Coordinating Board for Higher Education Meeting Minutes 04-08

COORDINATING BOARD FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
MINUTES OF MEETING
April 10, 2008

Approved June 12, 2008

The Coordinating Board for Higher Education (CBHE) met at 9:15 a.m. on Thursday, April 10, 2008, at Linn State Technical College.

Chair Kathryn Swan called the meeting to order.  A list of guests is included as an attachment.  The presence of a quorum was established with the following roll call vote:

Dr. Donald Claycomb, President of Linn State Technical College (LSTC), welcomed the CBHE, MDHE staff, and visitors and provided a brief history of the college and the uniqueness of the programs and campus.  Chair Swan thanked Dr. Claycomb and the LSTC Board of Regents for their hospitality.

Committee Reports

Audit Committee

Mr. Duane Schreimann reported that the state auditor issued a report on the state's financial systems; no written findings were reported for the department, and there were no outstanding findings from the previous year.

The MDHE's contract with the independent auditing firm BKD has expired.  The department is in the process of soliciting bids for a new auditing contract.

Student Loan / Financial Aid Committee

Mr. David Cole stated that the committee had no business to report.

Strategic Planning Committee

Ms. Jeanne Patterson stated that Mr. Paul Wagner will update the CBHE and the Presidential Advisory Committee on the status of the Coordinated Plan.

Presidential Advisory Committee

FY 2009 Budget Update

Mr. Wagner explained that several items included in Tab A have changed since the board book was printed.

HB 2014 - The supplemental operating budget is out of conference and has passed by both     houses.  The bill should be on its way to the Governor's desk for signature.

HB 2019 - The supplemental budget for the Lewis and Clark Discovery Initiative was passed and has been signed by the Governor.  This bill gives $31.2 million for the Ellis-Fischel Cancer Center at UMC and $15 million for the Pharmacy/Nursing Building at UMKC.

HB 2020 - The regular supplemental capital bill has also been signed by the Governor and includes funds for the cooperative engineering program between Missouri State University and the Missouri University of Science & Technology.

HB 2003 -  The Senate restored the Governor's recommendations for the department's budget, which the House had cut.  The Senate also restored the House's 3 percent reduction of several agencies expense and equipment budgets.  The House had changed the Governor's recommendation on the state employee pay plan to a flat dollar amount - the Senate is recommending a 3 percent increase for all state employees.  Mr. Wagner feels confident that the MDHE will come out of conference with the full Governor's recommendation for FTE, funding for outsourcing, and the full E&E budget.

The House kept the Governor's recommendation of $100 million for the Access Missouri program.  The Senate has reduced the program to approximately $76 million.

The bill is now in Conference Committee.  The MDHE will continue to provide legislators with the best information available so that they may make the best public policy decision.

College and University Operating Budgets

The primary difference between the House and Senate for institution operating budgets is the method of calculating the second year of the Governor's three-year plan.  The House is recommending the same dollar amount as the first year increase while the Senate is recommending a percentage of the first year increase.

Preparing to Care

The Senate did not restore funding for this initiative.  While there remains a chance for an amendment on the Senate Floor, this is unlikely.

Distance Dental Hygiene

The Senate did not make any changes to the House recommendation of $450,000 for the Missouri Southern State University distance dental hygiene plan.

Other Recommendations

The House introduced a capital improvements budget bill that has not yet been forwarded to the Senate.  The bill includes funding for a Vehicle and Power Center at Linn State Technical College, an expansion study for the UMKC dental school, planning money for expanding the nursing school at UMKC, funding for an autism center at UMC, and planning money for a new facility for the State Historical Society in Columbia.

Mr. Wagner advised that legislators were concerned about overspending on ongoing programs.  However, consideration is being given for one-time expenditures such as maintenance and repair or equipment.  The MDHE collected and shared with legislators information from institutions on projects that could be undertaken if such funding were available.

Commissioner Robert Stein urged presidents and chancellors to keep the department informed if they should get a sense of where traction is on the spending of one-time monies so that projects may be coordinated and communicated with higher education champions in the legislature.

Commissioner Stein advised that, during the April 8, 2008 Business-Education Summit in Cape Girardeau, higher education made it clear that there was a commitment to Preparing to Care and other strategic initiatives.

Mr. Duane Schreimann asked if there was discussion about increasing state revenue.  Mr. Wagner replied that there is very little talk about increasing taxes; in fact, the legislature is recommending cutting taxes this session.  It is likely that the next Governor will have to seriously consider tax increases if they want to change the scope of the state's Medicaid program.

Coordinated Plan Update

The CBHE adopted the framework for the coordinated plan at the February 2008 meeting.  The next step in the process was to develop specific goals, targets, and indicators for progress.  Little input was received, so the goals and measures document in the board book was prepared primarily by MDHE staff.  When developing this document, the department kept in mind that the Coordinated Plan is intended for the lay public including key policymakers and elected officials and that the document should lend itself to annual reporting on the progress toward achievement of established goals.

The MDHE believes that the report should measure the state as a whole rather than evaluating individual institutions and important activities should not be omitted.  The document should also overlap with the recommendations that will come out of the Higher Education Funding Task Force; performance funding items recommended by HEF need to be included in the plan.  There will be more indicators in the plan than will be tied to performance funding, but performance funding indicators tied to funding should be included in the plan.  It is also important to note that performance funding indicators may change over the years.

The department encourages presidents and chancellors to review and comment on the draft document as the CBHE intends to vote on the goals and indicators to be used in a progress report at its June meeting.

President John McGuire stated that the timeline may have challenges as institutions must come to an agreement regarding databases and definitions.  Mr. Lowell Kruse stated that if prepared properly and agreed-to, this document will become a baseline to collectively turn to the public for the required funding.  Chair Swan agreed that we need to build our message together, and this document is a tool to show the value of higher education.

President Neil Nuttall stated that the Coordinated Plan is comprehensive and expressed appreciation that the CBHE recognized the fact that not every indicator in the draft can be measured.  There should be a process of selection to determine how the indicators are measured, which databases should be used, at what point indicators should be measured, and which indicators should receive the most significance.  A great deal of work remains to be done to collect and build a reliable database.  The document should be reviewed as a plan with parameters and objectives without rushing into strategies and action plans.

Commissioner Stein replied that everyone is frustrated that we are not receiving the appropriations we want and need.  It is critical that higher education come forward with a document that focuses on key goals.  The months after the June CBHE meeting will be focused on the upcoming elections and the FY 2010 budget.  This will be a dynamic document, and as we progress we are free to revise the reporting items as needed.  If we don't take action soon, we will be in the same frustrating position a year from now because we have not garnered adequate support from the legislature and the public.

Mr. Greg Upchurch stated that he would be strongly opposed to not adopting indicators at the next meeting.

President Mike Nietzel advised that COPHE would continue to review the draft goals and indicators and would provide the MDHE with its recommendations prior to the June meeting.  COPHE will need to consider how goals intersect and the implications of each goal, including:

• progress on some goals may adversely affect progress on others;
• increases in federal or private support should be measured as percentage increases rather than absolute dollars; and
• some measures may be important to the state (e.g., improving ACT scores) but would be difficult for institutions to measure their impact.

Mr. Kruse agreed that it was important to consider the intersections and implications, but it was equally important for the board to take action in June with the understanding that the goals and indicators could be revised and improved as we progress.

There is clear value for institutional long-range planning of having an overall framework for higher education.  President Dean Hubbard suggested that the board move ahead, test the indicators, and revise as needed.  However, there must be sensitivity to complex issues such as the difference inputs make on measuring learning over time.  We must have measurable data at the institutional level.

President Aaron Podolefsky expressed concern that the indicators and goals would be used to judge institutions, and many are issues over which higher education has no control.  Should little or no progress be made, higher education may take the blame.  We must ensure there is differentiation between effectiveness and institutional management.

Mr. Cole reiterated that the purpose of the plan, goals, and indicators is to establish a document that will make a case for higher education with the public.  Dr. Podolefsky responded that the selected indicators should be ones in which higher education will be successful.  For example, the number of high school graduates is expected to decline in the coming years.  Therefore, an indicator about increasing the number of entering students might be changed to a percentage increase.

Ms. Doris Carter stated that this is not a tool to judge institutions.  The board is trying to develop a tool everyone can use to show legislators what higher education is accomplishing.  The board is asking presidents and chancellors to provide suggestions to come up with agreed-upon goals and indicators to discuss and vote on in June.  If there is disagreement with a particular goal or indicator, contact the department so that it may be adjusted.

Chair Swan shared some critical issues from the board's perspective: participation; affordability; preparation; workforce development; research and development; and more graduates in critical fields.  One to two indicators for each area would be needed.

Dr. Brenda Albright advised that numerous states are undertaking strategic planning and placing a stronger emphasis on higher education as a path toward the states' economic wellbeing and an improved quality of life for citizens.  The top issues of concern to educators in Missouri are similar to those in other states.

Dr. McGuire asked if it would hamper higher education's strategy to finalize the goals by the June meeting but to forego adopting indicators until the September meeting.  Certain indicators necessary to discuss funding with legislators might be presented as preliminary.

Dr. Hubbard stated that the problem with sequencing goals and indicators is that they are not independent and cannot be treated in isolation.  In order to meet the June deadline, it may be necessary to limit the number of indicators for each goal; other indicators could be added, evaluated, and revised later.

Commissioner Stein added that the board is committed to an open process but needs institutional engagement and needs to move forward.  The board will adopt a document in June, but each year the indicators may be reviewed and revised to make the document more effective.

Commissioner Stein acknowledged COPHE's commitment to work on the goals and indicators for the June meeting and encouraged MCCA and Linn State Technical College to begin work as well.  The department would like to produce another draft of this document for distribution to and review by presidents and chancellors prior to the June meeting so that feedback may be incorporated into a final document for the board's review.

Commissioner Stein added that the department would like to include data from all sectors, and some independent institutions have identified themselves as being able to participate.  Chair Swan noted that the independent sector had reviewed the Coordinated Plan and had asked that Strategic Issue #3 be revised so as to include all postsecondary institutions.  This will be an action item for discussion and vote at the June meeting.

Higher Education Funding (HEF) Task Force Update

Ms. Zora AuBuchon presented information regarding the background and status of the HEF Task Force and its recommendations, which are due to the CBHE in June.  The HEF Task Force has developed a funding pyramid (attached) to act as a guideline for the priority and distribution of any funding increases.

Mr. Schreimann was concerned that institutions might never achieve full core funding - the base of the pyramid - and therefore would not undertake strategic or performance funding initiatives.  Mr. Schreimann stressed the importance of explaining why yearly increases are needed (e.g., increased student population, increased energy costs, minimal salary/benefit increases for faculty and staff).  Higher education must be prepared, however, to undertake strategic initiatives in conjunction with or instead of core increases.

Dr. John Ganio stated that higher education has not yet made the case that investment in postsecondary education provides a public good return unlike competing state priorities such as Medicaid and Corrections.

Ms. AuBuchon stated that legislators strongly encourage higher education to only submit an obtainable budget request.  Requests for hundreds of millions of dollars to bring Missouri support to a higher benchmark will not be seriously considered especially without evidence of need, accountability, and benefit to the state.

In regard to higher education funding, Mr. Wagner advised that different methodologies produce different results.  On some benchmarks, Missouri is in the bottom quartile for state support while on others Missouri is seen as average.
 
Missouri will never climb out of the lower quartile in funding unless higher education makes significant progress.  While the absolute dollar figure needed should be publicized, higher education must be realistic in what is requested and to accept increases over time.  A long-term plan is beneficial and necessary as current legislators step down and new ones are elected.

Chair Swan expressed her appreciation for the collaborative work that has gone into HEF.  The timeline for recommendations to be considered by the CBHE is the June 2008 meeting in Cape Girardeau.  The two- and four-year sector organizations continue to make progress on distribution models within each sector and expect to have those models completed in time for the June CBHE meeting.

Legislative Update

Ms. AuBuchon provided an update on bills related to higher education.  The item is slightly out of date as there has been movement on many of the bills since printing of the board book.

Immigration is one of the most consistently emphasized issues this year - it is a priority of the Governor and legislative leadership.  Many bills impose additional requirements on employers; as major employers, these bills are likely to impact institution hiring processes should they become law.

HB 1463 - Prohibits the admission of students without proof of immigration status.  Because more students are admitted than are actually enrolled, institutions and the MDHE worked with the bill sponsor to adjust the wording.  The bill has been approved by the House and was referred to committee.

Other bills relate to employment and public benefits.  A spate of bills required public entities to receive proof of legal status at the time of application, including grants and scholarships such as Access Missouri and Bright Flight.  Again, higher education worked with sponsors of these bills to adjust language so that students must prove their status before they receive their benefits rather than at the time of application.

SB 846 - Expands the A+ program to include students who attend public or private two-year institutions.  The original version of the bill also created a scholarship for transfer upon completion of a two-year degree; the scholarship was removed during debate.  An amendment was added that would permit high schools, regardless of accreditation status, to participate in the A+ program.

SB 830 - Requires higher education institutions to charge certain veterans a maximum of $50 per credit hour regardless of the per credit hour cost.  Currently, the bill as amended directs institutions to notify the CBHE of funds lost due to this program and for the CBHE to inform to legislature during the budget process where the institutions may be reimbursed.

The department was asked to provide information regarding Missouri's institutional endowments.  The department sent surveys that institutions completed and provided a summary to Senator Nodler.  The MDHE does not anticipate additional inquiries on this issue during the current legislative session.

Omnibus Bill Update

Ms. AuBuchon provided an update regarding implementation of the omnibus bill.  The department has accomplished a great deal since passage of SB 389.

The most significant implementation activities currently underway involve the Curriculum Alignment Initiative (CAI).  Participants in this initiative have drafted entry- and exit-level competencies for beginning collegiate-level courses in key disciplines.

At the June CBHE meeting, the CAI status report will include an update on the gap analysis conducted by an external consultant about the separate competency initiatives underway in K-12 and higher education.  Commissioner Stein stated that the results of the gap analysis will provide a starting point for conversation between sectors to identify areas where gaps may be closed or reduced.

Additional work remains regarding the performance funding measures as directed by SB 389.  Adoption of goals and progress indicators for the Coordinated Plan along with adoption of funding policies based on the HEF Task Force's recommendations will provide background and guidelines for these measures.

Action Items

Minutes

There is one change to the February 7, 2008 meeting minutes.  On page 5 in the second to the last paragraph, the phrase "reducing retention rates" must be amended to "increasing retention rates".

Ms. Carter made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 7, 2008 meeting as amended.  Mr. Schreimann seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

CBHE Public Policy Update

At the February 2008 meeting, MDHE staff presented a list of CBHE public policies that might be rescinded.  President Ken Dobbins asked that rescission of policies regarding 1456 sites be reconsidered.  After review, MDHE staff determined that the policy regarding the Sikeston Area Higher Education Center should be retained and the policy regarding Collaboration among Proposed 1456 Sites and Existing Institutions should be retained with the following change:

• Remove the NOTE regarding Sikeston and include a sentence stating "The community of Sikeston meets the CBHE HB 1456 criteria for designation as an HB 1456 site, and postsecondary institutions serving that community are eligible to apply for and receive funding under HB 1456."

Mr. Schreimann made a motion to approve the Collaboration policy as amended and to retain the Sikeston Center policy.  Ms. Carter seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

Consent Calendar

Chair Swan advised that the High School Graduates Report was discussed at the Governor's Business/Education Summit.  The Governor was unaware that the MDHE created this annual report and was impressed with the data.  We are still working to get the message out that this report is available to the public.

Ms. Carter moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar.  Mr. Schreimann seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Kruse departed the meeting.

Items for Discussion, Consideration, and Possible Vote

Carl Perkins Vocational Funds Update

Mr. Wagner provided an update on the Carl Perkins Vocational Funds.  On behalf of community colleges, the Commissioner submitted a letter to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) that outlined concerns regarding the methodologies used in the development of the state plan for Perkins funds as administered by DESE.

Dr. Nuttall provided a summary of the involvement of community colleges in the development of the plan and the issues that remain.  There appeared to be significant discrepancies in the Classification of Program (CIP) codes used to identify eligible programs as K-12 follows CIP code guidelines established by DESE while community colleges follow guidelines established by the MDHE.

Another discrepancy was identified regarding methodologies to determine enrollment of postsecondary students.  DESE and the community colleges disagreed on data about postsecondary enrollment; according to community colleges, over 18,000 postsecondary students were not being counted for Perkins funding.  Community colleges and DESE have agreed to work together to streamline the identification process.

Dr. Nuttall advised that MCCA representatives attended each public hearing regarding Perkins and provided DESE with a list of talking points and an outline of concerns.  DESE did not provide any written response.  Dr. Nuttall thanked the Commissioner for his intervention and assistance in bringing community college concerns to DESE's attention.

Commissioner Stein stated that the federal guidelines for Perkins required DESE to work with higher education to develop the state plan.  At the State Board of Education (SBE) meeting in April 2008, DESE did not acknowledge publicly that higher education had any concerns with the plan, and the plan was adopted by the SBE.

Mr. Schreimann stated that if concerns remain regarding the methodologies for funding distribution, and DESE remains unresponsive to those concerns, higher education should contact the US Department of Education and request a joint meeting.  Commissioner Stein recommended that, in addition to seeking a meeting with the USDE, this issue could be taken up by the P-20 Council.

Update on Needs Analysis for Cape Girardeau County and Surrounding Region

Commissioner Stein updated the board on the progress toward an education needs analysis in the southeast region of the state.  Eleven education, community, and business leaders in the region contributed monies to fund a needs analysis by an external consultant.  Guidelines for the analysis were submitted to potential vendors in March.

P-20 Council Update

Chair Swan advised that the Southeast Business/Education Summit was held on April 8th and included discussions on WIRED, A+, and Project Lead the Way.  A video that will be shown at each summit was presented and was followed by the Governor's remarks and a roundtable discussion.  Afterward, breakout sessions engaged participants in determining next steps and identifying partnerships that might result from the day's information.

Chair Swan encouraged everyone to attend the regional summit scheduled for their area.  Commissioner Stein noted that institution presidents in the region may be invited to participate on panels for roundtable discussions.

Report of the Commissioner

Commissioner Stein advised that the CBHE's Committee on Transfer and Articulation has two new members: Dr. Pam McIntyre of St. Louis Community College is replacing Don Doucette as a representative of the two-year sector, and Ms. Julia Leeman of Sanford-Brown College is replacing Karen Finkenkeller as a representative of the proprietary sector.

Senator Nodler continues to be a higher education champion for one-time funding; please keep communication channels open to ensure the Senator has what he needs to make progress in this area.

All public higher education institutions have signed up for the Missouri Alert Network.  The Network has extended the deadline for signup by independent institutions.  If all slots are not filled by the deadline, public institutions will have an opportunity to add additional contacts.

In August 2008, the Missouri School Boards' Association is sponsoring a conference on the safety of K-12 schools and postsecondary institutions.  This is the second year of the conference; the first year was dedicated to K-12 schools only.

Institutions in the southwest region of the state were encountering tensions on the delivery of off-site programs.  The Commissioner met with institution presidents and representatives, and the institutions have made a commitment to work out their differences on delivery and to work collaboratively on joint statements within the region.

The CBHE is working with the University of Missouri in planning a symposium for institution board members to take place in the fall.  We hope to position ourselves to continue our message to legislators regarding funding and affordability, and the relationship between the two.

The Commissioner acknowledged MDHE staff for their efforts and introduced faculty fellow Dr. Ken Vollmar and student intern Ms. Nicole Ray.  Institutions will receive notices regarding openings for faculty fellows and interns for the next academic year.

Adjournment

Ms. Carter made a motion to adjourn the meeting.  Mr. Schreimann seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously.