Back to Regent Minutes
MINUTES
of the
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
BOARD OF REGENTS STUDY OF THE
UW SYSTEM IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Madison, Wisconsin
Held in 1820 Van Hise Hall
Thursday, March 7, 1996
2:45 p.m.
- President Grebe presiding -
PRESENT: Regents Barry, Benson, Brown, De Simone, Dreyfus, Gelatt,
Grebe, Hempel, James, Krutsch, Lubar, Orr, Randall, Smith and
Steil
ABSENT: Regent Budzinski and MacNeil
- - -
INTRODUCTION
Regent Grebe noted that the Chairs of the five working groups of the Study
of the UW System in the 21st Century Study would submit their preliminary
recommendations at this meeting. While final action on these
recommendations will not be taken until the May 1996 meeting of the Board,
the Board would vote on March 8, 1996 to forward the preliminary
recommendations to the public for hearings to be held in March and April
1996. Public hearings are scheduled to begin in LaCrosse on March 20th
and conclude in West Bend at the April 11 meeting of the Board of Regents.
Several Regents will be attending each of those hearings. Remote
locations will also be connected to the hearing sites to maximize public
access and extend the opportunity for people to participate in the
dialogue concerning the recommendations. An E-mail address
(testimony@ccmail.uwsa.edu) has also been established to allow public
commentary by people who cannot attend the meetings in person or at any of
the remote sites.
Regent Grebe added that the study began as a strategic planning exercise
based on the assumption of continued partnership with the State. As such,
its findings should comprise a series of recommendations that share
responsibility for change and suggest a true partnership; he noted that a
draft of an Introduction for the report had been distributed to the
Regents. This document reiterates the need for a continued partnership
between the State and the UW System. It highlights two key aspects of the
study: First, what the Regents believe the study projects through its
recommendations (i.e., its commitment to increase access, remain
affordable, continue to be more productive, provide even better links to
UW System resources and K-12 schools, and create stronger partnership with
others) and second, what support from the State the Regents believe is
necessary in order to accomplish those goals (i.e., keeping the UW System
budget whole, funding the pay plan and distance education initiatives, and
providing some additional management flexibility). Regent Grebe noted
that, following the discussion of the recommendations, they would be
consolidated and arranged around four major themes for the public
hearings:
* Preserving access
* Keeping higher education affordable
* Creating new knowledge and fostering lifelong learning
* Improving the efficiency of our System
He added that these themes "best represent issues of concern to the public
and all of our external constituencies." He then asked the Regents to
carefully review these documents, and to suggest any changes that might be
necessary before they are presented to the public.
Before introducing the reports of the working groups, Regent Grebe thanked
his colleagues, the Chancellors, the staff, students and members of the
public who participated in these discussions. He added that perspectives
on some key issues had changed, having benefitted from the candid
discussions that took place within the groups. Regent Grebe also
acknowledged the hard work of the staff, particularly Kathi Sell (Chief of
Staff for the Study), Dan Layzell (Deputy Chief of Staff) and Judith Temby
(Secretary of the Board of Regents), for their efforts in producing policy
papers, background materials, and coordinating meetings. These efforts,
given recent cuts in the UW System Administration budget and staff,
provide an example of the increased productivity of System Administration.
Regent Grebe then introduced Regent Hempel, Chair of the Working Group on
Access and Affordability.
-
Working Group #1: Access and Affordability
Recommendations Advanced For Public Commentary
Regent Hempel presented the following eight recommendations to the Board
of Regents:
1. The working group believes that distance learning technology
is essential for expanding the capacity of the UW Systemūs
instructional resources. New technology can extend the reach
of UW programs and enhance the efficiency of existing
instructional resources. The Board of Regents should assure
that its next biennial budget recommendations to the Governor
and the Legislature set forth a specific funding approach to
further develop the necessary technology. Funds will be
required for networking infrastructure, investment in up-to-
date equipment and software, development of new instructional
technology, and training opportunities for faculty members.
UW System Administration should prepare a recommendation
for the Board's consideration on the investment
required, the appropriate funding mechanisms necessary
to advance our efforts, and an implementation schedule
that outlines how the technology will be used to expand
capacity within a specified time frame, including
necessary student/faculty interaction and consideration
of the studentūs total needs.
2. The working group recommends that tuition recommendations sent
to the Governor and Legislature reflect incentives and/or
disincentives for reducing attempted credits to graduation.
In addition, the working group recommends that flexibility be
added to the UW Systemūs tuition structure to create
incentives for students to successfully complete the
requirements for a four-year graduation contract. These
changes can only be successful through adequate advising and
course availability. We recommend establishing a pilot program
for the four year contract with selected institutions by Fall
1997, with system-wide implementation the following year.
3. The working group recommends that, by October 1, 1996,
chancellors of each institution provide the Board of Regents
through UW System Administration with a report of efficiency-
related measures undertaken to date and new recommendations of
other efficiency measures that would increase capacity in the
future. Furthermore, we recommend the UW Board of Regents
seek legislative authority for greater internal budgetary
flexibility in the use of institutional funds in order to
achieve increased capacity.
4. The working group recommends affirmation of the following
Board of Regents Tuition Policies:
* Tuition increases should be moderate and
predictable.
* The resident undergraduate tuition rate increase
should not exceed 10%.
* GPR financial aid and graduate assistant support
increases should be kept commensurate with general
tuition increases.
5. The working group recommends the Board of Regents assign
responsibility and reward success for UW institutions that
successfully increase grants obtained from private sources for
financial aid purposes.
6. The working group recommends the Board of Regents create
limits on room and board cost increases.
7. The working group recommends the Board of Regents through UW
System Administration work with 1) high schools to encourage
attendance at UW Centers during the school year; and 2) UW
System institutions to make students aware of the availability
of summer school opportunities at all UW System institutions,
especially those close to the location of their summer
employment or home.
8. The working group recommends the Board Of Regents through UW
System Administration work with high schools to consider
expansion of available college credits earned while students
are still in high school.
Regarding Recommendation 2, Regent Hempel added that one working group
member representing students had expressed reservations about the fairness
of disincentives, offering an example of students who might accrue "excess
credits" because they attend part-time over several years or encounter
changes in institutional requirements. Regent Hempel expressed her belief
that these particular situations can be handled without forgoing the
benefits of better management of credits to degree. She also noted that
the third recommendation had produced the observation that the development
of efficiency improvements would be a long process; she added that the
intention of the group is to encourage the pursuit of continuous
improvement.
Following these recommendations, Regent Gelatt asked whether the "level of
access comparable to what we have today," is calculated as the fraction of
graduating high school seniors, or if there is another measure of
"appropriate access." Regent Hempel replied that, with the broad support
of this State and additional efficiency improvements, the UW System can
maintain an appropriate level of access based on resource availability and
efficiency objectives; she noted that the current level of access is at
around 31% of high school graduates, and suggested that this level could
be used as a benchmark, noting that varying from it would only be
warranted by necessity.
Regent Barry asked whether discussions on the nature of the incentives and
disincentives to encourage rate of graduation are appropriate at this
time; Regent Hempel reported that the group had devoted a fair amount of
discussion to the issue of whether incentives or disincentives might be
more effective. They concluded that if students are taking an average of
20 credits in excess of most degree requirements, a cut off point might be
established which would allow students to take extra credits for a higher
cost.
-
Working Group #2: Future Funding and Revenue Sources
Recommendations Advanced For Public Commentary
Regent Gelatt, Chair, presented the following thirteen recommendations for
consideration by the Board.
1. The Board of Regents should discuss the possibility of using
its existing authority to allow comprehensive institutions to
charge differential tuition rates within the cluster.
Differential tuition rate increases may be no lower than
general rate increases established by the Board of Regents and
may not exceed 9.9% for resident undergraduates.
2. The state should provide funding increases for WHEG that are
commensurate with the increased student budget needs of
students attending a UW System institution.
(Regent Gelatt observed that the group had used a different measure of
need than the formula currently uses, an issue which requires further
discussion.)
3. The Board of Regents should consider adding tuition
sensitivity to the WHEG formula.
4. Institutions should be encouraged to raise external funds and
that modifications of system policies be considered to
encourage such fund raising.
5. Section 20.285(1)(h), Wis. Stats., should be revised to
include: "Each campus, the centers, and extension may, after
appropriate consultation, and upon approval of the board,
expend available moneys as needed for any program-revenue,
student-related activity (except general program operations
instruction) for which additional one-time funding is needed."
(He noted that this is the proposed statutory change which would give more
flexibility in spending auxiliary revenues.)
6. Institutions should be allowed to charge the market rate for
auxiliary operations.
7. The Board of Regents should allow negotiation of nonresident
tuition rates for students from neighboring states at selected
institutions subject to the Board's approval, with the
condition that the tuition charged at least cover the marginal
cost of instructing the additional students.
8. Institutions should be encouraged to recruit additional out-
of-state students but not at the expense of access to resident
students, and the Board of Regents should examine system
policies that discourage recruitment of out-of-state students.
(Regent Gelatt observed that significant revenue is generated beyond the
cost of educating out-of-state students at the UW-Madison campus; he noted
that some chancellors believe that other campuses could also benefit from
the university's reputation as a quality, low cost system.)
9. The Board of Regents must be prepared to advocate that the
state continue to provide funding to cover increases in staff
costs. Forcing students to pay the costs through increased
tuition will damage Wisconsin's tradition of affordability.
Choosing not to pay competitive salaries in a competitive
market will damage the Systemūs ability to deliver quality
instruction, research, and public service.
10. The Board of Regents should consider amending its Competition
with the Private Sector policy to permit system institutions
greater freedom to earn revenue from mission-related
activities.
11. The Board of Regents should affirm a policy that when faced
with a choice between maintaining the Board's predetermined
measures of educational effectiveness within budgetary
constraints or providing access to its programs and resources,
the University of Wisconsin System must choose to maintain
educational effectiveness.
12. The UW System should continue Continuous Quality Improvement
efforts to streamline operations, making them more efficient
and effective with the possibility of reducing costs.
13. The Board of Regents should seek elimination of or
modification to Section 36.25 (2), Wis. Stats. The working
group prefers elimination. If modifications are made, the
language should state: "Preference as to rooming, boarding
and apartment facilities in the use of living units [strike
"operated" replace with "owned"] by any university shall
[strike ", for the following school year,"] be given to
students who are residents of this state and who [add "are
required to live on campus. They must"] apply [strike
"before" replace with "by"] March 15, unless a later date is
set by the board. [Add "If the university requires students
to reside on campus, students who are residents of this state
shall be given preference as to rooming, boarding, and
apartment facilities."] Such preference shall be granted in
accordance with categories of priority established by the
board. [Strike "Leases or other agreements for occupancy of
such living units shall not exceed a term of one calendar
year."] The board may promulgate rules for the execution of
this subsection."
(Regent Gelatt added that these revisions give weaker preference to
Wisconsin residents and only on campuses where students are required to
live in dormitories, giving flexibility to those campuses where there is
no such requirement to use the availability of dormitory rooms as a means
of attracting out-of-state students.)
Before the discussion following his presentation, Regent Gelatt added that
the group had found no source of revenue that could fill the projected
$100 million gap other than through increases in State funds or increases
in tuition, and that no experimental data was found to produce cost
reductions of that magnitude through the use of instructional technology.
He noted the possibility that increases in instructional efficiency could
make an impact on the gap, as working group #1 had indicated.
Regent Krutsch asked how "at the expense of access to the resident
students" (Item 8) would be defined. Regent Gelatt replied that the issue
is related to admission requirements, noting that on campuses where
admission requirements have been reduced to meet objectives for admitting
in-state students, an alternative would be to keep admission requirements
comparable to other campuses and recruit out-of-state students.
Regent Orr asked (re: Item 7) why the group would not want to charge more
than the marginal cost of instruction; he was told that this figure was
used as a basis to ensure that, at minimum, money would not be lost on
out-of-state students. The committee was informed that the marginal cost
of instruction at comprehensive campuses is $3,500--more than resident
tuition and less than out-of-state tuition. The group's concern was that
current out-of-state tuition (112-115% of full cost of instruction) is too
high to attract out-of-state students; Regent Gelatt expressed their
belief that, as long as money is not lost and quality is maintained, the
Board should consider allowing UW Institutions to negotiate out-of-state
tuition for students from neighboring states.
Regent Smith asked how the 10-year financial gap, estimated at $150
million, had been calculated; he was told that it was developed by
estimating tuition and staff costs at the inflation rate 3% or 3 1/2%,
while state funding remained flat (with a small decrease of 2.5% each year
in the first two years). Regent Gelatt added that members of the working
group had observed that inflation rate for higher education has been
significantly higher than the general inflation rate--thus the estimate
may be low; further, the expectation that state funding will remain at
only slightly lower levels may be optimistic, given increased competition
for state funding. Regent Smith asked whether the working group believes
that these recommendations adequately address the projected gap; he added
his concern that they do not provide concrete methods of generating
outside revenue. Regent Gelatt replied that no source of outside revenue
on the scale of $50 Million was found, other than state dollars or
tuition. He added that, even if the Board were to amend the competition
with private sector policy (Item 10), the generation of revenue would not
approach the necessary funds. Regent Gelatt reiterated that Item 9
focusses on the Board's need to advocate for state support in order to
maintain the quality of instruction, research and public service within
the UW System; he stressed the need to outline the consequences if the
State does not maintaining its history of support for the University
System. Regent Grebe added that the advocacy by the Board of Regents
should extend beyond the Legislature and administration to include the
public, which might begin with the upcoming public hearings. Regent Barry
also stressed the need to inform the public in order to overcome its
misperceptions and clarify that the UW System is not asking for more
money, but for more flexibility and more management possibilities. Regent
Smith expressed his hope that a formal process be developed, independent
of State support, for addressing the funding gap on an ongoing basis.
Regent Gelatt observed that, while the UW System could "sell its
educational product" and possibly raise significant funds, doing so would
be counter to the Wisconsin tradition.
Regent Orr asked whether charging market-based tuition in the professional
schools and advanced certification programs might increase revenues.
Regent Gelatt replied that the group had investigated this option and
determined that between $15-20 million could be raised; he added that
undergraduate tuition could also be raised while maintaining a reasonably
adequate level of financial aid, but that the group did not want to
suggest this as a policy.
Regent Krutsch inquired about savings to be achieved through efficiencies,
to which Regent Gelatt responded that the group failed to find evidence
that the gap could be addressed merely through increased efficiency. He
noted the scarcity of data about the cost-effectiveness of distance
education, given the significant initial investments.
Regent Smith asked about the issue of charging differential tuition within
a cluster, and was informed that this issue was raised by campuses as a
means of raising additional revenue in areas where they may be more
attractive than their peer campuses. Regent Gelatt added that the Board
currently has the authority to allow campuses to charge differential
tuition just as they charge differential fees. Chancellor Ward added that
this discussion had raised a conceptual question of whether the UW System
is totally integrated with a single budget or a more Federal arrangement
with separate budgets. If the UW System were viewed as totally
integrated, professional school tuition increases could be distributed
across the system, but that would put UW-Madison at a competitive
disadvantage. Regent Gelatt noted that the recommendations were made to
give campuses more individual flexibility.
President Lyall, agreeing with Regent Barry's earlier observation that the
public needs to be better informed about the UW System, cited the example
of the belief that over half of the system's revenues come from the State-
-in reality, none of the comprehensive institutions get more than half of
their budgets from the State. Observing that UW System institutions are
matching every State dollar with other revenues, she noted that this is
evidence of the shared partnership with the State, as well as a shared
responsibility to retain the level of excellence of the UW System.
Responding to Regent Smith's questions about the size of the funding gap,
Regent Lubar noted that it is the responsibility of the Board to help the
UW System avoid the $150 million gap as much as possible, and to help it
cope with whatever gap does come to exist. Regent Smith added that he
believes it will be important to not only increase the amount of revenues
raised independent of state support, but to control that revenue to
whatever extent is possible. GPR support, he added, should not be reduced
in response to such increases. Regent Dreyfus asked whether funds could
be raised by revising the Minnesota Compact (in which the State receives
the funds in excess of the marginal cost of instruction for Minnesota
students); Regent Gelatt observed that, since the reimbursement rate
doesn't keep pace with the marginal cost of instruction, money is lost by
both the State and the UW System. Regent Krutsch noted that admitting
fewer Minnesota students could increase access for Wisconsin students,
although this solution would have differential effects across the system.
-
Working Group #3: Mission and Roles
Recommendations Advanced For Public Commentary
Regent Lubar, Chair, presented the following recommendations for
consideration and discussion by the Board:
1. That the Board of Regents advance for public commentary a
proposal to seek authority to establish the compensation and
other terms and conditions of employment for unclassified
staff in the University of Wisconsin System.
2. That the Board of Regents advance for public commentary
authority to eliminate external position control and give UW
System the authority to create all positions without the
approval of the Department of Administration or the
legislature.
(Regent Lubar observed that the UW System is the only member of the Big
Ten which operates under these restraints.)
3. That the Board of Regents advance for public commentary a
proposal to seek authority to make the following alterations
in position reporting:
* Exempt the UW System from filing the Headcount
Report because the Department to Administration
can prepare its quarterly report, as required in
Section 16.50 (3), Wis. Stats., from other
documents;
* Exempt the UW System from submitting the FTE
Report and Filler Positions Report because UW
Systemūs computerized personnel systems will be
maintained so as to respond efficiently and
effectively to inquires; and
* Modify the Position Change Report from a quarterly
to an annual report.
4. That the Board of Regents advance for public commentary a
proposal to direct the President of the UW System, in
collaboration with the Chancellors, to explore strategies
which would permit the UW System to move rapidly and
effectively into the distance education market, and becoming a
major provider. Specifically, the President should explore
options such as:
* quasi-public entities;
* partnerships with private sector
telecommunications entities; and
* the use of Fund 104-131 and 132 (credit and
noncredit outreach) or auxiliaries (Fund 128) for
this purpose.
5. That the Board of Regents advance for public commentary a
proposal to permit institutions that generate more tuition
revenue than budgeted be allowed to expend 75 percent of those
additional revenues, 25 percent of those revenues should be
placed in a system-wide pool. The Board of Regents must also
seek approval to add the following statutory language to
Section 20.285 (1) (im): "Upon the approval of the Board of
Regents, expenditure authority up to 5% above the amounts in
the schedule shall be permitted to the extent tuition
revenues are available."
6. That the Board of Regents advance for public commentary a
definition of its role in governing the University of
Wisconsin System which includes the following:
* Establish goals, missions, and the policy and
fiscal frameworks (within existing statutory
limitations) within which institutions do their
own operational planning and implementation;
* Appoint and evaluate the President of the UW
System and the Chancellors of the UW System
institutions and empower them to meet their
responsibilities within the policies of the board;
* Evaluate institutional and system performance and
hold each institution and System Administration
accountable for accomplishing agreed-upon goals.
* Foster diversity of mission among the
institutions, maximizing synergies and minimizing
inappropriate duplication;
* Promote the "widest degree" of institutional
autonomy within the limits of the law and Board
policy;
* Bring a citizen perspective to the UW System; and
* Serve as advocates to external constituencies on
behalf of the UW System.
7. That the Board of Regents strengthen Board operations as
follows:
* Require orientation sessions for new Regents;
* Conduct regular Board of Regents' self-evaluations
(this fits with existing UW System Board policy);
* Using private funds, have Board of Regents visit
one peer institution outside of Wisconsin each
year (Colorado model) in search of best practice;
* Ensure that there is one annual strategic planning
meeting and one annual development meeting;
* Encourage all Board members to visit at least one
UW System campus per year, in addition to the
campuses they visit when they attend regular
meetings of the Regents;
* Solicit testimony from outside the UW System;
* Foster relationships with the Executive and
Legislative branches of government;
* Use technology to strengthen operation of the
Board;
* Periodically review and revise Board policies and
procedures; and
* Appoint a special Regent committee to examine the
efficacy of Board of Regent operations in light of
its responsibilities and to recommend
improvements.
8. That the Board of Regents advance for public commentary a
definition of the UW System Administration which includes the
following:
* Facilitate strategic planning;
* Administer the UW System within federal and state
laws, and Board of Regent policies, encouraging
within these constraints, the "widest degree" of
institutional autonomy;
* Coordinate and seek synergies among the
universities;
* Foster partnerships with other educational
institutions, state agencies; and private
entities;
* Foster a climate of decision-making that develops
a single UW System position on important issues;
* Anticipate and plan for developing educational,
economic and technological trends in higher
education;
* Seek efficiencies and encourage the development of
cost efficient common systems and common
processes;
* Be accountable to the Board of Regents for
effective provision of higher education in
Wisconsin as assigned by Chapter 36 of the
Wisconsin Statutes and Board of Regents policies;
and
* Monitor and evaluate performance of individual
institutions.
9. That the Board of Regents advance for public commentary a
definition of the role of UW System institutions which
includes the following:
* direct providers of instruction, research and
public service, consistent with each institution's
mission;
* responsibility for operational planning and day-
to-day operations;
* responsive to the demand for user-friendly and
client-responsive provision of services;
* utilizes distance education and other
instructional technology;
* innovative in operations and fund-raising ;
* collaborate with other institutions, state
agencies, and private entities, to better serve
internal and external constituencies; and
* accountable for meeting Board of Regent-designated
outcomes and policies.
10. That the Board of Regents advance for public commentary the
recommendation that each UW institution forge strategic
partnerships with other UW institutions, PK-12 districts,
Wisconsin Technical College Districts, and other public and
private entities regionally, nationally and internationally
that will produce cost savings, improved efficiency, and
enhance the quality of services provided to internal and/or
external constituencies
11. That since teaching academic staff are a growing part of those
instructing students across the UW System, it is time to
examine the role of teaching academic staff within the UW
System with the intention of improving their status, roles,
rights and responsibilities. To this end, and consistent with
the language of Chapter 36, we request a review by the
University of Wisconsin System Administration of the issues
involved with teaching academic staff.
12. That the Board of Regents advance for public commentary a
proposal to authorize the President to pursue alternatives to
the current capital budgeting process. Those alternatives
would include:
* Seeking revenue bonding authority for projects
funded by University Program Revenues. This
program would apply only to the non-academic
facilities that are funded primarily from
university-generated user fees (dorms, student
unions, etc.).
* Seeking revenue bonding for academic projects with
at least 25-50% outside funding. This
alternative would be a variation of the present
WISTAR program, under which the state has
obligated itself to pay half the debt service on a
$150 million program to build new research
facilities.
The Board of Regents recognizes and accepts that it has
a responsibility to protect, sustain, and enhance the
resources for which it has been given stewardship.
However, the Board is frustrated in its ability to be
accountable to the public for that stewardship of the
$4.2 billion in physical facilities that have been
entrusted to its care. This frustration is generated
primarily by the uncertainty and lack of authority that
surrounds the current capital budgeting process.
Academic long-range planning and the ability to respond
to rapidly-changing technologies and needs are seriously
constrained because the funding to meet those needs is
controlled by entities which are outside the
jurisdiction of the Board of Regents. The Board is not
seeking release from all of those constraints. However,
the Board feels that it is essential that it be provided
a dependable level of funding within which to address
the infrastructure needs of its many clients and various
institutions.
A revenue bonding program for the University of
Wisconsin System capital budget would provide this
flexibility and improve its ability to be accountable.
However it is uncertain how acceptable such a program
would be. Nevertheless, the principle should be further
debated in conjunction with the more limited revenue
bonding program being advanced for public debate.
13. That the definition and measurement of results should be
expanded from its current focus to include all instructional
and instruction-related resources and recommends that the
President of the UW System, in cooperation with the
Chancellors of each UW institution, further define the
concept of "university effectiveness" and prepare a plan to
implement this concept throughout the UW System. This plan
should specify the principles, goals, and assessments to be
used in implementing the initiative.
14. The missions of University of Wisconsin System institutions
will be continuously redesigned during the decade ahead to
meet evolving student and state needs. Therefore, the Board
of Regents should advance for public commentary the proposal
that UW institutions be encouraged to create "3+4" programs to
allow high school students who demonstrate appropriate
competencies to enter the university after their junior year.
UW Center-Richland shall be designated as an Integrated
Learning Community with the flexibility to develop partnership
programs hat enhance student access to educational
opportunities, including a "3 plus 2" program allowing high
school students who demonstrate appropriate competencies to
enter the university after their junior year. This will
enable students to accelerate their high school education and
to reduce the cost of their college education. In addition, a
four year institution should be encouraged to pilot a "3+4"
program. In general, the working group also encourages closer
collaboration between the university and K-12 schools toward
the aim of creating a seamless web of educational opportunity
for high school students, including a "4+3" option.
15. That the Board of Regents request that System Administration,
working with all UW System institutions, create materials,
especially in any interactive electronic format, which will
encourage parents to begin saving for college early, help
them project the cost of attending the UW, and inform them
about student aid programs.
16. The missions of University of Wisconsin System institutions
will be continuously redesigned during the decade ahead to
meet evolving student and state needs. Therefore, the Working
Group recommends that the Board of Regents advance for public
commentary the proposal that at least one UW System
institution, contingent upon appropriate consultation, present
to the Board of Regents, by June 1997 a proposal to expand its
institutional autonomy.
17. That each UW institution create internally an
innovation/incentive fund of approximately .5% of its GPR/Fee
base budget to support system-wide priorities such as distance
education, instructional technology, and collaborative
programs. Each institution shall report on such reallocations
annually to the President of the System
18. The missions of University of Wisconsin System institutions
will be continuously redesigned during the decade ahead to
meet evolving student and state needs. Therefore, the Working
Group recommends that the Board of Regents advance for public
commentary the proposal that UW-Centers work closely in
collaboration with UW four-year institutions and with UW-
Extension, to deliver upper division and continuing education
courses. This will extend the benefits of career and
professional education to additional communities throughout
the state.
19. That the Board of Regents advance for public commentary a
proposal to permit one-time fund transfers between auxiliary
operations and from auxiliaries to other program-revenue,
student-supported activities (except instruction):
* expand System Administration policy on auxiliary
expenditures to permit the transfer of one-time
funds from one auxiliary activity to another
auxiliary activity for which additional one-time
funding is needed.
* amend the statues [Section 20.285(1)(h)] to
include:
"Each campus, the centers, and extension may,
after appropriate consultation, and upon approval
of the board, expend available moneys as needed
for any program-revenue, student-related activity
(except general program operations instruction)
for which additional one-time funding is needed."
20. That the Board of Regents advance for public commentary a
proposal to encourage UW System Administration to pursue the
investigation of various initiatives for which the Board, DOA
or Legislative approval is required to enhance management
flexibility in the areas of purchasing, personnel and fiscal
management. These initiatives (listed under Categories 4 and
5) include such matters as increasing the purchasing
threshold, creating incentives for energy conservation,
modifying the capital budget approval process, removing limits
on program revenue and FTE flexibility, changing auxiliary
reserve reporting, modifying State personnel rules. The UW
System Administration shall report the results of these
considerations to the Board of Regents.
21. That the Board of Regents advance for public commentary a
proposal to direct UW System Administration to advise on
flexibilities that UW System itself can implement. These
initiatives include modifying the System grant proposal
process, relaxing the rigidity between program revenue funds
and giving institutions the authority and responsibility for
all credit generation except correspondence study.
22. That the Board of Regents advance for public commentary
* a proposal that would delegate to the Chancellor
of each institution the authority to name rooms at
their institution, and;
* a recommendation rescinding the Board's Resolution
40 of 17 December 1971, which authorized the
System President and Vice President to deputize
university police officers and instead delegate to
each Chancellor the authority to deputize
university police officers on their campus to
enable them to exercise police functions
authorized by statutes.
Regent Lubar summarized these recommendations, noting that the group's
objectives were to seek flexibility in operations for each campus in the
System; to improve effectiveness at both the administrative and faculty
level; to encourage innovation to eliminate (wherever possible)
unnecessary bureaucracy and reporting; and to encourage new ideas. Regent
Gelatt observed that the group's recommendations regarding examining the
role of Board were important; Regent Krutsch added that the group had
suggested the formation of a special Regent committee to examine the
efficacy of Regent operations and responsibilities.
-
Working Group #4: Program Array
Recommendations Advanced For Public Commentary
The Chair of the Working Group on Program Array, Regent Orr, began his
report with a description of the process in which the group engaged to
arrive at these findings. He noted that they began by asking two
questions: whether unwarranted duplication in the programs arrays across
the System exists and whether the program array adequately meets the needs
of the State. In addressing the first question, the group found that
institutions had developed areas of particular emphasis with little
duplication. Where duplication was discovered, it was justified by the
need to provide breadth offerings to allow students to meet degree
requirements. In its analysis of changes in program array, the group
discovered that, since merger, there has been a small decline in the
number of programs offered (from 1,137 in 1972 to 1,109 in 1994/95).
Regent Orr noted that this is a dynamic process, however, since during
that period 290 programs were dropped, and 263 new programs were added.
In determining the response to the second question, the group found that
the UW System data mirrors the national data (drawn from a study by UCLA,
and from data provided by ACT). In general, student interests are subject
to change and to do so quickly; he reported that the UW System was able to
allocate resources according to those changes. Regent Orr added that
there is a fiscal concern regarding changes in program array, citing the
example of increased interests in business, computer science, and allied
health courses when compared to the declining interest in humanities
courses, which are less expensive to fund. Thus, responding to recent
changes in program array has put a financial strain on the system.
Finally, he reported that the working group compared the program array of
the UW System to similar systems around the country, finding that it is
average to below average in terms of the number of offerings. The group
concluded that the program array across the System is about right, and it
responds to the needs of the State.
The group then asked whether the environment within the System encouraged
innovation and new program development by looking at comparable systems in
other states, at the UW system, and at examples where incentive (or
performance) funding had been used to influence program development. The
conclusion reached by the group is that the experiments in
incentive/performance funding did not work very well. The only program
found which was successful was in the WTCS, where new state funds had been
provided--Regent Orr added that the prospect of additional state funds
might offer a true incentive for the chancellors, who had objected to
merely reallocating current funds.
He then presented the following five items for consideration:
1. Support the revised procedures for academic planning and
program review contained in ACIS-1 and that it review these
procedures in two years to evaluate their effectiveness in
facilitating new program development and suggest two types of
improvement: (a) revisions to the process itself; (b) new
improvements to further enhance the process of new program
development.
2. In order to improve overall program array planning systemwide,
direct the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs to meet
annually with the vice chancellors on issues of systemwide
program array, including such items as program addition and
deletion, institutional and systemwide program needs, needed
program changes and systemwide balance of program array. This
consultation shall result in a report for review by the
Chancellors that will be submitted to the Board of Regents as
part of the annual December program report.
3. In order to be able to innovate and respond to student demand,
seek a statutory change to permit expenditure of program
revenues as generated and creation of FTE positions as needed
for credit (Fund 104-131) outreach instructional programs.
This authority would be similar to that which the UW System
has with noncredit (Fund 104-132) outreach instructional
programs.
4. Seek changes in areas that create impediments to the efficient
management of academic program array. Examples of areas where
legislative changes would facilitate timely program array
decisions include:
* increase flexibility in expenditures of one-time
savings by eliminating the ceiling on carryover
for GPR funds;
* relax the rigidity within Program Revenue funds
and, where appropriate, between funds;
* free the credit outreach budget from fiscal and
other current restrictions.
5. Develop a modest Distance Education Incentive Fund (DEIF), to
be created from new dollars, for the purposes of : (1)
acknowledging and rewarding current distance education
activities, (2) encouraging development of new distance
education activities, and (3) fostering collaboration using
distance education technologies. As distance education
activities and collaborative efforts grow, there will be a
need to increase the size of the Distance Education Incentive
Fund.
Regent Orr concluded his report by thanking the members of the working
group.
Noting the dramatic changes in program array and the challenge to respond
quickly, given the UW System's structure and practices, Regent Gelatt
asked if the group had looked at tenure or the ratio of teaching academic
staff to tenured faculty as areas warranting change to be better prepared
to respond to changes in program demand. Regent Orr responded that while
the group did not address the tenure issue, it had looked at academic
staff appointments; it found that one of the major constraints in
responding rapidly to shifting program demand was long academic staff
appointments--he added that this is being addressed within the system.
Noting that tenure is a more difficult issue, he reported that he had
found that faculty are both creative and aware of changing demands:
departments shrink and faculty (even those with tenure) may transfer
elsewhere. However, no recommendations were made by the group regarding
tenured faculty or academic staff appointments, although Regent Orr noted
that chancellors were strongly encouraged to carefully examine the length
of academic staff appointments.
-
Working Group #5: Instructional Technology and Distance Education
Recommendations Advanced For Public Commentary
Regent Dreyfus, Chair, reported that the Working Group had chosen to focus
on two key issues: how new technology could be used to improve
instruction and how it can increase access for UW students Systemwide.
Five broad issues informed the group's study of these questions:
* preparation of the faculty for the use of instructional
technologies;
* the use of technology for distance education within the
system;
* the capacity to deal with organizations outside the UW System;
* determining the appropriate role of the UW-Extension; and
* finally, determining the ways distance education can be used
to supplement campus offerings at the UW Centers.
Regent Dreyfus reported that the initial discussion focussed on faculty
issues, and that the group wanted to ensure that faculty would and could
utilize this technology to its fullest potential; they will need a range
of support such as training, instructional design and technical support.
The group also wanted to emphasize responsiveness to student needs rather
than merely notions about improvements--the goal is to develop and enhance
a student-centered learning environment, removing the barriers of time and
place for students. He noted that the first recommendation takes this
issue as a matter of primary importance. The second recommendation
establishes four policy areas, while the remaining recommendations focus
on actions to be taken.
He then submitted the following recommendations for consideration by the
Board:
1. The working group recommends that the Board of Regents advance
for public commentary that the University of Wisconsin System
will establish a goal to use instructional and distance
education technologies to develop an enhanced student-centered
learning environment and remove time and place as barriers to
learning, both on and off campus.
2. The working group recommends that the Board of Regents advance
for public commentary that the University of Wisconsin System
concentrate its efforts to expand the use of instructional and
distance education technologies on the following four basic
policies:
* Respond to Student Needs. The University of Wisconsin
System will have a coordinated Systemwide plan that
effectively utilizes appropriate technologies to provide
high quality learning opportunities and services to
students to meet their lifelong learning needs.
* Facilitate,Review, and Recognize Faculty Contributions.
The University of Wisconsin System will facilitate
faculty use of instructional and distance education
technologies in their teaching and will review and
recognize their contributions to an enhanced student-
centered learning environment.
* Foster Internal and External Collaboration. The
University of Wisconsin System will use instructional
and distance education technologies to increase the
cooperation and collaboration among University of
Wisconsin System institutions and with appropriate other
institutions such as other universities, K-12 schools,
technical colleges, public libraries, businesses, and
communities in developing appropriate programs and
distance education delivery systems.
* Develop Instructional Technology Resources. The
University of Wisconsin System will provide training,
support, and, at minimum, access to University-based
hardware and software necessary for students, faculty
and staff to effectively use technologies in their
teaching and learning.
3 The working group recommends that the Board of Regents advance
for public commentary that the University of Wisconsin System
undertake the following actions to expand the use of
instructional and distance education technologies to support
the development of an enhanced student-centered learning
environment and remove time and place as barriers to learning,
both on and off campus:
* The University of Wisconsin System will assess the needs
of on- and off-campus students and establish a plan to
address student needs, in priority order.
* The Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs,
University of Wisconsin System Administration will be
given the authority and responsibility to implement the
Systemwide Strategic Plan for Instructional Technology
and Distance Education.
* The University of Wisconsin System institutions will be
directed to:
a. Provide that faculty effort expended in developing
instructional technologies for the classroom and
for distance education should be recognized in
promotion, merit, and tenure decisions (e.g.
equivalent to publications, teaching innovation,
etc.)
b. Recognize that time spent and documented in
development of instructional and distance
education technologies applications and in
training to use these technologies should be
treated as any other part of faculty and staff
workload
c. Develop a process to insure that faculty
effectiveness in improving teaching and learning
through the use of instructional and distance
education technologies is incorporated into
performance review and promotion and tenure
evaluations.
* The University of Wisconsin System will encourage the
marketing of its intellectual property.
a. The delivery of programs beyond the borders of the
state will be encouraged when the out-of-state
delivery makes access to the program more
affordable for Wisconsin citizens and when this
delivery may leverage funds.
b. Adjustment of non-resident tuition will be allowed
and facilitated when documentation of projected
out-of-state enrollments shows that out-of-state
delivery makes the program more viable and
affordable to Wisconsin citizens.
c. A non-stock, non-profit organization will be
created to support technology-based instructional
and distance education innovation.
* The University of Wisconsin System will establish
incentives specifically designed to encourage the start-
up of collaborative certificate or degree program
initiatives that use instructional and distance
education technologies.
* Policies dealing with a myriad of issues such as
transfer of credit, out-of-state delivery, workload,
assignment of student credit hours, assessment of
segregated fees, common course numbering, common
calendar, core and degree requirements, uniform
provision of student information (e.g., catalogues),
etc. will be reviewed, clarified, or changed to remove
barriers and encourage the use of technologies.
* The University of Wisconsin System will establish and
manage a fund to implement the four basic policies. An
annual fund of $25 million will be generated from one or
all of the following sources:
a. Request new state funding
b. Base reallocation at the institutions
c. Extramural funds (e.g. gifts, partnerships,
grants, entrepreneurial activities, etc.)
The fund will be allocated as follows:
a. Distance education student services
$ 6.25 million (25%)
b. Faculty development, support, and incentives
$10.00 million (40%)
c. Support start-up of collaborative
certificate or degree program initiatives
$ 6.25 million (25%)
d. Improve access to hardware and software
$ 2.50 million (10%)
4. The working group recommends that the Board of Regents advance
for public commentary that, to evaluate the progress made to
enhance a student-centered learning environment and remove
time and place as barriers to learning on and off campus:
* The University of Wisconsin System will define learning
needs by clientele group.
* The University of Wisconsin System will regularly assess
student satisfaction and other measures of academic
quality related to the use of instructional and distance
education technologies.
* The University of Wisconsin System will assess formal
working agreements and pilot projects to explore
collaborative strategies.
* The University of Wisconsin System will regularly assess
and report on student, faculty, and staff access to
hardware and software necessary to use instructional and
distance education technologies.
* The University of Wisconsin System will regularly
provide to the Board of Regents information on how
instructional and distance education technology
utilization has been incorporated into performance
reviews, promotion, merit, and tenure reviews and
decisions.
5. The working group recommends that the Board of Regents advance
for public commentary that, in its endeavor to expand the use
of instructional and distance education technologies, the
University of Wisconsin System be guided by the following
principles:
* All instructional and distance education technology is
student-centered; i.e., it is programmatically driven,
it is intended to enhance learning and increase access,
it accommodates different learning styles and
circumstances, and it enables innovative interaction
between faculty and students.
* Faculty are key to successful utilization of
instructional and distance education technologies.
* Increased attention must be given to using instructional
and distance education technologies to meet the lifelong
learning needs of Wisconsin citizens.
* Interinstitutional collaboration is a means to
effectively utilize instructional and distance education
technologies to enhance learning and increase access.
* The need for standards, compatibility, and collaboration
is balanced with recognition of the diverse missions,
priorities, and local traditions of the University of
Wisconsin System institutions.
* All campuses must have appropriate infrastructure
hardware and software to participate in comprehensive
and coordinated use of instructional and distance
education technologies.
- - -
The meeting concluded at 4:25 p.m.
Submitted by Judith A. Temby, Secretary
3/19/96 emk
