Meeting Minutes - April 1999

Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
Held At Savannah State University, Savannah, Georgia
April 20 and 21, 1999

CALL TO ORDER

The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia met on Tuesday, April 20 and Wednesday, April 21, 1999 in the Student Center Ballroom on the campus of Savannah State University. The Chair of the Board, Regent Edgar L. Jenkins, called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 20. Present on Tuesday, in addition to Chair Jenkins, were Vice Chair Kenneth W. Cannestra and Regents Thomas F. Allgood, Sr., David H. (Hal) Averitt, Juanita P. Baranco, S. William Clark, Jr., J. Tom Coleman, Jr., Hilton H. Howell, Jr., Warren Y. Jobe, Charles H. Jones, Donald M. Leebern, Jr., Elridge W. McMillan, Edgar L. Rhodes, and Glenn S. White.

ATTENDANCE REPORT

The attendance report was read on Tuesday, April 20, 1999 by Secretary Gail S. Weber, who announced that Regent George M. D. (John) Hunt III had asked for and been given permission to be absent on that day.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion properly made and duly seconded, the minutes of the Board of Regents meeting held on March 9 and 10, 1999 were unanimously approved as distributed.

return to top

SPECIAL PRESENTATION

Next, Chair Jenkins called on President Carlton E. Brown of Savannah State University ("SSU") to make a presentation to the Board, which was as follows:

Chairman Jenkins, members of the Board of Regents, Chancellor Portch, Board of Regents staff: the faculty, staff, students, alumni of Savannah State University, and I are deeply honored by your presence on our campus. And, on behalf of the campus community, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to address you and to share with you some of our recent events and accomplishments. We have planned for you what we hope will be a very enjoyable stay. If there is anything that we can do to make your visit more enjoyable or efficient, you have only to ask.

Let me begin with reference to the charge that you and the Chancellor provided to me as I assumed the presidency of this historic institution. In 1997, you asked me to come to Savannah to stabilize this institution's leadership, to improve its outcomes, repair its reputation, create greater efficiencies, and to bring it in line with University System of Georgia ("USG") policies and priorities. You also asked that I seek to restore internal and external confidence in the institution and seek to resolve the internecine conflicts that appeared perpetually to plague Savannah State.

When my partner, Dr. Joseph Silver, and I arrived at Savannah State University on July 1, 1997, we found an institution that had experienced four years of enrollment decline, an institution not on track with the implementation of several System priorities and initiatives. We also found students longing for leadership and eager to cover new ground and be challenged. We found many very strong and dedicated members of the faculty who sought support for effective teaching and quality service and scholarship and staff members with good skills prepared to work above and beyond the call of duty to improve the institution. We also found a very strong and dedicated corps of alumni prepared to be of assistance and a city waiting to support good efforts.

We planned change around a set of themes to integrate our actions and develop a unified address to change. one theme was that of an open, caring, and involving administration that addressed the needs of the institution and its students through focused, open communication and honest dialogue and responsiveness. A second theme was to connect wherever possible the growth and development of the institution to the economic and social development of Savannah, Chatham County, and all of Southeast Georgia. The final, and really overarching theme, was one of rapid, systematic change in a spirit of rebirth. The time had long passed for Savannah State to experience a renaissance.

It is our belief that we have accomplished much of what we set out to do. However, the inspiration that we have received from this institution, its alumni, its students, and the spirit of its history has caused us to set our sights much further than even the very ambitious goals we set prior to our beginning. So, while we have accomplished much, the greater distance is yet before us.

We have brought the institution up to date on several USG initiatives. With the support and hard work of many members of our staff and with very strong support from several key operations of the USG, we are pleased to announce that as of a few weeks ago, we had not only completed the work that had not been done but are on par with the rest of the University System at BANNER 3.1. In January of this year, I proudly proclaimed the completion of the best registration cycle ever at Savannah State University. While many were involved in this accomplishment and we established a team approach to our work, one person who was already heavily tasked in their regular work invested even more deeply to achieve this task. This person is our very hard working Director of Financial Services, Mrs. Janice Allen, who served as our BANNER Team Leader. To complete our movement to improved more efficient services, we created the position of Dean of Enrollment Management to provide oversight for much of this work.

We have advanced our interests and System initiatives in international education. Several critical contacts with African governments and institutions of higher education have yielded study abroad opportunities for faculty. An additional study tour, led by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, will take place this summer in Ghana. This opportunity also includes student participants. We have also established new initiatives in China and other parts of the Pacific Rim and have formed new student recruitment relationships in the Caribbean.

Technology at Savannah State University has been greatly enhanced through System special initiatives. Two new servers have been brought to campus to serve administrative and academic computing. Through careful planning, up-to-date equipment has been placed on each faculty member's desk along with networking capacity. Several new student access laboratories have also been established with specialized and general functions. Key laboratories have also been made accessible to students during evening and other nontraditional hours. In fact, with some creative reorganization and the willing involvement of staff, we have extended the available hours of all services for students at no increase in costs.

The Savannah State University community is deeply appreciative of the emergency allocations made in 1996 for residence hall renovations. The effective use of those funds has enabled us to survive while we prepared for long-term solutions to our student housing needs. Your further response to act outside of the box and place a residence hall payback project on the capital projects list served as a significant ray of hope for this community. on behalf of our students, I want to thank you for this beginning. The planning and design funds appropriated by the legislature this year to begin the development of the payback project for the construction of residence halls are a critical element in our long-range address to this issue. It is our intention to plan and design this facility very rapidly, and we hope to complete this process and begin construction on that project in the year 2000. Your strong support has also been invaluable in our pursuit of additional housing solutions. Your permission to pursue the development of a facility through a public-private partnership will enable us to build our first new residence hall over the next year. These efforts are a boon to the growth potential of Savannah State University. Housing has become the only major concern that parents of prospective students have about enrollment here. They are highly complimentary of our academic programs, the quality and concern of the faculty, the caring spirit of staff, and the exceptional character of our students.

Last fall, we achieved a substantive change in our accreditation with the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools for approval to continue to offer advanced degrees. We received approval without recommendations, which is a substantial accomplishment. We are now moving at all due speed in pursuit of professional accreditations for our graduate programs in public administration and in social work. Both programs are very much in line for the achievement of a speedy review and approval. The faculty and leadership of those programs have been critical to our progress thus far. We have reinvented a graduate program infrastructure through the establishment of the Office of Graduate Programs and Research headed by Dr. George Williams. We are also in hot pursuit of professional accreditation for our College of Business with the hiring and efforts of a new dean.

The campus community is grateful for your approval last year of the first bachelor's degree program in African and African-American studies. Implementing this program has greatly strengthened our capacity to become a major force in the preservation, interpretation, and furtherance of culture here in the rich historical and cultural milieu of Southeast Georgia. Of course, you know we have a new graduate degree program awaiting your review and approval during this meeting. This program is a key aspect of our constellation of graduate programs and even aids to strengthen both the M.P.A. and the M.S.W.

Let me share with you now a short videotape that gives you my picture of Savannah State University. (Videotape was shown.)

When we arrived, we discovered that the institution did not have adequate promotional or recruitment materials. We changed the position of public relations to communications and community relations. We hired the best candidate for this position we could find, who happened to be an alumna of the program in mass communications. I asked her to develop an institutional video over the next two years and to seek to find new ways to tell the Savannah State story. Within months, the video was produced. You have all seen the first ever issue of the Savannah State University Magazine and you are all aware of the enormous amount of very strong positive press that we have received. In all cases the person responsible is Ms. Loretta Heyward.

It has always been my view that high-quality academic programs, particularly professionally oriented programs, must not only place intense intellectual and knowledge development demands on students. They must also provide curriculum connected learning experiences in realistic practical settings in which students learn to apply knowledge and skill. Additionally, and in consort with Board of Regents' initiatives to be of service to the economic and social development of the community, the institution ought to seek to make a measurable difference to the community in its development and use of practical settings. I shared these ideas with faculty and staff from the start, and the first fruits of this approach came in what has come to be known as the Midtown Center Project. You saw some short excerpts in the tape from the early days of that effort.

The young professor who engaged with his students and the midtown community to make this project possible is Dr. Scott Sells. With him are Ms. Keisha Carter, a former Midtown resident and project director, and one of the wonderful social work students with whom the project was initiated, Ms. Brenda Spencer.

We intend to play a larger and more comprehensive role in social and economic development in our region. We soon expect to help create new small minority businesses through a business development center and small business incubator. Stay tuned for future announcements. We have spent a good deal of our time over the past one and a half years positioning the institution to better impact economic development in Savannah, Chatham County, and Southeast Georgia. We have partnered with several of the larger local businesses on mutually beneficial ventures. The most recent of these is our partnership with St. Joseph Chandler's Hospital on a workshop on the Y2K problem as a small business management issue. We have systematically developed relationships between the new dean of the College of Business and key figures in the local business community. I have been elected to the board of directors of the Chamber of Commerce and to the board of directors of the Savannah Economic Development Authority. Members of these boards will be with us this evening.

The future of Savannah State University and much of the future of Georgia depends on the effectiveness of our educational institutions. Thus, we are not only now more aggressive participants in the regional P-16 Council but have established our own sub-council for focusing our efforts directly on our own agendas. We continue to be a major and active supporter for PREP (Post-secondary Readiness Enrichment Program), while we continue to strengthen our several programs for preparing young people for college: Talent Search, Upward Bound, National Youth Sports Program, and others. The outcomes from these programs are second to none. I have met many of the graduates of years past. They are prime-time news anchors on major networks, physicians, chiropractors, teachers, and business people.

Additionally, each college has begun the development of specific curricular and programmatic relationships with schools. The most recent of these is our partnership with Savannah High School in a Business Development Academy.

With the exception of Fort Valley as a land grant institution, Savannah State University has annually secured a larger share of federal and private research dollars than any other institution of its approximate size and classification. With the establishment of greater support strength for grantsmanship, we expect these trends to strengthen.

Under the very able leadership of Dr. Silver, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Savannah State University reinstituted the Regents' Distinguished Professor position in the 1997-1998 academic year. The faculty member chosen brought great benefit to faculty and students through their provision of lectures, seminars, and a real focus on the teaching learning process. We also sought to gain approval for the appointment of a Calloway Professorship. Again, Dr. Silver's dogged leadership won the day. You have already met our 1997-1998 Regents' Distinguished Professor, Dr. Charles Elmore. This year's Regents' Distinguished Professor is Dr. Sajwan who continues to impact faculty and students through his learning leadership. We recently received approval for the appointment of our Calloway Professor, Dr. Jerome Wright. Both individuals are noted for the very high quality of their teaching at all levels, as attested by peers and students. They also are among our very best and most productive scholars, researchers, and grantsmen. They are present and supportive of students in many endeavors. In short, they exemplify the entire faculty role at its finest. Dr. Silver likes to refer to them as our "faculty bookends."

Students have been the greatest joy of my two years here. Savannah State University is blessed with very serious, dedicated students of unusually strong character. While a number of our students must work and attend school full-time, they continue to be deeply interested in service to the community. Without making it a requirement, nearly all groups, clubs, organizations, and teams maintain some variety of service commitments. In fact, last year, we formed the Student Athletic Advisory Committee to address issues of the welfare of student athletes. The very first item on their agenda was the need for athletes to engage in community service. We have students of very high character and social consciousness.

It has always been my view that external support for college and university needs is stronger when it follows strong internal support. Under Dr. Brock's leadership, we began the Tiger Program, a program of faculty and staff scholarship support for our students. This was a first ever program which raised over $45,000 in its first year and currently supports 14 high-achieving students. We hold an annual on-campus parade to celebrate the prior year's accomplishment and to launch the next year of the program. This year, one of our strongest and most positive students was inspired enough by faculty and staff giving to this fund that she immediately caucused with her sorority members and returned to announce their contribution to the Tiger Program. In fact, this young lady has very boldly been a voice of positive support and urging strong involvement of students in the uplift of the university. She is a senior this year, holds office in several curricular and co-curricular organizations, serves as a peer counselor, and is a mass communications major with expectations of completing a Ph.D. in psychology. She writes poetry, organizes poetry reading cabarets, and so much more, and I want you to meet her -- Ms. Melissa Teemer.

Eric Hanor is another senior of note. He has pursued a major in engineering technology and holds currently a 3.59 GPA. He is also a strong athlete, playing as a member of our basketball team for four years. Upon graduation, Mr. Hanor will be employed by Lockheed Martin as a software engineer.

Ms. Lynette Goodman is a junior Naval ROTC student. This year, she is the NROTC Commander. She carries a GPA of 3.04 and this year alone received a number of awards, including the Gold Medal of the Military Order of World Wars, the National Sojourners Award for Americanism, the National Naval Officers Association Award, the Captain Donnie Cochran Leadership Excellence Award, and in her required summer cruise was ranked number one among midshipmen on the U.S.S. Tarawa and the United States Naval Institute Award. As if these awards are not enough, she is also a member of the Savannah State University Track Team, holds the university record in the triple jump, and is a two-year qualifier and attendee at the NCAA Division II National Meet. Our historic strength in sciences and in naval leadership as delineated in the videotape continues unabated.

And finally, our top scholar. This young lady is scheduled to graduate this spring and will pursue graduate school and a medical degree. Ms. Crystal Bright will graduate with a 3.998 GPA and is our House of Representatives Scholar. I have been asking her all year who gave her the B. She finally told me and described what to her was the most important course experience in her development. This professor challenged her, pushed her beyond her own expectation, worked with her, and supported her. That professor was last year's Regents' Distinguished Professor, Dr. Charles Elmore.

The alumni have not sat idly by while these efforts were underway. Regular contributions from the alumni increased fivefold during our first year. We also received during that first year the single largest gift ever from an alumnus, $100,000 in General Electric stock from Mr. Henry Nash. The alumni also completed a fund drive that purchased new uniforms for the SSU Marching Tiger Band. They have launched the Committee of 1000 for the millennium. This is an attempt to solicit $1000 from 1000 alumni for the first million dollar endowed scholarship fund for Savannah State University students.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Savannah State University is a great community with wonderful students. They have supported, advised, and been involved in our work since we arrived. Together, we have engineered the first enrollment upturn since 1994. And, if recruitment activity is any predictor, a recent recruitment event on campus, which normally draws 250 to 300 students, attracted a much larger attendance. We stopped counting after 800.

By 2005, SSU will only operate academic programs classifiable as very good or excellent by national standards and measures. We intend to reach and exceed all enrollment targets by 2001. By 2005, SSU will triple the number of graduates pursuing advanced graduate and professional degrees. By 2005, SSU will have fully professionally accredited programs in business, public administration, and social work. By 2005, SSU will boast a graduate student enrollment of over 500. By 2005, SSU will increase its endowed funds sixfold. By 2005, SSU will offer degree programs off-site in at least three locations alone or in collaboration with other institutions. By 2005, SSU will be recognized for its measurable impact on economic and community development interests in all segments of the local economy.

We are very pleased that you chose to meet on our campus in this last year of the century. For us, this event represents a symbolic turning point for our institution. We hope that you can see that we are in the early stages of a very significant renaissance. This renaissance will finally move us past the issues of the past several decades and enable us to find our niche among the great institutions of this System.

We are confident in asserting that Savannah State University has had a long and glorious past. We are equally confident in asserting that her very best years lie ahead.

After President Brown's presentation to the Board, Regent Baranco acknowledged the improvements on the campus of SSU in a relatively short period of time. She noted that when President Brown was being installed as the president, the campus was in a serious and vulnerable situation. She commended President Brown for his leadership in the "magnificent" improvements to the physical plant as well as the faculty and staff. She thanked President Brown and Vice President Silver as well as the faculty, staff, and students for the remarkable change at SSU.

Chair Jenkins added that on behalf of the Board, he wanted to express his appreciation to President Brown for his fine work at SSU and pledge the Board's cooperation and assistance in the future.

Regent Coleman echoed Regent Baranco's commendations. He said that it was nice to be a local resident and to have people compliment him on the selection of President Brown and the progress at SSU. He added that SSU had recently won its fifth baseball championship.

President Brown added that the basketball team had to come back from behind to win the tournament. He also added that the tennis and track teams were excelling in their sports.

Chair Jenkins again thanked President Brown.

return to top

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS, "COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE"

Chair Jenkins next convened the meeting of the Committee on Finance and Business Operations as a Committee of the Whole and turned the chairmanship of the meeting over to Regent White.

Chair White thanked Chair Jenkins and noted that this was the first meeting of the Board of Regents since the legislature ended its session. He remarked that the System had an outstanding outcome from the legislators. For example, the general fund for fiscal year 2000 is $1.63 million, an increase of 5% over the fiscal year 1999 budget. Chair White thanked the Regents and the Central Office budget staff for their hard work during the legislative session. He explained that the Board was at the point where it would determine how to distribute the budget across the System. There were four action items that the Board would address as a Committee of the Whole: fiscal year 2000 budget allocations (Item 1, p. 23), fiscal year 2000 tuition and non-resident fees (Item 2, p. 23), fiscal year 2000 mandatory student fees (Item 3, p. 24), and the fiscal year 2000 salary administration policy (Item 4, p. 25). He noted that the budget presentation would begin with a general discussion of the budget by Chancellor Portch. Then, Senior Vice Chancellor for Capital Resources Lindsay Desrochers, Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs James L. Muyskens, and Associate Vice Chancellor for Fiscal Affairs William R. Bowes would speak to the Board. Chair White then turned the floor over to the Chancellor.

Chancellor Portch thanked Chair White and Chair Jenkins for their availability as the staff created the budget allocations. He noted that the budget process is a continual process which would begin anew immediately following the Board meeting at the presidents' meeting on April 22, 1999, when the presidents would begin designing their strategy for the next fiscal year's budget. However, the budget process accelerates mightily in the last few days, he said. Eleven working days after the legislative session concluded, the Central Office staff had to have the budget materials and allocations to the printer to have them mailed to the Regents. The Chancellor thanked the staff for working overtime to get this done. At this meeting, the Chancellor would give the Regents an overview of what happened in the legislative session. Dr. Desrochers would discuss the budget allocation process and the salary administration policy. Dr. Muyskens would discuss a few of the special funding initiatives to illustrate how they evolve from Board ideas to funding at the campuses. Mr. Bowes would discuss tuition and fees. Finally, the Chancellor would come back and summarize the four action items.

The fiscal year 2000 University System budget results from many partnerships, stated Chancellor Portch. He expressed that the staff felt very good about their working relationship with the new Governor and the legislature. The Chancellor remarked that it was a good session both in outcome and in spirit. While the System will never get everything it wants and its operating funds remain particularly tight, this Governor and legislature have continued the momentum that the System had, which was the goal that the Board set out to accomplish this session. The overall budget increase is 5%, an increase of over $83 million. Chancellor Portch noted that $39 million of this increase is attributed to the 4% merit-based salary increases, which is 1% over other State employees, recognizing the System's competition in the national marketplace. In addition, the formula funding, about $28 million, is essentially fully funded. So, the salary and the formula budgets comprise a great deal of the increase, and they were both fully funded, recognition of the Board's comprehensive enrollment plan. Included as part of the formula funding is the continuing increase in major renovation and rehabilitation ("MRR") funding. The System is now at 1% of building replacement value. Five years ago, when the Board made this a high priority, the System was at .75%. He stressed that while the System cannot stop at 1%, it has come a long way in five years because the Board made MRR a high priority. In addition to doing well in its major areas, the budget continued to be successful in its special funding initiatives. The System now has over $46 million in the special funding initiatives, such as electronic registration and the job bank, the Post-secondary Readiness Enrichment Program ("PREP"), the Intellectual Capital Partnership Program ("ICAPP"), and the P-16 initiative. The Chancellor was very pleased with this continued success. He reminded the Board of its new special funding initiatives, teacher preparation and the regional engineering program. He noted at the March 1999 meeting that the teacher preparation initiative budget was in jeopardy, and he thanked the Board for its help in securing that funding ($3 million). The $2 million for the regional engineering program, which will initially benefit the Southeast region in particular, was fully funded, and an additional $1.5 million was added in the amended budget. He remarked that this is on track to be launched this fall and will have an enormous impact throughout the State. The statewide desktop learning initiative was allotted $1.5 million in the budget, as was the $2.5 million matching funds for the eminent scholars program. The Chancellor remarked that the System has gained tremendous momentum with many institutions now leveraging private match dollars for the State resources and that he was very pleased with the expansion of this program beyond the research universities. The Yamacraw Mission was allotted approximately $9 million in the budget, and it will increase the production of high-tech graduates in the State. These were the highlights of the legislative session, and the Chancellor noted that while the Board did not get everything at the level it had requested, overall there was great support for the University System. He remarked that the legislators were impressed by the depth of the Regents' knowledge about the special initiatives, particularly teacher preparation.

The Chancellor next addressed the fiscal year 1999 amended budget. The total amended capital budget for fiscal year 1999 was $166 million. This budget was the vehicle for the Governor's capital outlay agenda this year, and the System had a very good year in this most important area of growth and renewal. Chancellor Portch reminded the Board that in June, it goes back to the capital projects process. There were a number of items in the amended budget. The nuclear reactor decommissioning at the Georgia Institute of Technology ("GIT") was fully funded at $7 million. The start-up funds for the regional engineering program and Yamacraw Project were provided ($1.5 million and $3.9 million, respectively). A request for $500,000 for hazardous waste remediation at the University of Georgia ("UGA") was approved, as was the funding to finish the master planning process of all institutions ($450,000). Finally, although it is not in the University System's budget, the research institutions will benefit from the highest funding ever awarded to the Georgia Research Alliance for targeted research opportunities ($32.1 million). The Chancellor reminded the Board that the capital outlay award of $166 million was one of the highest this decade. Six of the major capital outlay projects were funded for construction, totaling $133.5 million. The projects funded were the architecture building at Southern Polytechnic State University, the instructional complex at Gordon College ("Gordon"), the environmental sciences and technology facility at GIT, the health and natural sciences facility at North Georgia College & State University, the student learning center at UGA, and the Gwinnett Center (Georgia Perimeter College ["GPC"] and UGA). In addition, planning and design are already well underway for the university learning center at Clayton College & State University ("CCSU") and the technology and commerce center at Columbus State University. The Chancellor noted that every indication in the session was that these projects will be first up for funding next year. There was also additional funding for planning and design of the sciences and nursing facility at Georgia Southern University ("GSOU"), the Camden Center (Coastal Georgia Community College), and the Russell Library and Information Technology Center at Georgia College & State University ("GCSU"). So, essentially, the System is down 11 items on its major capital outlay projects list.

on the payback projects list, planning and design funds were provided for the SSU housing residence hall and a parking deck at Kennesaw State University ("KSU"). Chancellor Portch remarked that he was particularly pleased about the SSU housing project, which is the second housing project in planning at SSU. He also asserted that at the next legislative session, the Board needs to have another conversation about having its own bonding authority for revenue and payback projects. He felt that long-term this would be good for the State and the System. In the minors projects area, the System was awarded planning and design funds in the amount of $979,000 for eight projects at the following institutions: GCSU, GPC, GSOU, KSU, UGA, Darton College, Floyd College ("Floyd"), and Gainesville College. Five other projects were awarded planning, design, and construction funds totaling $18.3 million, as follows: Valdosta State University's university center renovation, East Georgia College's classroom addition and activity center, GSOU's Coastal Georgia Center expansion, State University of West Georgia's Adamson Hall renovation, and UGA's Fanning Center. The Chancellor stated that overall, the amended budget combined with the fiscal year 2000 budget puts the System in really good shape. A total of 33 projects was approved, and an additional $21 million was approved for the year 2000 computer problem remediation. Chancellor Portch recognized that the Board's personal interest in this issue was helpful in gaining this funding, and he also recognized the hard work of Dr. Desrochers and Associate Vice Chancellor for Information Technology Randall A. Thursby on this issue. He asserted that $21 million will have many long-term benefits on the System's technology capability.

In concluding his presentation, the Chancellor stated that he was pleased with the direction and the momentum of the budget resources provided by the legislature this year. He noted that the staff will do its best to spend these resources well and be accountable for them. Before he turned the floor over, however, he wanted to say a word on tuition and fees, which Mr. Bowes would discuss in greater detail. He explained that tuition essentially is a 75%-25% split between the State allocation and student tuition. He remarked that this is a good continuing commitment by the State to its students, since many states now have moved toward a 60%-40% split, putting more cost on the students. However, Chancellor Portch was particularly concerned with mandatory fees. The last two years, the Board has indicated that it wants to keep mandatory fees very low and it wants to demand good business plans before even contemplating increasing fees. So, the staff and institutions have taken this into consideration. In addition, the staff have been in conversation with the Office of Planning and Budget and the Governor's Office about the long-term future of mandatory fees in terms of their relationship to the HOPE Scholarship Program ("HOPE"), because mandatory fees are covered by HOPE. So, the staff wants to develop over the next year a long-term solution to the challenge of ensuring that mandatory fees never endanger HOPE. It is particularly important, for this reason, to keep the fees very low this year. The Chancellor remarked that no one will be entirely happy with either their allocations or their mandatory fees; however, it is best to keep things manageable as the staff develop their long-term strategy on mandatory fees.

Regent McMillan noted that the Regents' Scholarships were not in the budget, and he inquired about this.

The Chancellor responded that this was a redirection that the System lost in the legislative budget process. It followed an audit that questioned all scholarship programs in the State given HOPE. There was some question whether the State needed to support other scholarship programs. The staff made the case that it wanted to keep the Regents' Scholarships with redirections and enhancements, but in the final analysis, the program was lost.

Regent McMillan urged that the Board continue to support this program, because the Regents' Scholarships are need-based scholarships and the System is very low on this type of student financial aid.

Chancellor Portch agreed about the need-based nature of this program and said that the Governor has some ideas about the need-based side of student financial aid. If the Governor is able to bring his ideas to fruition, the Regents' Scholarship will not be the most significant way to provide this type of aid. The Chancellor projected that within a year, the Board will see something more significant replacing this on the needs-based level.

Dr. Desrochers next addressed the Board. She reminded the Regents that the Governor's budget for fiscal year 2000 was not yet signed, so the actions the Board would take at this meeting would be contingent on the Governor's signing the final budget. She then thanked Chair White and the Central Office budget staff, Mr. Bowes, Budget Director Shelley Nickel, and Assistant Budget Director Robert L. Whitaker. She remarked that they all worked very hard to develop the budget and the allocations. Dr. Desrochers stressed that the University System has limited resources and it is not possible to meet all the hopes and needs of the institutions. After the Governor and the General Assembly made their decisions, the staff had to make their own tough decisions in order to make recommendations to the Board. When the System starts the process each year, the presidents of the System institutions have had a full year to think about what they want and need on their campuses and they advocate their cases very effectively. Some institutions have stories of rapid enrollment growth, others of declining enrollment, many of space problems, and most of technological infrastructure issues. In order to make this a fair process, each year the Chancellor appoints a different group of presidents to be on the presidential budget advisory committee. They begin their work in the summer to review the budget agenda and what the Regents' strategic initiatives have been and to make recommendations to the Chancellor about what the staff should bring to the Board in the budget proposal in the fall. This year, the presidential budget advisory committee also considered what the allocation principles should be. After the University System's budget has been presented to the Governor and the legislature, during that period of January and February of each year, Dr. Desrochers, Dr. Muyskens, and the staff meet with the individual presidents and their respective executive teams. This year, they went to the presidents in each of the five regions of the State, instead of having the presidents come to them. In Savannah, for example, they met at Armstrong Atlantic State University ("AASU") with five or six different institutions. The requests that the institutions develop during the budget process are always way beyond the funds that will be available, regardless of what the Governor and legislature do. After the legislature takes its actions, the staff have to develop the recommended allocations. This year, there were 11 days for the staff to do this.

Dr. Desrochers stressed that the staff always keep in mind what the strategic initiatives of the Board have been in the past several years and where they appear to be going. Also, the Governor instructs the staff how it can construct a budget. This year, the Governor said to look at 5% redirection with a very strong message that an actual 1% to 2% reduction was likely. The Governor also instructed that a 4% enhancement was possible. This year, the presidents advisory committee looked closely at both the redirection strategy and the allocation principles. She stressed that the allocation principles were very important in putting together the budget that was now before the Board. The staff did not just look at what the formula funding generates in terms of dollars for each institution, because the State bases its funding on the enrollment credit hours. Additionally, the staff examined the reasonable range of expenditures per student by sector at the two- and four-year sectors. There are some very high and low institutions, but there has been progress in bringing the institutions within the same range. The strategic initiatives of the Board of Regents and the missions of the institutions also affect the staff's determination of how to allocate the resources, and the enhancement of programs' quality is also an allocation principle. These principles were agreed to by the presidents in the summer session as reasonable parameters to take into consideration in making the budget allocations.

Next, Dr. Desrochers discussed the allocations themselves. She said that Chancellor Portch had already covered most of this, so she would be brief. The adjusted budget base was approximately $1.3 billion. There is the salary increase, which is approximately $35.5 million, the additional square footage of $5.9 million, and $3.8 million in MRR funding. Dr. Desrochers focused on enrollment and strategic program enhancements ($21.8 million). She noted that this was the basic growth money coming through the funding formula to the University System and this was the money to which the staff applied the allocation principles. Approximately $17 million out of the $21.8 million is distributed to most institutions for enrollment needs. The remaining amount was focused on specific strategic initiative needs that the staff felt were individual needs at institutions or System needs overall. Some of the money will be used in the area of information technology to support important initiatives such as PeopleSoft and BANNER. Another piece of that money is for specific faculty needs at a few of the institutions. The Medical College of Georgia ("MCG"), for example, will need additional faculty positions, as was determined by the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendations and agreed to by the Regents. Additionally, Gordon, which is experiencing a very rapidly growing student body, has a great need for faculty to reduce class sizes. Also, there are several new programs that the Board approved for Dalton State College and Macon State College ("MSC"), and there are specific funds allocated in support of those programs. There is also a small amount of money dedicated to the start-up of the Gwinnett Center. She asked if any of the Regents had any questions about these funds.

Regent Jenkins asked whether there is a time frame for institutions to come within the specified ranges for expenditures per student that Dr. Desrochers had discussed.

Dr. Desrochers responded that while there is no time frame, the desired ranges have been determined and the staff would like to have all two- and four-year institutions within their appropriate ranges. At this time, there are only a few that are above or below the ranges. So, she felt that at this time, the System is in pretty good shape.

The Chancellor added that there is concern when there is a continuous pattern, but in most instances, there is not a pattern. He noted that even a slight change in enrollment in an institution with a small base budget could throw it out of range. However, if an institution over a five-year period was consistently over its range, then that would create concern. Sometimes, it can take a five-year period to implement enough reductions without hurting enrollment. The institutions who are above the range have a responsibility to bring their expenditures per student down. The Chancellor noted that KSU had very explosive growth and it took an approximate two-year period to bring the expenditures back into the appropriate range.

Regent Jenkins asked whether institutions are given a time frame and whether they are responding.

Chancellor Portch explained that institutions are responding and there is a phase-in over several years to bring them into range. The danger of doing it all at once is that they may cut the very source of their ability to increase enrollment and get themselves back in good shape.

Dr. Desrochers added that this is an issue that the staff bring to the attention of presidents during their budget discussions.

Regent Averitt said he would like to see the ranges.

Dr. Desrochers responded that she could provide those figures to him. Then, she introduced Dr. Muyskens to discuss certain special funding initiatives.

The Chancellor interjected that this is a very complex business with a lot of anomalies. He noted that the eminent scholar program at MSC had $1 million last year. That was in MSC's original base budget last year. The State allows MSC to direct State funds to the endowment. So, that comes out of this year's State money. Any institution that had an endowed chair last year will see an artificial change in the budget as a result, because this is not easy to reflect on a balance sheet.

Dr. Muyskens explained that he would be talking about two special funding initiatives in particular, teacher preparation and regional engineering, to demonstrate how the Board's work gets translated into allocations for institutions. He reminded the Regents that the teacher preparations principles it adopted last year stated that early childhood teachers must know how to teach reading and mathematics. After the principles were adopted and action items were developed, in anticipation of the funding that the System is now receiving, the staff presented the principles and action items to the System institutions that have teacher education programs. The institutions were then given the opportunity to request funding against the allocation they hoped to get for these purposes. In the case of teacher preparation, it meant adding faculty in conjunction with curricular innovations that would be required in order to meet the new demand the Board was putting on teacher education programs. When the staff went around the State to meet with the presidents about the budget, part of the presidents' presentations was to talk about how they would like to help to meet this new requirement. In addition to the budget hearings, the staff had additional opportunities to review these proposals in light of the implementation plan and the action items the Board adopted last year. Out of that, the staff assigned the funding for the special funding initiatives as follows: teacher preparation ($3 million), regional engineering ($2 million), statewide desktop learning initiative ($1.5 million), eminent scholars ($2.5 million), Yamacraw Mission ($9.1 million), and ICAPP ($4.1 million).

As an example of how the staff did this, Dr. Muyskens demonstrated how a piece of the Georgia State University ("GSU") budget allocation ($378,000) had to do with the teaching of mathematics. At GSU, the math faculty got together with the faculty in the College of Education to see how they could meet the challenge the Board put before them to ensure that early childhood teachers are well prepared to teach math. They started by examining what the students in schools are expected to know and be able to do. Then they looked at college courses and examined how they matched up. The answer was, of course, that there was not a very good match. While the standard college courses give future teachers mathematics skills, they do not necessarily give them what they need to understand math in a way that they can teach it effectively to those who know nothing yet about it. Then, the work began to develop a program and hire faculty to teach math in that new way. So, part of the process was for them to reengineer their college-level math course to meet the Board's teacher preparation objectives. Dr. Muyskens stated that he has been very excited about this because not only is this making it possible for institutions to prepare teachers to teach young children math and therefore meet the Board's teacher preparation guarantee, but this will give the System improved math instruction in general.

Another element of last year's teacher preparation initiative was creating partner schools to link schools and colleges in teacher preparation to ensure that the System is working more closely with the K-12 schools and to ensure that teacher candidates have hands-on classroom experience. Dr. Muyskens reminded the Board that many presenters to the Strategic Planning Committee last year stressed the importance of such partnering. The resulting teacher preparation principles stressed the need for these kinds of cooperative efforts. The budget reflects the effort to do just that. It requires having more master teachers at the schools and having partner school coordinators. In this initiative, the staff are trying to develop the link so there is a better experiential component in teacher education courses. For example, at AASU, the faculty decided to start the beginning teachers with hands-on teaching experience. Using distance education, the students at AASU can observe teachers in classrooms and start early to discuss in-class teaching methodology with faculty.

Dr. Muyskens reminded the Regents that the preparation of school leaders was also an element of the teacher preparation initiative. As a result of the Board's concern that principals know how to enable teachers to do their job, a network of innovative doctor of education ("Ed.D.") programs is being developed across the State using distance education. Dr. Muyskens will discuss this further in June. Next, Dr. Muyskens addressed the concern of the Regents' about bringing an end to out-of-field teaching, which he would also discuss in more detail in June. The Business-to-Teaching Program, modeled on the Troops-to-Teaching Program, will encourage mid-career adults to switch to teaching. Dr. Muyskens stated that there would soon be a request for proposals to address this issue. This was another example of translating the Board's teacher preparation principles into specifics on how institutions are changing their teacher education programs. Dr. Muyskens stressed that this does not mean just adding funds to add a professor; rather, this funding will start up the innovative curricular change the Regents urged the System to do in its initiative.

The second special initiative Dr. Muyskens discussed was regional engineering. He reminded the Board that the staff have been monitoring the need for engineering education for many years, and it is important also to increase the numbers of people in information technology. This initiative addresses these issues. In this initiative, there are two undergraduate programs, the bachelor of science in computer and software engineering and the bachelor of science in civil engineering programs. In addition, there are existing master's degree programs in electrical and environmental engineering at GIT that can be accessed through distance education. The funds allotted for this special initiative are for faculty, laboratory equipment, and renovation to start this project. In addition, there is also some funding for this initiative in the 1999 supplemental budget. GIT is well into the recruitment process for faculty. At this point, the System is well underway in this initiative. Dr. Muyskens then turned the floor back to Dr. Desrochers.

Dr. Desrochers stated that the bottom line is that there is $83.3 million in new funding, for a budget total of $1.4 billion. She stressed that this includes a 1% redirection reduction ($13 million), which is prorated by the size of the budget to the institutions to be taken in administrative and support services, not instruction. There are also additional funds that the System receives from the lottery in the amount of $25.9 million for the Equipment, Technology, and Construction Trust ("ETACT"), Georgia Library Learning online ("GALILEO"), the Connecting Teachers & Technology initiative, etc. Finally, Dr. Desrochers reminded the Regents that the B-units provide essential services to the State in cooperative extension, MCG's hospital and clinics, and a variety of other line items in the State budget. The total State "B" budget amounts to $200 million now, and the "B" units also saw a 1% reduction and a 4% salary increase.

The final item that Dr. Desrochers discussed was the salary increases, and she stated that the staff were very pleased and grateful for the 4% salary increase. She showed the Regents a bar chart depicting the distribution of salary increases in fiscal year 1999. She explained that the chart demonstrates that decisions are being made on an individual basis according to the merit of the individuals involved. She stressed that this is the continuing policy. Item 4 on the Committee's agenda is the same policy as last year except that it is at a 4% level rather than 6% level, effective July 1. Dr. Desrochers then turned the floor over to Mr. Bowes, who would discuss tuition and fees.

Mr. Bowes turned the Regents attention to Appendices II and III of their agenda materials. (These items are on file with the Office of Capital Resources.) The theme this year, he said, was to keep tuition and fees low. In terms of developing tuition recommendations, that is a relatively simple task. Under an agreement with the Governor and legislature, the University System is required to raise 25% of the total amount approved under the formula budget from tuition revenues. The other 75% represents State appropriations. Based on the formula amount that was approved for fiscal year 2000, the System will be required to raise a minimum of $497 million from tuition revenues to support institutional costs. Taking that number, the staff performed an analysis examining institutional projected enrollments and revenues. The analysis indicated that the System needs to raise tuition rates for undergraduate resident students an overall 4.5% so that, together with increases at the graduate, nonresident, and professional program levels, the System can meet the $497 million target. The resulting dollar increases per semester per student would be $27 at the two-year college level, $39 at the state universities, and $52 at the research universities. Mr. Bowes remarked that the impact on the student is very small. He then turned attention to other policy directives as they affect development of the tuition recommendations. The first of these was graduate tuition rates. For the last four years, the staff have been adjusting these rates by approximately 5% per year in addition to the base-level increases to achieve a point at which the graduate rates would be at a level 20% higher than the undergraduate rates. This year, the graduate rates will increase at approximately 3% to 4% above the overall 4.5% to achieve that objective. So, in fiscal year 2000, the System will have reached the policy objective that it started four years ago. Nonresident fees are set at three times the rate of in-state tuition. The phase-in for this policy objective, which was started a number of years ago, was completed last year. It means that non-Georgia students will pay four times the amount that Georgia students pay for their educational costs. It is known as the "full-cost policy." Finally, there are professional program differentials. Board policy allows institutions to seek approval from the Board of Regents to charge differential tuition for professional programs based on the academic marketplace and the tuitions charged by peer institutions with similar missions. The staff have recommended a number of such tuition increases from those institutions that requested adjustments this year.

Mr. Bowes next discussed mandatory fees. He explained that mandatory fees are fees paid by all students for services that are primarily self-supporting and funded through the auxiliary enterprise or student activity funds. They include fees for health services, athletic, student activities, transportation and parking, and technology. Following the Board's and the Chancellor's directives as well as the recommendations of the recent Coopers & Lybrand study, the staff instituted a new process that requires institutions to submit business plans to them with financial statements that fully support and justify any suggested fee increases. The process began last year, and the staff were very rigorous on the institutions. The increases last year were far lower than in prior years. This year, the staff followed an even more rigorous approach. The staff informed the institutions that they would keep the fee increases as low as possible while still properly funding programs. They also said that the institutions would have to justify those increases using very clear cost assumptions and enrollment projections. Finally, in a very few cases where it was warranted, the staff was recommending some fee increases to the Board. Mr. Bowes noted that while their were 68 fee proposals submitted, only 16 were being recommended for approval as requested, 8 were being recommended for approval at a reduced level, and 44 were not being recommended this year. only one new fee was being recommended for approval. This fee is to support the KSU parking deck payback project that was identified earlier in the budget presentation. With these recommendations, the overall average increase in fees is very small, only about 2% across the System. By sector, it breaks down to 1.2% for research universities, 2.8% for four-year colleges and state universities, and less than 1% for the two-year colleges. While the staff was much tougher this year, Mr. Bowes said that many of the requests were not without merit, though the staff did not think this was the year to go forward with them. Institutions tended to be conservative and to follow the staff's advice. Every year, the staff examines data from the Washington Coordinating Board Survey of tuition and fees to see how the System compares with the rest of the nation. From this information, it was concluded that Georgia remains lower than the national average with respect to tuition and mandatory fees. The comparisons rank Georgia in the middle to the lower half of the scale across the country. In closing, Mr. Bowes stated that the information technology program fee at CCSU is recommended for continuation. The external review report, which the staff would be sending to the Regents shortly, gives the staff a level of comfort with the program, both academically and financially, to support continuation of the fee at this time. However, there are issues regarding the Floyd information technology program that the staff will share with the Committee on Finance and Business Operations in May, and the staff were recommending that approval for continuation of the technology fee at Floyd be withheld until then. Mr. Bowes then stepped down.

Chair White asked whether the Regents had any questions.

Regent Allgood asked how the establishment of the Wellness Center will impact the mandatory fees at MCG.

Dr. Desrochers explained that the Wellness Center is being built by interest income, and there will be user fees, but those fees will not be part of the mandatory fees program.

Chancellor Portch responded that the fees discussed in this presentation were fees required of every student.

Regent Allgood requested more detailed information about the fees for the Wellness Center.

Regent Jones asked for clarification about the 75%-25% tuition split.

Chancellor Portch explained that tuition makes up the 25% of the overall budget that the State does not give the System.

Regent Jones asked for further clarification about out-of-state tuition.

Mr. Bowes explained that an out-of-state student pays the tuition that an in-state student pays, plus the nonresident fee, which is three times the amount of tuition. So, the out-of-state student is essentially paying four times the tuition of an in-state student.

Regent Jones asked whether any analysis had been done to determine whether this was still a "good deal" for out-of-state students.

The Chancellor pointed to the national comparisons by the Washington Coordinating Board Survey and noted that most states have a similar policy. Wisconsin, for example, charges out-of-state students 125%, whereas the University System of Georgia only charges 100%.

Mr. Bowes said that an out-of-state student at a research university will be paying approximately $4,800 a semester, or $9,600 a year, for tuition.

Chancellor Portch estimated that the national average would likely be closer to $12,000 and stated that this is still a good value for out-of-state students.

Regent Jones noted that private colleges and universities are more expensive. He stated that in Alabama several years ago, the legislature had to take a stand because too many students were coming into the state because tuition was so cheap.

The Chancellor said that in Georgia, the cost was only 75% to out-of-state students when he arrived here, and now it is 100%. He added that GIT in particular is a value compared to its peer institutions, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT") and Stanford University.

Regent Clark asked why out-of-state students were listed at MCG when there is a Board policy that the Medical School can only admit in-state students.

Mr. Bowes explained that there are undergraduate and graduate programs at MCG other than medical and dental programs.

Regent Clark remarked that the materials distributed indicated that the medical and dental programs cost $8,000 to out-of-state students, while Emory University costs approximately $20,000.

Regent Cannestra stated that it looked like the program costs were just multiplied by three.

Chancellor Portch reiterated that the nonresident fee is three times the tuition rate, and the fee is added to the tuition rate, resulting in a cost to out-of-state students of four times the tuition rate.

Regent Cannestra noted that different programs also have differing tuition rates.

There was some confusion about the structure of the nonresident tuition rates, so Mr. Bowes gave an example. He explained that the undergraduate nonresident full-time student would pay a $3,621 nonresident fee, plus $1,207 in tuition. (A resident student would pay only the $1,207 in tuition.)

Regent Cannestra asked why the tuition is listed that way.

Mr. Bowes explained all tuition policies currently are structured along these lines, such that the nonresident fee is set up separately from tuition. Part of that is because of the waiver policies the Board has in certain instances.

Regent Howell asked what the actual final cost of tuition to an in-state student at a research university would be. He asked whether the $1,207 in the budget materials was for 12 semester hours.

The Chancellor replied that it was.

Regent Howell asked how many hours were in a four-year degree and how much it would end up costing a student.

Mr. Bowes explained that a plateau is set at the rate for 12 credit hours per semester, but a student can take more credit hours without additional tuition costs.

Regent Howell estimated that, for an in-state student, tuition for a four-year degree at a University System research institution would be approximately $9,656.

Mr. Bowes concurred.

Regent Howell commented that this was "a remarkable bargain."

Chancellor Portch said the tuition plateau is standard in higher education. He reminded the Board that during the process of semester conversion, the System took the opportunity to limit the number of credit hours in programs to 120, making it possible again for students to complete their degrees in four years.

Regent Jobe stated that he would like to see a comparison of out-of-state tuition at System research universities compared to similar tuitions in neighboring systems. He then asked what accounted for the large differences in mandatory fees across the System at various institutions.

Mr. Bowes referred back to the Coopers & Lybrand study, which responded to this very issue. He stated that the fees are cost-based, and there are many factors that play into the differences among institutions, such as the nature of the program itself, whether there is a football program, the number of students paying the fee, etc.

Chancellor Portch noted that SSU has a football team, while AASU does not. This would have an impact on athletic fees, for instance.

Regent McMillan asked if having a foundation made a difference, and Mr. Bowes conceded that private fund raising can make a difference.

Regent McMillan asked how to discern in the "B" budget what funds go to Fort Valley State University ("FVSU") for its 1890 function (mandated by the federal government).

Dr. Desrochers explained that FVSU is operating under new federal rules for the "1890 institutions" (land-grant institutions and historically black institutions) that require certain State-matched funds. Some funds have already been allocated to the institution that would qualify as matched funds, including some special initiative funding.

The Chancellor added that this will probably be broken into a separate line item next year because of the federal requirement.

Regent Jones asked whether that was required because FVSU is a land-grant college.

Chancellor Portch responded that it was, and Regent Jones said that this was good.

Regent Baranco commented that she had heard that Mississippi is raising instructor salaries by 8%. She felt this was something the System should watch, particularly since it is a Southern state.

Chancellor Portch stated that Louisiana has been raising salaries considerably as well. The base salaries in these states have been so low, however, that they will need to do this a number of years to catch up with the national average. The national average salary increase is just above 3%, so the System's increase of 4% continues the momentum the Board wanted. The high-increase states tend to be those that are way below the national average.

In closing, the Chancellor explained again that the four actions up for approval at this time were the budget allocations, tuition and nonresident fees, mandatory student fees, and the salary and wage administration policy. He reiterated that any actions the Board would take would be contingent on the Governor's signing the final budget bill, which he would do shortly. Should there be any changes as a result of the Governor's final budget action, he requested the Board's authority in consultation with Chair Jenkins and Chair White to make any necessary adjustments. He anticipated that if there were any, they would be minor, but he did not want to be preemptive of the Governor, since he had not yet signed the budget. Chancellor Portch said that the staff would be happy to answer any further questions.

Regent Coleman made a motion to approve all of the items.

Regent Leebern seconded the motion.

Chair White called for a vote, and all of the Regents voted to approve the four items. In closing, he again thanked Dr. Desrochers and her staff for working hard on the allocation process in such a short period of time. He then asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting into its regular session. With motion properly made, variously seconded, and unanimously adopted, the Board was reconvened in its regular session.

There being no further business to come before the Board, Chair Jenkins adjourned the Board into its regular Committee meetings at approximately 2:55 p.m.

return to top

CALL TO ORDER

The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia met again on Wednesday, April 21, 1999 in the Student Center Ballroom on the campus of Savannah State University. The Chair of the Board, Regent Edgar L. Jenkins, called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Present on Wednesday, in addition to Chair Jenkins, were Vice Chair Kenneth W. Cannestra and Regents Thomas F. Allgood, Sr., David H. (Hal) Averitt, Juanita P. Baranco, S. William Clark, Jr., J. Tom Coleman, Jr., Hilton H. Howell, Jr., Warren Y. Jobe, Charles H. Jones, Donald M. Leebern, Jr., Elridge W. McMillan, Edgar L. Rhodes, and Glenn S. White.

INVOCATION

The invocation was given on Wednesday, April 21, 1999 by Ms. Valorie Williams, Chaplain of the Wesleyan Gospel Choir of Savannah State University.

ATTENDANCE REPORT

The attendance report was read on Wednesday, April 21, 1999 by Secretary Gail S. Weber, who announced that Regent George M. D. (John) Hunt III had asked for and been given permission to be absent on that day.

return to top

OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

The Oversight Committee met on Tuesday, April 20, 1999 at 10:30 a.m. in room 125, the Quiet Lounge, of the Student Center on the campus of Savannah State University. Committee members in attendance were Chair Charles H. Jones, Vice Chair Donald M. Leebern, Jr., Kenneth W. Cannestra, and Edgar L. Rhodes. Chair Jones reported to the full Board on Wednesday that the Committee had reviewed two items, neither of which required action. Those items were as follows:

Information Item: Southern Regional Education Board ("SREB") Contract

Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs James L. Muyskens provided to the Committee follow-up information on the overall SREB contract between Georgia and other states as well as private institutions, as was requested at the March 1999 Committee meeting.
Information Item: Master's of Business Administration Programs at the University of Georgia

President Michael F. Adams, Dean of the Terry College of Business P. George Benson, Director of Graduate Programs Kay L. Keck, and Associate Dean of Academic Programs Robert D. Gatewood attended the Committee meeting and presented information to the Committee on the master's of business administration programs at the University of Georgia, particularly with regard to in-state and out-of-state student enrollment in these programs. Also joining the discussion via teleconference was Associate Dean for Faculty and Research James S. Trieschmann.

return to top

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS

The Committee on Finance and Business Operations met on Tuesday, April 20, 1999 at approximately 3:00 p.m. in the Student Center Ballroom on the campus of Savannah State University. Committee members in attendance were Chair Glenn S. White, Vice Chair Hilton H. Howell, Jr., and Regents David H. (Hal) Averitt, Kenneth W. Cannestra, J. Tom Coleman, Jr., Warren Y. Jobe, Charles H. Jones, and Donald M. Leebern, Jr. Chair White reported to the Board on Wednesday that the Committee had reviewed five items, four of which were considered by the Committee of the Whole and all of which required action. With motion properly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the Board approved and authorized the following:

Approval of Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Allocations

Approved: The Board approved the allocation of State appropriations for fiscal year 2000 among the various institutions and operating units of the University System of Georgia.

This item was discussed in full by the Committee on Finance and Business Operations as a Committee of the Whole. (See pages 9 to 20.)
Approval of Fiscal Year 2000 Tuition and Non-Resident Fees

Approved: The Board approved the tuition rates for fiscal year 2000 as described in Appendix II to become effective in the fall semester 1999. The tuition rates for fiscal year 2000 are on file with the Office of Capital Resources.

This item was discussed in full by the Committee on Finance and Business Operations as a Committee of the Whole. (See pages 9 to 20.)

Background:

Undergraduate Resident Tuition: 4.5% Increase

Proposed undergraduate resident tuition rates are set at a rate 4.5% above current tuition rates. This is the minimum amount required to ensure that tuition revenues for the system as a whole comprise 25% of formula-generated funding based on institutional enrollment and tuition revenue projections. The 25% amount is the State requirement for State/student cost sharing. A portion of that increase (.6%) is directly related to the legislative action to split the Board's recommended $10 million for health reserves into the 75% State, 25% tuition model (i.e., $7.5 million state allocation, $2.5 million tuition).

Graduate Program Policy: Graduate Rates Increase at 5% Per Year

Proposed graduate tuition rates for fiscal year 2000 are set at a 20% base rate above undergraduate rates, as required by Board policy adopted February 1996. The policy requires that increases be phased in over four years at approximately 5% per year (in addition to rate increases at the undergraduate level) until the 20% level is achieved. This is the final year of implementation.

Non-Resident Full Cost Policy

Proposed non-resident tuition fees are set at three times the proposed resident tuition rates, as mandated by Board policy adopted April 1995.

Professional Program Policy

In accordance with Board policy, institutions are authorized to request separate tuition rate adjustments for select professional programs. The purpose is to provide additional funds for program improvement and to allow programs to remain competitive with peer programs in public colleges and universities in other states. Programs included in this category are the University of Georgia law, pharmacy, and veterinary medicine programs; master's of business administration and nursing programs at Georgia State University; and the master's in management program at the Georgia Institute for Technology. Recommendations for tuition rate changes in these and other programs appear in Appendix II.
Approval of Fiscal Year 2000 Mandatory Student Fees

Approved: The Board approved increases and/or adjustments in mandatory student fees for various institutions of the University System of Georgia. The recommendation is based on justified program increases including salary and operating expenses. Fiscal year 2000 mandatory student fees are on file with the Office of Capital Resources.

This item was discussed in full by the Committee on Finance and Business Operations as a Committee of the Whole. (See pages 9 to 20.)

Background: Last year, the Board of Regents' staff introduced a comprehensive review of fee requests, which requires institutions to establish business plans for their major auxiliary enterprises and to submit financial statements which fully support and defend any adjustment in fee rates. The fee review carefully considers only those requests that meet the minimum submission criteria, document fully all costs and revenues, and are consistent with business plan objectives. As a result, the mandatory fee recommendations presented in Appendix III reflect an overall average increase in fees across the University System of less than 2%. Of the 68 mandatory fee requests submitted for approval, only 24 were recommended for approval in whole or in part.
Approval of Fiscal Year 2000 Salary Administration Policy

Approved: The Board approved the statement of Salary and Wage Administration, which is as follows:

SALARY AND WAGE ADMINISTRATION POLICY
FISCAL YEAR 2000

The Board of Regents allocated to each institution funds equivalent to a four percent (4%) salary increase for all employees. These increases must be provided on the basis of merit. With these funds, the institutions may grant salary increases to individual employees. It is expected that individual merit salary increases will be reasonably distributed among employees in amounts ranging from zero (0%) to ten (10%) percent. Salary increases may exceed ten percent (10%) for employees exhibiting exceptionally meritorious performance. Salary increases that exceed ten percent must be justified individually in writing when the budget is submitted. (This requirement shall be waived for information technology employees covered by the policy approved by the Board in November 1998.) Salary increases for non-faculty employees and staff shall become effective July 1, 1999 and salary increases for faculty shall become effective on the contract start date, as required by action of the General Assembly.

This item was discussed in full by the Committee on Finance and Business Operations as a Committee of the Whole. (See pages 9 to 20.)

Acceptance of Gifts to the Georgia Institute of Technology

Approved: The Board accepted on behalf of the Georgia Institute of Technology ("GIT") gifts-in-kind from the following corporations:

Company	Value	Item	Department
Altera Corporation	$1,783,249	Computer equipment and maintenance	Electrical/Computer Engineering
AutoSimulations, Inc.	$1,320,000	100 Auto Mod/Auto Sched and support services	Industrial/Systems Engineering
Cabletron Systems	$ 103,935	Materials for the Sustainable Education Building	Civil & Environmental Engineering
Cadence Design	$4,581,930	Software license for a Complete set of Cadence Software products	Electrical and Computer Engineering
Hewlett-Packard Co.	$ 235,930	Devices and Connections to enable dial-up capabilities	Electrical and Computer Engineering
SCM Group	$1,136,517	Installation and maintenance related to equipment loan	Architecture Advanced Wood Products Lab
Microsoft Corp.	$ 491,939	Copies of Windows NT Workstation, Office, Visual Studio Enterprise,Text and documentation	College of Computing

Background: Board policy requires that any gift to a University System of Georgia institution with an initial value greater than $100,000 must be approved by the Board of Regents. GIT has advised that there are no obligatory costs to be incurred by the acceptance of these gifts. The only known costs associated with this action will be future maintenance and repair as required to properly maintain the items.

return to top

COMMITTEE ON REAL ESTATE AND FACILITIES

The Committee on Real Estate and Facilities met on Tuesday, April 20, 1999 at approximately 3:10 p.m. in the Student Center Ballroom on the campus of Savannah State University. Committee members in attendance were Chair J. Tom Coleman, Jr., Vice Chair David H. (Hal) Averitt, and Regents Kenneth W. Cannestra, Hilton H. Howell, Jr., Warren Y. Jobe, Charles H. Jones, Donald M. Leebern, Jr., and Glenn S. White. Chair Coleman reported to the Board on Wednesday that the Committee had reviewed seven items, six of which required action. With motion properly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the Board approved and authorized the following:

Demolition of Building 711, Georgia Institute of Technology

Approved: The Board declared Building 711 at the Georgia Institute of Technology ("GIT") to be no longer advantageously useful to GIT or other units of the University System of Georgia and authorized the demolition and removal of this building.

The Board requested that the Governor issue an Executive Order authorizing the disposal of this building from the campus of GIT.

Background: Building 711 located at 176 Fifth Street, Atlanta, Georgia, is a 2500-square-foot wood-frame residential structure built in 1925 and acquired in 1981. The house is not currently occupied because of its condition and would require $90,000 of repairs to render it habitable. The structure has no historical significance. There is no opposition to the demolition.

After demolition, a request to lease the land to a fraternity/sorority for construction of a house will be presented.

The cost of the demolition, including environmental remediation of lead paint and asbestos, is estimated at $13,000 and will be funded by general operating funds.
Demolition of Building 031A, Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College

Approved: The Board declared Building 031A at Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College ("ABAC") to be no longer advantageously useful to ABAC or other units of the University System of Georgia and authorized the demolition and removal of this building.

The Board requested that the Governor issue an Executive Order authorizing the disposal of this building from the campus of ABAC.

Background: Building 031A, also known as the Old Ag Engineering Technology (AET) Building, is a 13,589-gross-square-foot masonry structure built in 1954.

The cost of the demolition, including environmental remediation of lead paint and asbestos, is estimated at $100,000 and will be funded from the capital project budget.

Project No. I-24, "Renovation and Addition to Old AET Building," was authorized by the Board in September 1997. The legislature funded the project in the fiscal year 1999 budget. In the course of design, the Office of Facilities requested that the architect compare the costs of the renovation/addition project as originally conceived against the cost of total demolition and new construction. This comparison demonstrated that the two scenarios have an initial cost of approximately the same; however, the long-term operating costs for renovation are more expensive than for new construction, and the configuration of the existing building constrained the program requirements.
Rental Agreement, Armstrong Atlantic State University

Approved: The Board authorized the execution of an addendum to the rental agreement between Atlantic Investors, Ltd. - Series V, Landlord, and the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Tenant, covering 48 apartment-type residential units for the period from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000 at a monthly rental of $22,335.81 ($268,029.72 per year/$5,583.95 per unit per year) for the use of Armstrong Atlantic State University ("AASU").

The terms of this addendum to the rental agreement are subject to review and legal approval of the Office of the Attorney General.

Background: In March 1998, the Board approved the investigation and development of a concept to construct a student housing complex at AASU. AASU forwarded a draft proposal for a privately funded constructed and operated facility on campus to house targeted groups of students who comprise under 5% of its students; this draft proposal has been reviewed by the Office of the Attorney General and will be ready to send to developers in early May 1999. The earliest potential construction completion date would be August 2000. AASU therefore requested Board approval on the continued rental of 48-apartment type residential units for its use. The rental rate for the renewal period is a 5% increase over the current monthly rental.

The facilities house approximately 175 students (fall occupancy). These students are primarily intercollegiate athletic students, health science students, international students, and students in the 13-county service area who are not within commuting distance.
Rental Agreement, Office of Information and Instructional Technology Athens Space

Approved: The Board authorized the execution of a rental agreement between Ivey Realty Associates, Inc., Landlord, and the Board of Regents, Tenant, covering approximately 18,600 square feet of office space located at 1865-1867 W. Broad Street, Athens, Georgia for the period beginning July 1, 1999 and ending June 30, 2000 at a monthly rental of $22,475 ($269,700 per year/$14.50 per square foot per year) with option to renew for four consecutive one-year periods commencing July 1, 2000 at the same rental rate for the use of the Board of Regents' Office of Information and Instructional Technology ("OIIT").

The Board also authorized the execution of a rental agreement between Ivey Realty Associates, Inc., Landlord, and the Board of Regents, Tenant, covering approximately 11,520 square feet of office space located at 1150 Dearing Extension, Athens, Georgia for the period beginning September 1, 1999 and ending June 30, 2000 at a monthly rental of $13,920 ($167,040 per year/$14.50 per square foot per year) with option to renew for four consecutive one-year periods commencing July 1, 2000 at the same rental rate for the use of OIIT.

The terms of this rental agreement are subject to review and legal approval of the Office of the Attorney General.

The Board approved this rental agreement with the understanding that any future renewals would come back to the Board for approval and that the staff would develop an appropriate long-range plan for housing OIIT staff within the year.

Background: A part of OIIT has occupied this space at 1865-1867 W. Broad Street since July 1, 1994. The last option period under the rental agreement has been exercised and a renewal of the agreement was necessary. The current rent is $20,150 per month.

The facility at 1865-1867 W. Broad Street is used for office and classroom space for OIIT staff which support help desk, instructional technology endeavors, student information system, PeopleSoft project support, standard operating system, and local area network support ("LAN") for the non-research universities, and Regents Central Office Consolidated Reporting Systems. There is also an instructional classroom, which is used for faculty development and staff development activities.

The space at 1150 Dearing Extension is immediately adjacent to the space at 1865-1867 W. Broad Street. Current space is not sufficient for the current staff and function of the office. Since moving into the current space, the technology initiatives (Connecting Teachers & Technology, Connecting Students & Services, statewide desktop learning initiative, Georgia Library Learning online ("GALILEO") and GALILEO interconnected libraries) have been added, PeachNet has been extended and with it the need to expand the help desk services, and GALILEO now serves all segments of education in the State of Georgia. Areas currently expanding are: the customer service area, distance education and academic innovation division as a result of the Desktop Initiative, PeopleSoft project support personnel, support for the BANNER Student Information System and Regents' Consolidated Reporting Systems, the ongoing institutional operating system, and LAN support personnel. A facility that was acquired to accommodate 63 people maximum now accommodates over 90 with an anticipated increase of 10 to 15 people in the coming fiscal year. The cost of relocating to another facility would be high due to the necessary infrastructure requirements to support various technical equipment. OIIT has an opportunity to relieve the overcrowding by expanding into the adjacent building without having to divide location of staff and costs associated with putting high-speed communications in a building at another location.

Discussions about a long-range plan for housing the above functions are now underway. Impacting these discussions will be the technology initiative principles to be adopted by the Board as a result of its current strategic planning initiative; technology trends which now permit organizations to consider distributed geographic models as part of the solution for locating high-technology staff; the need to recognize environmental and quality of life issues inherent in locating staff centrally, especially within the Atlanta metropolitan area; and advantages inherent in creating space, staffing, and technology partnerships with one or more institutions within the University System. The long-term solution will be ready for initial presentation to the Board within six to nine months following adoption of the technology initiative principles.
Authorization of Project "Food Science Addition," University of Georgia

Approved: That the Board authorize Project "Food Science Addition," University of Georgia, with a total project budget of $4,387,000, using amended fiscal year 1999 appropriations designated for the traditional industries program.

The project, which is Phase II of III, will add approximately 18,285 gross square feet to the Food Science and Technology Building to provide space for outreach facilities and targeted research initiatives.

Background: This building houses the Food Science and Technology Department of the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. The goal of the three phases of planned renovation and addition is to provide modern facilities both new and renovated for teaching, research, development of new food processing methods, and outreach to consumers and businesses.

Phase I, authorized by the Board at its meeting held December 9 and 10, 1997, focused on a major renovation of the existing pilot plant and associated research laboratories on the first floor. Renovation of 17,241 gross square feet is currently under construction at a cost of $1,713,035 and is scheduled for completion in June 1999.

Phase III is projected to renovate approximately 28,700 gross square feet of existing teaching, research, and office areas into state-of-the-art facilities. The estimated construction cost is $4 million.

The construction cost of the addition is $3,375,000 ($184.57 per square foot). Funding for this project is $187,000 in planning funds appropriated by the legislature in the fiscal year 1999 budget and $4,200,000 appropriated in the fiscal year 1999 supplemental budget.

Since this project was approved, the staff in conjunction with the University of Georgia will proceed with the selection of an architectural firm.
Authorization of Project "Transgenic Poultry Facility," University of Georgia

Approved: The Board authorized Project "Transgenic Poultry Facility," University of Georgia, with a total project budget of $1,432,198, using $1,200,000 in fiscal year 1997 Georgia Research Alliance ("GRA") funds and $232,198 in amended fiscal year 1999 appropriations designated for GRA funds.

Background: The mission of the Transgenic Poultry Facility at the University of Georgia is to provide facilities for genetic research and the development of products derived from that research for the benefit and expansion of the Georgia economy.

The facility will be approximately 24,300 gross square feet, comprised of housing for roosters and hens, a brooder space, a battery room for newborn chicks, a hatchery, and staff personnel support spaces.

The construction cost of the facility is $1,182,198 ($48.65 per square foot), as bid on February 15, 1999. Funding for the project is $1,200,000 in fiscal year 1997 GRA funds and $232,198 in amended fiscal year 1999 appropriations designated for GRA funds.

The design of the project is complete. Since the project was approved, the staff in conjunction with the University of Georgia will proceed with the award of a construction contract.
Information Item: Housing Concept Proposal, North Georgia College & State University

In October 1997, the Board passed a new student housing policy that requires the preparation of a comprehensive plan for student housing together with a financial plan to support the housing program objectives. North Georgia College & State University ("NGCSU") has developed a comprehensive student housing plan that is consistent with the policy.

The NGCSU plan consists of constructing new on-campus privatized housing facilities, demolishing of one of the oldest existing housing facilities, and renovating the remaining four buildings. According to the plan, the net result will be 1370-bed capacity, which will be an increase of approximately 170 beds, or 14% over current capacity. Currently, the campus operates 1200 student housing beds with a 95% occupancy rate. Approximately 36% of the students are housed on campus. With the proposed housing plan, this percentage should not change significantly, as the campus is experiencing enrollment growth. It should also be noted that the enrollment assumptions in the housing plan are consistent with the Board-approved enrollment target of 20% growth by 2002.

Staff will work with the Office of the Attorney General to prepare a Request For Proposals ("RFP") for public/private housing at NGCSU modeled after Southern Polytechnic State University but modified to respond to specific campus needs. A summary of the RFP will be presented to Chair of the Committee on Real Estate and Facilities prior to advertisement based on the Board's support for this concept.

return to top

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, RESEARCH, AND EXTENSION

The Committee on Education, Research, and Extension met on Tuesday, April 20, 1999 at approximately 3:10 p.m. in room 125, the Quiet Lounge, of the Student Center on the campus of Savannah State University. Committee members in attendance were Chair Edgar L. Rhodes and Regents Thomas F. Allgood, Sr., S. William Clark, Jr., and Elridge W. McMillan. Chair Rhodes reported to the Board that the Committee had reviewed 12 items, 10 of which required action. Additionally, 124 regular faculty appointments were reviewed and recommended for approval as well as 350 faculty members recommended for tenure and 585 recommended for promotion. With motion properly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the Board approved and authorized the following:

University System of Georgia Reading Consortium

UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA READING CONSORTIUM

Center for the University System of Georgia Reading Consortium housed at Georgia State University

Background: In spring 1998, with the concurrence of the education deans from the University System, Dr. Jan Kettlewell, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, brought together faculty who were nominated by the institutions, classroom teachers, and representatives from the Department of Education ("DOE"), the Georgia Professional Standards Commission, and the Central Office to discuss ways to improve teachers' success in teaching children to read. The participants formed the University System of Georgia Reading Consortium (the "Consortium").

Ten University System institutions are members of the Consortium: Georgia State University ("GSU"), University of Georgia, Valdosta State University, Augusta State University, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Columbus State University, Georgia College & State University, Fort Valley State University, North Georgia College & State University, and the State University of West Georgia.

The goal of the Consortium is to better prepare teachers at all grade levels to effectively assess and instruct students to become competent and critical readers. The Consortium is an active response to the Board of Regents' "Principles for the Preparation of Educators for the Schools."

The Consortium created a proposal to the Georgia Professional Standards Commission for a "reading endorsement" for K-12 classroom teachers. The reading endorsement was officially adopted by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission in fall 1998. The endorsement consists of a three-course sequence for current classroom teachers in all subject fields and grade levels. The endorsement will be delivered by the participating institutions beginning summer 1999. Some institutions will offer the endorsement through a summer institute model. Others will offer it through distance technology for teachers who are not close to a university.

The participating universities wish to form a center, initially to be based at GSU, so they can continue to help one another with teacher development strategies for improving reading in Georgia's schools.

Goals and Objectives of Proposed Center: The goals and objectives of the center are as follows:
- Support member institutions' efforts to guarantee that teachers who receive this reading endorsement have demonstrated competency at assessing students' literacy needs and planning appropriate instruction
- Facilitate ongoing evaluation and improvement of the reading endorsement
- Monitor the effectiveness of the Consortium's efforts to improve literacy in the State of Georgia
- Provide a yearly forum to bring together Statewide participants in endorsement programs
- Increase public awareness and understanding of effective approaches that can improve the reading abilities of P-12 students of Georgia
- Conduct and disseminate research on the effective teaching of reading
- Promote dialogue and collaboration on the effective teaching of reading across Consortium members from the institutions, the Board of Regents, the Professional Standards Commission, and the DOE
Establishment of the Master of Science in Urban Studies, Savannah State University

Approved: The Board approved the request of President Carlton E. Brown of Savannah State University ("SSU") to establish the master of science in urban studies, effective April 21, 1999.

Abstract: The master of science in urban studies is one of three programs for which SSU was given planning authority by the Board of Regents as part of the Savannah Compact. Further, the proposed program is congruent with the mission of SSU and is part of the Savannah State University Strategic Plan.

The proposed collaborative graduate program is designed to prepare students for managerial and other professional positions in a variety of work settings in the public, nonprofit, and private sectors. Students must complete a set of core courses devoted to understanding and analyzing urban issues as well as ways of generating new knowledge about urban areas. In addition to the core and thesis, each student selects courses from one of the following concentrations: urban politics, urban and regional economic development, public management, or administration of justice.

Many career opportunities are available to graduates of the master of science program in urban studies. Graduates may work in such areas as urban planning, human resources management, transportation system management, nonprofit management, aviation, and many other areas. Positions currently held by program graduates from other institutions include: county zoning administrator, policy analyst, code enforcement officer, public relations specialist, court administration officer, federal assistance specialist, planners (law enforcement and environmental), and city manager.

Need: The discipline of urban studies is a broad, interdisciplinary field that encompasses many academic fields. Students trained in urban studies may find employment in many fields within the public and private sector. Georgia's 1998 Career Planner reports that between 1992 and 2005, general employment in three fields typically considered to be areas of employment for graduates with degrees in urban studies (e.g., community service, protective service, and transportation) will average between 3% and 5% of new job openings. Currently, only one State-supported institution in Georgia, Georgia State University, offers a masters degree in urban studies. The creation of the proposed degree program will provide an opportunity for residents of South and Coastal Georgia to obtain an advanced degree in urban studies without leaving South Georgia.

The master of science in urban studies proposal committee developed and administered a paper-based survey among 50 public and nonprofit sector agencies within the Savannah-Chatham area in 1995, 1997, and 1998. Some of the interviewees were also contacted by telephone. Thirty-three agencies (a response rate of 66%), representing 7,942 employees, returned the survey. Sixty-four agency directors were contacted in 1998. Thirty-eight of the respondents replied to the survey. In brief, almost two-thirds (63%) of the respondents from the 1995 survey agreed that prospective employees with a master of science in urban studies would be attractive candidates for employment. The agencies also reported that a total of 193 employees would be interested in pursuing this degree if approved. Twenty-five agencies, approximately three-fourths of the respondents, agreed to make internship placement available.

Through telephone interviews and written letters, support for the program was provided by the United Way of Coastal Empire, the Savannah-Chatham Public Schools, the Savannah Police Department, the Office of the District Attorney for Eastern Judicial Circuit, the Savannah City Manager's Office, the Sea Coast Workforce Development Board, the Girl Scout Council, the West Broad YMCA, the Georgia Department of Corrections, and Senior Citizens Savannah-Chatham County, Inc.

Delivery: SSU is the lead institution, and Armstrong Atlantic State University ("AASU") is the assisting institution in the delivery of the proposed master of science in urban studies program in accordance with Institutional Relationships, Mission and Academic Programming: Armstrong State College, Savannah State College, and Georgia Southern University (December 7, 1994). The degree, master of science in urban studies, will be conferred by SSU. The two institutions share in program resource acquisition and development, including faculty. Drawing upon current resources and faculty expertise in the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, the College of Business Administration, and the College of Science and Technology, SSU's program responsibilities lie with its College of Liberal Arts and Social Science, coordinating with the other divisions within the institution. SSU retains responsibility for the public management concentration and for the development of a new concentration in urban regional economic development. AASU will provide instruction in the administration of justice concentration. Both institutions will share responsibility for the development of the urban politics concentration. The distance learning facilities at SSU and AASU permit access to remote educational resources. The proximity of the Coastal Georgia Center for Continuing Education to local, State, and national government offices will facilitate the delivery of urban courses to government employees.

Objectives: The principal objectives of the program include the development of analytical and research skills and the utilization of the intellectual resources necessary for the generation of new knowledge of urban areas in Georgia and worldwide. A second objective is to train students to apply analytical skills developed in urban studies to both the public and private sectors. An additional objective of the proposed degree program is to add to the general public's awareness of the problems and strengths of Georgia's urban areas through community activity.

Curriculum: The 36-semester-hour curriculum consists of an interdisciplinary core curriculum of 21 semester hours, 6 semester hours of internship or thesis, and 3 or 4 courses from a specialty concentration (i.e., a minimum of 9 hours) in a specialty concentration in one of the following areas: urban politics, urban and regional economic development, public management, or administration of justice.

Projected Enrollment: It is anticipated that for the first three years of the program student enrollment will be 10, 15 and 25.

Funding: In addition to the redirected faculty resources from both campuses, four faculty members, an assistant director, and a director will be hired to form the corps instruction and administration of the proposed master of science in urban studies program.

Assessment: The Office of Academic Affairs will work with the institution to measure the success and continued effectiveness of the proposed program. In 2002, this program will be evaluated by the institution and the Central Office to determine the success of the program's implementation and achievement of the enrollment, quality, centrality, viability, and cost-effectiveness, as indicated in the proposal.
Establishment of the Master of Science in Sports Medicine, Armstrong Atlantic State University

Approved: The Board approved the request of President Robert A. Burnett of Armstrong Atlantic State University ("AASU") to establish the master of science in sports medicine, effective April 21, 1999.

Abstract: The master of science in sports medicine will prepare students for career opportunities in sports medicine through the sports health track and athletic training track. The tracks will focus upon the prevention, management, evaluation, and rehabilitation of athletic injuries. It is anticipated that the master of science in sports medicine will attract professionals such as physical therapists, physician assistants, cardiac rehabilitation specialists, and students from undergraduate athletic training programs and physical education who desire professional training in the field of sports medicine. Students enrolled in the sports health track are not seeking athletic training ("AT") certification. Students enrolled in the athletic training track are seeking AT certification.

The master of science in sports medicine degree program is clearly central to the mission of AASU with the College of Health Professions serving as a designated Regional Health Professions Education Center. The master of science in sports medicine degree program has been included as part of the planning priorities for new programs at AASU. A memorandum of understanding will be developed with Georgia Southern University to collaborate on the delivery of the sports health and athletic training tracks.

Need: The institution surveyed three groups of sports medicine specialists: physical therapists with certification in sports physical therapy, fellows of the American College of Sports Medicine, and certified athletic trainers in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. At total of 2,420 were surveyed, and 577 responses were received. Of the surveys received, 75% of the respondents agreed there is a need for graduate-level sports medicine education. Nearly 50% of the respondents agreed that graduates from the program would have enhanced job opportunities.

The F. H. Mills study, entitled "Current Status of Athletic Health Services in Georgia High Schools," observed the services rendered for athletic related injuries. It was noted that coaches were often responsible for the prevention, care, and rehabilitation of athletic related injuries. It was also observed that the training of coaches to deal with these injuries consisted of first aid and CPR. Therefore, it was inferred that a need exists in Georgia's high schools for qualified professionals to deliver sports medicine services to approximately 12,000 athletes. For the master of science in sports medicine program, the projected market will be employers in the following areas: secondary schools, colleges and universities, professional sports organizations, hospitals/health systems, private practice clinics, corporate/industrial centers, and self-employed practitioners.

Objectives: The objectives of the master of science in sports medicine are to prepare students to serve as leaders in the multidimensional, professional field of sports medicine; to prepare students to enter professional practice as a certified athletic trainer by providing comprehensive post-baccalaureate entry-level athletic training academic preparation; and to provide supervised clinical education experiences for students enrolled in the program.

Curriculum: The master of science in sports medicine will be housed in the Department of Health Science in the College of Health Professions. The master of science in sports medicine (MSSM) degree will have two tracks: sports health (36 semester credits) and athletic training (80 semester credits).

The sports health track will target the professional who already has certification and/or licensure in a health-related area and is seeking graduate credentials to enhance his/her employment marketability. Accreditation is not available for the sports health track. For example, a licensed physical therapist may complete the sports health track to meet the requirements for specialty certification in sports physical therapy. These students are not seeking AT certification.

The athletic training track will produce graduates to enter the field of sports medicine with academic preparation to complete athletic training certification. The track is proposed for the individual who seeks athletic training certification credentials. The program of study is designed to meet the accreditation standards and guidelines of Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs ("CAAHEP") and the Joint Review Commission-Athletic Training ("JRC-AT") and to prepare students for the National Athletic Trainers Association ("NATA") AT certification.

Rationale for the 80-Semester-Hour Degree Waiver: The request for the waiver is for the athletic training track only. This request is based on the Essentials and Guidelines for an Accredited Educational Program for the athletic trainer and curriculum content to prepare students for the national certification examination. Accreditation requirements for JRC-AT and CAAHEP were used in designing the athletic training track for the master of science in sports medicine program. NATA requires a minimum of 1500 internship hours for certification. The athletic training track would prepare applicants for AT certification.

AASU's proposed program of 80 semester hours will includes course work addressing the CAAHEP/JRC-AT required subject matter as well as a significant number of credit hours designed for supervised clinical education. At present, the number of clinical education credit hours are expected to be equal to or greater than 20 to 24 semester hours. This component of the program coupled with the required thesis or professional project supports the 80-semester-hour requirement.

Furthermore, the physical therapy graduate students, some of whom are admitted in their senior year, currently complete 107 semester hours in 7 semesters for an average load of 15 hours per semester. Applying this load to a 5-semester graduate entry-level program results in a 75-semester-hour program. Students would carry an average of 16 hours, which would result in an 80-semester-hour program.

Projected Enrollment: It is anticipated that for the first three years of the program student enrollment will range from 22 to 24 students for the sports health and athletic training tracks.

Funding: The institution will redirect monies from other areas to initiate and maintain the program. Faculty members currently providing instruction in the AT internship program will be reassigned to the master of science in sports medicine program. Additionally, two faculty positions were requested in the fiscal year 2000 budget to support this proposal.

Assessment: The Office of Academic Affairs will work with the institution to measure the success and continued effectiveness of the proposed program. In 2002, this program will be evaluated by the institution and the Central Office to determine the success of the program's implementation and achievement of the enrollment, quality, centrality, viability, and cost-effectiveness, as indicated in the proposal.
Establishment of the Bachelor of Fine Arts With a Major in Interior Design, Valdosta State University

Approved: The Board approved the request of President Hugh C. Bailey of Valdosta State University ("VSU") to establish the bachelor of fine arts with a major in interior design, effective April 21, 1999.

Abstract: The bachelor of fine arts with a major in interior design is designed to provide students with opportunities to master the creative and technical skills needed for the successful application of design processes. The 120-semester-hour curriculum in interior design is formulated to produce students who are adept at using technology for communications, design, and research. The program stresses the ecological impacts of design decisions such as licensing, codes and regulations; design and spatial form; space utilization planning and energy conservation; and interiors, furniture, and textiles.

Need: The bachelor of fine arts with a major in interior design has been structured to address an identified need that exists in the South Georgia region and in the State of Georgia. Data gathered from the Georgia Department of Labor's OES Industry Occupation Matrix, Report B, indicated that there should be a greater than 26% increase in employment opportunities in the field of interior design between 1994 and 2005 within the State. The proposed program is unique to the 41-county region served by VSU. The VSU Office of Institutional Research and Planning cited data from the Statewide and Regional Supply-Demand Analysis conducted by the Intellectual Capital Partnership Program ("ICAPP"), which projected an annual unmet need of more than ten employees in employment categories related to interior design and the shortfall expected each year. For example, the study focusing on districts in Athens, Atlanta, Augusta, Columbus, Macon, and Rome projected a total unmet need of 340 positions. These positions were categorized under designer, merchandise displayer, and interior designer.

Objectives: The bachelor of fine arts with a major in interior design degree will be a professional degree program with emphasis on (a) historic preservation, conservation, and rehabilitation of historic interiors, (b) residential, and (c) commercial and related design fields. The purpose of the proposed degree program will be to prepare students for professional careers in the fields of interior design and related design disciplines which currently exist in the region and in visual arts and design and the disciplines related to interior design history and practice. The major program goals are to provide a comprehensive theoretical and practical professional preparation for graduates entering interior design and related design fields, a professional academic program that meets a demonstrated need in the region and the State of Georgia, and new career opportunities for a culturally diverse South Georgia student population. These fall within and are guided by the university, college, and departmental mission statements.

Curriculum: The interior design program will be housed within the College of the Arts, Department of Art. The 120-semester-hour curriculum requires 60 semester hours of core course work, with 42 hours devoted to general education courses and 18 hours of foundation courses in Area F specific to the major. The foundation courses for all bachelor of fine arts students are drawing, design, computing, and an introduction to visual arts and design concepts. The proposed 60-semester-hour upper-division curriculum includes courses related to interior design theory and practice with 12 hours required in art and interior design history. The program will be subject to the accreditation standards of the National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD). The institution will also seek a more specialized accreditation from the Foundation for Interior Design Education Research (FIDER).

Projected Enrollment: It is anticipated that for the first three years of the program student enrollment will be 15, 20, and 20.

Assessment: The Office of Academic Affairs will work with the institution to measure the success and continued effectiveness of the proposed program. In 2002, this program will be evaluated by the institution and the Central Office to determine the success of the program's implementation and achiev

Main Navigation

Meeting Minutes - April 1999

Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Held At Savannah State University, Savannah, Georgia April 20 and 21, 1999

CALL TO ORDER

ATTENDANCE REPORT

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

SPECIAL PRESENTATION

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS, "COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE"

CALL TO ORDER

INVOCATION

ATTENDANCE REPORT

OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS

COMMITTEE ON REAL ESTATE AND FACILITIES

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, RESEARCH, AND EXTENSION

Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
Held At Savannah State University, Savannah, Georgia
April 20 and 21, 1999