellor Cox recommended that the Board approve the terms of appointment for SOU Interim President Hopkins-Powell as set forth:

Term of Office (start/end dates)

Recommended Salary/Fringe

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. VanLuvanee moved and Mr. Koch seconded the motion to approve the terms of appointment as submitted by the Chancellor. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

GRIEVANCE: DR. JOSEPH WADE, UO

Summary

This was a grievance brought for the Board's review under the grievance and appeal procedure in the Board's administrative rules, OAR 580-021-0050 and -0055. Dr. Joseph Wade, an employee of the University of Oregon, contested the decision by President Frohnmayer that his grievance relating to retaliation and discrimination was unfounded. Following that decision, Dr. Wade asked that the Board review his appeal.

President Imeson designated Dr. Roy Arnold, executive associate dean of the College of Agricultural Sciences and former provost and executive vice president at Oregon State University, to review the matter on behalf of the Board and to offer his recommendations. Dr. Arnold's final report was distributed to Board members separately.

Recommendation to the Board

Dr. Arnold recommended that Dr. Wade's appeal be denied.

Board Discussion and Action

OUS Director of Legal Services Mr. Ben Rawlins briefly reviewed the role of the Board in grievances. OAR 580-021-0055 specifically states that the Board may overturn the decision of a president only if: 1) procedural error was committed by the institution during the grievance procedures and the error resulted in prejudice to the grievant, 2) the decision of a president is not supported by substantial evidence or, 3) the decision is in conflict with appellate rules or laws.

Dr. Arnold highlighted the background of the grievance, the process he followed, and his findings and recommendations. In his review, Dr. Arnold stated that he studied all documents related to the grievance, listened to audio tapes from Dr. Wade's appeal, and took extensive notes before reaching his final conclusion.

Further articulating his recommendation for the Board not to overturn the decision of the president, Dr. Arnold noted two important considerations in reaching his decision:

1) the absence of evidence in testimony provided by witnesses and in written documents in the hearing record to support the allegations of either retaliation or prohibited discrimination; and

2) the validity of a recognized authority of the University to not renew fixed-term contracts or to reassign employees consistent with institution needs.

Mr. Koch asked if only direct evidence was used in the case, or if any circumstantial or indirect information was brought in for consideration. Reciting the language used in the final report to the president by the Faculty Grievance Appeal Committee, Dr. Arnold replied that it said they "could not find evidence from which the charges of either discrimination or retaliation could be inferred." Mr. Koch expressed concern over the possibility of some evidence being omitted because of the technical definition of direct evidence.

Several Board members asked about the practice of reassigning contracted employees. Dr. Arnold confirmed that it was not uncommon, particularly when a determination is made that it is in the best interest of the University. Speaking specifically about Dr. Wade's case, Dr. Arnold said his reassignment occurred following an extensive review of student services at UO.

Dr. Wade offered his interpretation of the events as they unfolded at UO. Procedurally, he felt that the size of the Faculty Grievance Appeal Committee was incorrect, and that he did not have an opportunity to address charges that were placed against him. He also questioned why the testimonials from faculty were apparently not considered in President Frohnmayer's decision.

Reminding the Board that the grievance was actually initiated by Dr. Wade charging UO Provost Moseley and the UO with discrimination and retaliation, Dr. Arnold asserted that the Faculty Grievance Appeal Committee interpreted that it needed to focus on the testimony related to those charges and not other information. Continuing, Dr. Arnold said that he did acknowledge in his report the witnesses who made positive comments with respect to Dr. Wade's contribution and his effectiveness in his role historically.

Mr. Koch queried if, at any time, questions about his performance were brought forward in the grievance process. By his reading of the events as they unfolded, Mr. Koch felt that issues about Dr. Wade's performance might have arisen, but that he may not have had an opportunity to rebut any of those allegations because of the scope of the initial grievance. Given that possibility, Mr. Koch asked if due process had taken place in this case. Dr. Arnold responded that Dr. Wade clearly had the opportunity to present his case for consideration by the Committee.

Mr. Williams asked for clarification involving Dr. Wade's contract with the University as it related to his grievance. Mr. Rawlins explained that circumstances vary, but in the case of Dr. Wade, if the Board ruled in favor of the grievant, supposing that the procedure was flawed, then one option to the Board would be reinstatement of his position.

Mr. Lussier moved and Mr. Willis seconded the motion to accept the recommendations of Dr. Arnold as submitted.

Following the motion, several Board members expressed concern over the grievance process. Noting the discomfort that always exists in grievances brought before the Board, Mr. Willis said that the process, while sometimes difficult, is understandable given the time it would take the Board itself to review the materials connected to a grievance. Further, he trusted that the institutions have mechanisms in place for allowing people the opportunity to voice their opinions.

Agreeing to the level of discomfort that emerges around grievance cases, President Imeson outlined the current choices for the Board: (1) the Board could decide to review each case itself, or (2) delegate someone who the Board feels is a person of integrity, entrusting them with the responsibility of reviewing all pertinent documentation, and then making a recommendation to the Board. While the rule states that the Board delegates responsibility to the Board President to choose a reviewer on its behalf, Mr. Hempel suggested developing a list of appropriate reviewers for the President's use.

Returning to the motion on the table, Mr. Imeson asked for a final vote. The following voted in favor of accepting Dr. Arnold's findings as submitted: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Lehmann, Lussier, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: Director Koch. Abstain: Directors Richmond, VanLuvanee, and Williams.

Dr. Richmond explained that her choice to abstain was because she hoped to set a precedent that faculty Board members not vote on grievance cases from their own campus.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS, 2000-01

Nominating Committee Recommendation to the Board

Dr. Aschkenasy, acting as Chair of the Nominating Committee, along with Mr. Lussier and Mr. Willis, recommended the following slate of Executive Committee members for 2000-01:

Mr. VanLuvanee, president
Mr. Lussier, vice president
Mr. Imeson
Ms. Lehmann
Mr. Willis

Noting that neither Mr. VanLuvanee nor Mr. Lussier would be present at the July Board meeting, Dr. Aschkenasy suggested their terms of office begin immediately following. President Imeson agreed to chair the July meeting in Mr. VanLuvanee's absence.

Mr. Lussier moved and Dr. Richmond seconded the motion to accept the Committee's recommendations as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES AND POLICY GUIDELINES

Investment Committee Recommendation to the Board

The Investment Committee recommended that the Board approve the revised Schedule I and Exhibit A of the Investment Objectives and Policy Guidelines for the OUS Pooled Endowment Fund. (All documentation is on file in the Board's office.)

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Willis moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to accept the recommended revisions as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

ENDOWMENT SPENDING POLICY

Investment Committee Recommendation to the Board

The Investment Committee recommended that the Board approve a plan to decrease the distribution rate incrementally from 5.0 percent to 4.5 percent for 2000-01 and to 4.0 percent for 2001-02 and thereafter.

Board Discussion and Action

Ms. Wustenberg moved and Mr. Hempel seconded the motion to accept the recommended revisions as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

NAMING OF OUTDOOR COMMUNITY RECREATION FIELD, PSU

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended that the new Community Recreation Field be named the Peter W. Stott Community Field, in honor of Peter W. Stott, a strong supporter of Portland State University.

Budget and Finance Recommendation to the Board

Chair Imeson reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for its final consideration.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. VanLuvanee moved and Mr. Willis seconded the motion to approve the request as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

(Drs. Aschkenasy and Richmond were out of the room at the time the vote was taken.)

NAMING OF NEW DISTANCE LEARNING FACILITY, PSU

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended that the Distance Learning Facility at the PSU Urban Center be named Wilson-DeShane Pavilion in honor of Dr. Keren Brown Wilson and Dr. Michael DeShane, both strong supporters of the University.

Budget and Finance Recommendation to the Board

Chair Imeson reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for its final consideration.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Hempel moved and Mr. VanLuvanee seconded the motion to approve the request as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Lussier, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

(Mr. Koch, Ms. Lehmann, and Dr. Richmond were out of the room at the time the vote was taken.)

NEW GRADUATE STUDENT RESIDENCE HALL, UO

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended approval of the University of Oregon's new graduate school residence hall project and to authorize the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration to seek authorization from the State Emergency Board for a new project expenditure limitation of $4.5 million for use of $4.1 million of Article XI-F(1) bonds and $400,000 of University Housing and Dining operations for revenues to finance the project.

Budget and Finance Recommendation to the Board

Chair Imeson reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for its final consideration.

Board Discussion and Action

Ms. Wustenberg moved and Mr. VanLuvanee seconded the motion to approve the request as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lussier, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

(Ms. Lehmann and Dr. Richmond were out of the room at the time the vote was taken.)

POLICY GUIDELINES FOR ELECTRONIC COMMERCE

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended that the Committee consider the guidelines and move them to the full Board for final approval.

Budget and Finance Recommendation to the Board

Chair Imeson indicated that the Committee added a sentence to the draft provided by staff, which, if approved, would be incorporated into the final policy document. He added that, generally speaking, the Committee was comfortable that the guidelines were appropriate and contained the right standards and responsibilities.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Hempel moved and Dr. Aschkenasy seconded the motion to approve the policy as modified by the Committee. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Lehmann, Lussier, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

(Mr. Koch and Dr. Richmond were out of the room at the time the vote was taken.)

PRE-TAX PARKING PLAN

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff requested that the Committee review and approve the pre-tax parking plan and refer it to the Board for final approval.

Budget and Finance Recommendation to the Board

Chair Imeson reported that the Committee approved forwarding the request to the Board for its final consideration. Dr. Richmond abstained from voting, declaring a possible conflict of interest.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Lussier moved and Mr. Hempel seconded the motion to approve the plan as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: Director Aschkenasy. Abstain: Director Richmond.

OAR 580-022-0031, TRANSFER OF STAFF FEE PRIVILEGES

Staff Recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee

Staff recommended that the Committee approve OAR 580-022-0031, relating to transfer of staff fee privileges, as submitted. This rule will be reviewed in two years, whereupon staff will prepare a report outlining the usage, cost implications, and positive and negative outcomes.

Budget and Finance Recommendation to the Board

Chair Imeson reported that the Committee approved forwarding the request to the Board for its final consideration. Dr. Richmond abstained from voting, declaring a possible conflict of interest.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Williams moved and Mr. Willis seconded the motion to approve the rule as submitted. On roll call vote, the following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none. Abstain: Director Richmond.

POLICY STATEMENT: CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended that the Committee approve the amended conflict of interest policy statement, and forward it to the Board for final consideration on its consent agenda.

System Strategic Planning Committee Recommendation to the Board

Chair Willis reported that Mr. Rawlins pointed out one small correction to the document that would be included in the final policy, which was unanimously approved by the Committee.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Willis moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to approve the policy as corrected by Mr. Rawlins. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

B.S., COMMUNICATION STUDIES, OIT

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended that the System Strategic Planning Committee recommend that the Board authorize the Oregon Institute of Technology to establish a program leading to the B.S. degree in Communication Studies. The program would be effective fall term 2001, and the OUS Office of Academic Affairs would conduct a follow-up review in the 2006-07 academic year.

System Strategic Planning Recommendation to the Board

Chair Willis reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for final consideration on its consent agenda.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Willis moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to approve the program proposal as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

B.F.A., MULTIMEDIA DESIGN, UO

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended that the System Strategic Planning Committee recommend that the Board authorize the University of Oregon to establish a program leading to a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Multimedia Design. The program would be effective fall term 2000, and the OUS Office of Academic Affairs would conduct a follow-up review in the 2005-06 academic year.

System Strategic Planning Committee Recommendation to the Board

Chair Willis reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for final consideration on its consent agenda.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Willis moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to approve the program proposal as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

CERTIFICATE, FILM STUDIES, UO

Staff Recommendation to the System Strategic Planning Committee

Staff recommended that the System Strategic Planning Committee recommend that the Board authorize the University of Oregon to establish a program leading to an undergraduate certificate in Film Studies. The program would be effective fall term 2000, and the OUS Office of Academic Affairs would conduct a follow-up review in the 2005-06 academic year.

System Strategic Planning Committee Recommendation to the Board

Chair Willis reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for final consideration on its consent agenda.

Board Discussion and Action

Mr. Willis moved and Ms. Lehmann seconded the motion to approve the program proposal as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

STRATEGY FOR EXPANDING HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES IN CENTRAL OREGON: 2000-2015

Staff Recommendation to the Committee of the Whole

Staff recommended that the Committee of the Whole refer the following recommendations to the Board for approval:

Committee of the Whole Recommendation to the Board

Chair Imeson reported that the Committee unanimously approved forwarding the request to the Board for its final consideration.

Board Discussion and Action

Ms. Lehmann moved and Ms. Wustenberg seconded the motion to approve the staff recommendations as submitted. The following voted in favor: Directors Aschkenasy, Hempel, Koch, Lehmann, Lussier, Richmond, VanLuvanee, Williams, Willis, Wustenberg, and Imeson. Those voting no: none.

OTHER COMMITTEE REPORTS

Economic Development Joint Boards Working Group

President Imeson, who served as co-chair of the Working Group, reported that its last meeting was held on June 12, where final recommendations were reviewed prior to submission to the Governor. He noted that several pieces of legislation will be proposed on behalf of the Working Group, aimed at eliminating some of the barriers campuses face when transferring technology and holding stock in companies that commercialize campus technology. One additional recommendation is to create an Oregon Council for Knowledge and Economic Development, which will include one or two members from the Board of Higher Education.

Chancellor Cox commended President Risser for chairing a group that reviewed some campus concerns relating to some of the Working Group's recommendations, ultimately bringing resolution to those issues.

PUBLIC INPUT SESSION

No one signed up to speak during the public input session.

ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS

Mr. Hempel extended his good wishes to Mr. Koch. Mr. Lussier, along with several other Board members, echoed the remark, hoping that Mr. Koch's transition to a new career and new lifestyle will bring him the best of luck.

Mr. Lussier reported on a conversation he had at a conference he recently attended, where a representative from Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., (ESI) announced that a new plant would be built in Klamath Falls. He said that one of the primary reasons for the decision to build there was the company's relationship with OIT, and particularly the leadership of President Dow. Mr. VanLuvanee, president of ESI, confirmed the information, indicating that the company had looked at more than 30 potential sites around the world before deciding on Klamath Falls.

Chancellor Cox, while noting he was not a Board member, wished to congratulate Dr. Clark and her staff on the Central Oregon proposal. "It's one of the finest pieces of analysis that I've seen in 30 years in this business," he observed.

Mr. Wustenberg thanked Dr. Hallick and Dr. Kohler for their hospitality during the Board's visit on campus.

Mr. Williams asked if there might be further discussion on the grievance process. Chancellor Cox responded that he had already directed Mr. Rawlins and Ms. Wendy Robinson, from the Department of Justice Education Section, to review the administrative rule, and develop a set of options for Board review.

Continuing, Mr. Williams asked to discuss the merits of forming a compensation committee to review compensation target comparables and the full effects of compensation. He felt that the hidden cost of low compensation, generally exhibited in relatively high turnover, low morale, problems with recruiting, and a negative effect on the quality of education deserved greater scrutiny. President Imeson suggested that the topic be placed on a future strategic planning session agenda.

Mr. Koch expressed his appreciation to all Board members for their friendship. As a final remark, he asked that the Board be mindful of the students when considering the final biennial budget proposal in July, and the implications of potential tuition increases if full funding is not secured by the legislature.

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD'S EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Board Secretary Vines read the statement pertaining to delegation of authority to the Board's Executive Committee:

"Pursuant to Article II, Section 5 of the Bylaws of the Board of Higher Education, the Board delegates to the Executive Committee authority to take final action as here designated or deemed by the Committee to be necessary, subsequent to the adjournment of this meeting and prior to the Board's next meeting, which is scheduled for July 20, 2000. The Executive Committee shall act for the Board in minor matters, and any matter where a timely response is required prior to the next Board meeting."

Although no specific items were brought forth, Board members agreed to the delegation of authority as stated.

Note: The Board meeting was rescheduled for July 21, 2000.

ADJOURNMENT

The Board meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.


Diane Vines
Secretary of the Board

Tom Imeson
President of the Board