MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY
INDIANA UNIVERSITY PURDUE UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS
JANUARY 28, 2005

Trustees Present: President Frederick F. Eichhorn Jr. , Jamie B. Belanger, Clarence W. Boone, Sr., Cora Breckenridge, Jeffrey S. Cohen, Stephen L. Ferguson, Erin Haag Breese, Patrick A. Shoulders, Sue H. Talbot

University Representatives: President Adam W. Herbert

Vice President/Chancellors: Charles R. Bantz, Kenneth Gros Louis

Vice Presidents: Terry Clapacs, Tom Healy, Michael McRobbie, Charlie Nelms, Judith G. Palmer, William B. Stephan

Chancellors: Bruce Bergland, David Fulton, Una Mae Reck, Sandra Patterson-Randles, Ruth Person

University Counsel: Dorothy Frapwell, Secretary: Robin Roy Gress

Attendees: Karen Adams, Rosa Ayers, Doug Tyler Bond, Booher, Dana Bricker, Kevin Brown, Roland Bullard, Ben Carollo, Tyson Chastain, Stewart Cobine, Pat Conner, Casey Cox, Lynn Coyne, Jack Dahl, David Daleke, Jennifer M. Dekiney, Holly Dunn, J T. Forbes, Bemmy Granades, Stuart Green, Alfred J. Guillaume, Jr., Lehsa Greibel, John Grew, Susan Hannah, Melissa Harbeson, Steve Hennifeld, Norma Holland, Dorothy W. Ige, Bruce Jacobs, Steve Keucher, Kelly Kish, Christopher Langford, Libby Lewis, Art Lindeman, Lindsay Lyon, Bob Martin, Larry McIntyre, Sara McNabb, Kathleen McNeely, Bob Meadows, Ted Miller, Susan Moke, Bill Newby, Bart Ng, David Nguyen, John Paflas, Doug Priest, Terry Radke, Dennis Reedy, Edwardo Rhodes, Larry Richards, Dan Rives, Vicky Roberts, Marsha Roberts, Tony Sams, Jenny Seymer, Jeanne Sept, Paul Sullivan, Neil Theobald, Barry Thomas, Lisa Townsend, Sandy Turpin, Marilyn Vasques, Sacha Willsey, Jeff Wuslich, William Yost, Eric Zeenering

BUSINESS MEETING

I. CALL TO ORDER

Trustee Eichhorn: Good afternoon everyone. Nice to see you all here. I would like to acknowledge the presence of one of our emeriti, Sacha Willsey. Sacha, would you stand for our greeting? Welcome we are happy to have you here.

Chancellor Gros Louis, we want to thank you for your hospitality; as always it has been a delightful stay here in Bloomington.

A. General Business

  1. Approval is requested of the minutes for the meeting of December 3, 2004, which includes the Administrative Action Report of November 5, 2004

    Unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

  2. Approval is requested from the Riley Children’s Foundation Board of Governors Executive/Nominating Committee for the appointment of Dr. George Rapp, for a partial three-year term appointment on the Board of Governors, beginning January 27, 2005, and concluding November 15, 2006.

    Unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

  3. Approval is requested for the approval of the reappointment of Jack Koetter and the appointment of Edward Jerdonek to the IU Southeast Board of Advisors for three- year terms, beginning July 1, 2004, and ending June 30, 2007.

    Unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

    Trustee Breckenridge: Mr. President, in the past we have not approved the appointment of members to campus Boards of Advisors. Is that going to be a new practice?

    Robin Gress: Mr. President, I was asked to clarify the practice by the president’s office when it received the IU Southeast names. The failure to approve campus boards has been more a matter of oversight than intention. The 1987 delegation of authority clearly states that boards of visitors and boards of advisors require trustee approval.

  4. Approval is requested to change the dates of the October 2005 Board of Trustees meeting from October 27-28, 2005 to Thursday-Friday, November 3-4, 2005 at IU East to avoid a conflict with the meeting of the Clarian Board of Directors.

    Unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

B. PRESIDENT’S REPORT

Dr. Herbert: Thank you very much President Eichhorn. There are several things I’d like to share with the board.

First in the area of government relations, I testified at a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee three weeks ago. I’ve asked that a copy of the outline of my testimony be included in your board books in case you would like to see what I attempted to convey on behalf of the university. There were a number of questions that I thought provided an opportunity to give the members of the committee a greater insight into some of our highest priorities.

Also last week, along with the presidents of other institutions in the state, we had an opportunity to visit with Governor Daniels. I thought it was a very productive meeting. It provided an opportunity for us to share with the governor information about the missions of our campuses, some of our highest priorities, to talk about the state of higher education in general, and to hear his views about the important role that higher education can and must play in addressing some of the critical needs of the state. He indicated his hope that the university faculty might work more closely with government, particularly as it relates to the areas of policy analysis and research that would help to better inform the public policy formulation process, so we are working on some ways that we might be able to respond to that request in talking with the leadership in both the House and Senate majority and minority leaders. We will develop a more formal set of strategies to facilitate that kind of collaboration in talking with the leadership of the University Faculty Council. There is a very strong interest on the part of the faculty to be part of our effort to reach out to state government. The governor also indicated that he would like to meet with us periodically during the year. We feel that would be a very helpful mechanism for assuring a level of communication with the chief executive officer of the state that is very important if we are going to fulfill the high aspirations that the people of this state have for our economic growth and development future.

I’d also like to share with you some information about our compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. As you know there are several requirements tied back to new FLSA regulations, which have a clear impact on all employers and our employees. I’d like to ask Terry Clapacs to share with you what we have done. We had a compliance date for these new regulations of August 23, 2004, and Terry and his staff have done an excellent job in responding to the requirements of the act.

Update: Federal Labor Standards Act Review

Terry Clapacs: Thank you very much Mr. President. Indeed, in order to assure compliance with the new language that was added to the Fair Labor Standards Act through the Department of Labor, Indiana University undertook a fairly extensive review of many employee positions at the university. Approximately 2,030 were reviewed, most being in classifications levels 9, 10, 11 and some in 12. Following that review, looking carefully at job descriptions and the duties therein, and allowing each of the incumbents to participate in the review by updating job descriptions, a new category has been established at Indiana University called the PAO category, which means Professional Administrative, Overtime-Eligible. We now have slightly more than 800 employees in that new classification, which means that they are now eligible for overtime compensation. This new category is a permanent category, so it’s not just that these incumbents are grandfathered. New employees or positions may be added to this classification, certainly replacements, through turnover will continue to be classified in that category and what it basically means is that those employees will keep all of their benefits that they had when they were professional employees and not overtime-eligible. They will earn the same compensation, but they will earn overtime at time and a half for those hours beyond 40 hours a week. That overtime can be paid either through salary or through paid time off at the time and a half rate, and there is a maximum of 160 hours, which is an increase in the total cap. So I think it’s essentially the best of all worlds for those employees.

Another 30 employees were reclassified to clerical technical levels, but they, too, will remain in the monthly payroll system, as will the new PAO’s. So there is no change in the payroll frequency. I think that Dan Rives and his staff have handled this very, very well. All of this goes into effect April 1, and Dan is continuing to field questions from chancellors, deans, directors and employees and will do so on a continuing basis, but we are at the end of the process and I think that we are all things considered, in a very good position Mr. President.

Dr. Herbert: To the members of the board, I reiterate Dan Rives and Terry and all of his colleagues have done an outstanding job on this with a great deal of sensitivity to the impact on our employees. I want to again thank him and express our appreciation to Dan Rives for his leadership, his willingness to talk with administrators as well as faculty and staff throughout this process, has been deeply appreciated.

Terry Clapacs: It’s not easy being the messenger of bad news but Dan has done that very well and I think he is here, let’s say thank you to Dan Rives.

Update: IU Northwest Accreditation

Dr. Herbert: On another matter, I’m very pleased to share with you some good news. The School of Business and Economics at IU Northwest has regained its AACSB accreditation. I know that many trustees have been interested in this issue and also supportive of the campus as its gone through this process. I would like to congratulate Chancellor Bergland as well as the dean of the School of Business and Economics and also the many faculty who have worked to achieve this important goal. Chancellor do you want to say anything to the board with regard to this?

Bruce Bergland: As everybody knows, we in the administration assist in these matters by providing support but Dean Rominger has done just an outstanding job. I just need to re-emphasize that she and the faculty have worked hard for four years. We were losing the accreditation just as I came into the position; she took over and she really deserves the lion’s share of the credit along with our faculty. Thank you.

Dr. Herbert: Although all of you are aware of one of the most exciting developments that we’ve had for some time on the Bloomington campus, I want to mention for the record that we are extremely excited about the generosity of the Lilly Endowment in providing $53 million to expand and intensify basic research at the cellular level on the Bloomington campus through the “Metacyte” initiative (Indiana Metabolimics and Cytomics Initiative) As all of you know, this is the largest single grant that the campus has ever received. I have conveyed our appreciation to the leadership of the endowment, but I want the record to show how much we appreciate the vision that the Lilly Endowment has demonstrated, initially in its support of INGEN and most recently with regard to this effort. There’s no question but that its support is helping us to lay the foundation for the world-class aspirations that we have in the life sciences.

I also have two other brief items to present to the board. The first relates to discussions we had during the fall term with regard to enrollments. I’d like to ask Judy Palmer to present our official enrollments for the spring term.

Update: Campus Enrollments and Student Enrollment Services

Judy Palmer: Thank you Mr. President. In spite of some challenges posed by the post-holiday weather, we were able to finalize spring enrollments this week, and I can report to you today that the enrollment for the spring semester for ’05 compared with the spring semester of ’04 was down 1.4% in headcount and credit hours. You will recall that for the fall semester we were down just about six-tenths of a percent. This was not an unexpected level of attrition that we saw in the spring semester. So I don’t think there is anything of significant import here.

Dr. Herbert: Thank you very much Judy. We appreciate that. Now let me ask Michael McRobbie and Ken Gros Louis to come forward. As you will recall, at the last meeting I indicated that both vice presidents were assuming responsibility for various aspects of financial aid and Student Enrollment Services (SES). So I’d like to ask both of them to give you an update on where we are in terms of those issues. Michael why don’t we start with you.

Michael McRobbie: I have already written to the Trustees, but by summary I can say that there have been no significant problems with financial aid processing for the spring semester.

This was pretty much what we expected. We’ve had more experience and more training with the new system. I would note, though, that we have to remain vigilant because the loan processing activity for the spring semester is much less than the fall. We will need to watch closely, but everything bodes well for the future, based on what happened this semester. Several people noted how smoothly things went.

It’s also worth commenting that with the completion of the Student Information System (SIS) in December, we finished the re-engineering and replacement of all of the university’s information systems, a task that started back in 1998. This was a really massive six-year process, and was the largest and most complex software development project in the university’s history. It involved about a dozen major new systems. It actually went flawlessly, except for the problems last fall.

There are, of course, many things still to be done in terms of follow-ups and further enhancements and customization. No sooner do you finish one huge project like this then all the other projects that people want you to start begin to come before you as well. I think a success of this magnitude is really a comment on the tireless and outstanding efforts of the hundreds of members of the university across all the campuses who contributed to making this such a success and as I said last time when I spoke to you this is a success of which we should be immensely proud.

The president has asked me to remain as chair of the VP Sponsor Group for the system until an ongoing review, which Chancellor Gros Louis will discuss in a minute, is finished. I’m hoping that those duties will be completed by the middle of the year.

Dr. Herbert: Michael, one of the concerns that the trustees had at the last meeting related to some of the long lines at IUPUI. Can you tell us how that went?

Michael McRobbie: I believe that there were no queues at IUPUI, which is a comment on the great energy with which the staff at IUPUI and the staff working centrally on this dealt with the problems and issues. I think Chancellor Bantz has also put significant new resources into the office up there to help expand its ability to deal with some of these issues as well. I look forward to our friends in the media printing a headline tomorrow that says, “No Queues at IU.”

Ken Gros Louis: Since I last reported to you in December, I think you know that there is a new corporate owner of the software that we use for the IU information system. You know after months of negotiation, which is a kind word, Oracle acquired PeopleSoft and the new owners have pledged to continue support of the PeopleSoft products for at least the next seven to eight years. Obviously these are technology issues that fall to Michael McRobbie and his staff for ongoing assessment.

An important goal of the project initially was to create a student enrollment services unit, highly centralized, that would serve all campuses. But as I indicated to you in December, the president asked that I undertake a review of the SES proposal, because of costs and some other considerations. He’s hoping to develop alternative approaches, including decentralization of some of the original SES responsibilities. One of the reasons for that is making sure that the president knows who is accountable if something goes wrong.

In the past month we have identified and engaged two external consultants and one internal one. As I mentioned in December, one of the external consultants is Robert Kravik, a senior fellow of the Educause Center for Applied Research and associate vice president at Minnesota. He’s worked with IU before and has committed himself to this engagement. A second individual was engaged by the name of Philip Goldstein. He also is a research fellow at the Educause Center for Applied Leadership and the founder of a management consulting firm that provides strategy guidance to higher education for technology and business information. Art Lindemann agreed to be the internal consultant and he began his work on January 1.

In broad terms we’ve asked the consultants to recommend which student enrollment services should be centralized and which ones decentralized. We’ve asked them to evaluate the adequacy of the existing SES structure to provide such services. We’re asking them to identify the campuses where IU has the capabilities to deliver some of the decentralized services and where there is not the capability.

Finally we are expecting to receive recommendations on an appropriate reporting structure for student enrollment services within IU. Three consultants are discussing the background documents that we sent them, preparing for their review. They’ll conduct the majority of their onsite work the week of February 7, so they’ll be here and in Indianapolis for five days and will visit a long list of people that have been active and that have concerns in this area. We’ve asked that they issue their recommendations by the first of March. We’ve asked them to issue separate recommendations rather than a single recommendation because we think we will learn more; there will be overlap of course if we have three separate recommendations. Everyone knows that startup problems exist and issues need to be addressed. Once these recommendations are received on March 1, we’ll move as quickly as possible to implement the best ideas for the new unit. Other institutions that have installed PeopleSoft know that improvements are gradual. As it’s likely to be with us, it took some time to build upon their initial investments to deliver innovative solutions that improve the way they do business.

For example, we know that we need to make improvements in the coordination of our SIS / SES planning activities as we go through the full cycles of an academic year. As we approach the registration period for fall 2005 for example, and the new arrangements for the 2005 summer sessions, we know that unanticipated problems can still surprise us. This summer students will be billed for the entire summer term which can be for any or all of the individual sessions. Thus students may be reluctant to register for their choice of summer sessions in March, when they realize that they will be billed for the entire summer in the initial bill. We also need to be prepared to address the cash flow needs of students with emergency loans or advances at the beginning of the summer term if refunds are severely reduced or unavailable. Now we’re going to work as hard as possible to give a positive experience to these students. We also know that timely and accurate information is critical for student enrollment departments as they conduct their business. It’s not a big surprise, but our initial capability to extract such information has been limited. We will be devoting special attention to the tools and information that can be made available to staff and students to help them identify problems and to resolve issues. As our knowledge and our experience develops we expect to provide the university and especially our students with the services and information that they have come to expect. The university has a long tradition of providing outstanding student enrollment services and we also hope that someday very soon our new system will provide us with a much better platform of tools and information for this part of the student experience at Indiana University.

Dr. Herbert: Thank you Ken. The one observation that Ken made I think leads to a natural question that goes back to you Michael, in light of the ownership changes of PeopleSoft and given the investment that we’ve made now and the commitment to support this for several years. As you look down the road, from an IT perspective, what are your thoughts about the implications of that acquisition on us as we continue to utilize the software?

Michael McRobbie: There’s a view here that somehow Oracle taking over PeopleSoft is like uneducated marauders taking over PeopleSoft. Oracle is a huge; it’s one of the top technology companies and we had already worked with it. We are a major user of Oracle’s database system. It’s a very fine technology company -- one the great leaders and innovators in information technologies – and I think one could argue that it may be a good thing to go from a relatively small niche company to one of the premier IT companies in the world, with very deep pockets. They have also committed to maintain the present products in this area for another seven years at least. As a fallback though to that optimistic scenario, which I think is probably the most realistic one, we also own the code, and together with the other I think it’s seven schools in the Big Ten, who are also PeopleSoft customers, we could pretty much handle all the future modifications and upgrades and what have you, collectively, if we needed to in this year. Remember that there are, in fact, about 200 universities, most of the significant number of the major universities in the country, who run PeopleSoft student information system as well which are all now Oracle customers. We found Oracle to be an excellent partner in the past and I would be very surprised if that were to significantly change.

Trustee Belanger: Realizing this is probably a little more specific than we want to get into, I have heard in several forums now the concerns that students have had with the new system and the loss of the feature that lets them waitlist a class and then automatically have it added if it were to come open. Are those types of concerns being looked at in future upgrades? Are we working with the users, in this case the students, to implement those sort of improvements?

Ken Gros Louis: There’s a committee on the Faculty Council that has already recommended the reinstallation of the waitlist, the rain check and other things. There are associated costs, and it’s a question of prioritizing what’s going to be customized now that the system is in. But I think that the faculty are very aware of the value of the waitlist to students and have made that reintroduction a high priority.

Trustee Belanger: Do we know how much it would cost?

Michael McRobbie: I believe Norma Holland is here and she could answer that. Norma is the associate vice president for information systems, and she’s actually been responsible for the whole implementation of all these systems and deserves sainthood in my view.

Norma Holland: As Vice President McRobbie said, there are a number of requests for customization now that we have the system in place. We are working with faculty groups and administrative groups and listening to the students and we’ll prioritize those requests and make enhancements. We do not have the cost but we can get that.

Dr. Herbert: As we develop an ultimate list of priorities, you might want to share that with us so that we can keep the board informed of what we are attempting to accomplish with the cost estimates on that.

Norma Holland: Yes we can do that.

Dr. Herbert: Great, thank you.

Trustee Shoulders: Would it be fair to say that the difficulties and the gnashing of teeth that went along with this whole implementation has declined?

Ken Gros Louis: It’s fair, but keep in mind what Michael said; that there’s a smaller number of new registrants in the second semester than the first semester.

Trustee Shoulders: I appreciate that. But we’ve been at functions where people talked about any number of problems, such as how graduate students couldn’t get their checks if they were teaching because they were also students, and it all came back to this new computer system. Have we grown into it now? Are the problems getting smoothed out?

Michael McRobbie: Yes, the problems are being smoothed out and many problems have been solved. We are not over all the problems. In fact you’re never over all of the problems with these things. But we’re in much better shape than three or four months ago. There will always be an insatiable demand for new functionality. People will want new things done all the time. There’s no such thing as a perfect system. You make one change and another problem crops us somewhere else. But I think this semester, from all the information that I have, went extremely smoothly. If we get through the next semester without any significant problems of any kind, then I think we can by and large declare victory. At the moment we are declaring provisional victory.

Trustee Breckenridge: Vice President McRobbie, we had lunch today with faculty. There were five faculty at my table and I asked them to tell me what they absolutely felt was the worst problem on the Bloomington campus and they said unequivocally, PeopleSoft.

Michael McRobbie: Well did you ask them for details?

Trustee Breckenridge: I told them I thought that they should write up their complaints and send them to President Herbert. But I just wanted to share that with you.

Dr. Herbert: I want you to know that it will get my attention and also Vice President McRobbie’s. Mr. President that concludes my report.

Trustee Eichhorn: Thank you Mr. President. As Cora mentioned just before this meeting, we had the opportunity and the privilege to have lunch with representative of the Bloomington Faculty Council and that was a very enjoyable event. David we thank you for your cooperation in arranging that, and we now turn to you for your report.

C. Remarks from David Daleke, Co-Secretary, University Faculty Council

David Daleke: I would also like to thank you for meeting with us for lunch. I think that such opportunities for informal exchanges and conversations are one of the things that are unique about Indiana University and make this a wonderful place to work. As I mentioned at lunch, I think that one of the strengths at Indiana University is the degree to which faculty and administration and the Board of Trustees work together on common problems. This type of collaboration has really made us one of the more outstanding examples of faculty governance across the country and it’s recognized for that. I also hope that we can hold similar events on other campuses as well. I think that the diversity of faculty opinion will become apparent as you meet faculty at all of these sites, and I strongly encourage you to do so.

I’d like to give you an update on some of the activities of both the Bloomington Faculty Council and the University Faculty Council and then I may end with a comment about some recent events, some very positive recent events.

As you will recall, last fall the Bloomington Faculty Council was asked to consider the establishment of a priority registration process for student athletes because their competition and training schedules often conflicted with their ability to get into the courses they needed. IU didn’t have a student athlete priority registration policy and when we took this up and began to look into it one of the first questions was why don’t we have it. We’re one of two institutions in the Big Ten that don’t, and the reasons are ones that you heard about just a moment ago. That is, our Legacy System contained some very innovative programs that allowed all of our students to be able to enroll in the courses that they wanted to rather easily the waitlist system, and the rain check system was very powerful. During the implementation of the PeopleSoft system, it was recognized that some of these functionalities would not continue. In fact, there is a committee, the Academic Priorities Committee of the SES project, that prioritized those functionalities so that we could decide which ones we could afford to implement and those which we could not. Unfortunately, the rain check system was one of those that was further down on the list. But it has been a topic of discussion amongst the faculty council for some time. We referred this problem to the Educational Policies Committee, and they consulted with a number of groups, including students, including the Athletics Department, and considered a number of options to solve the problem. I won’t go into the details of the ones that were rejected but suffice it to say that there were several other options than the one that they finally presented. Ultimately the committee decided that the simplest type of priority registration system might at least for now be the best, and that is to allow student athletes to register after graduate and professional students but before the rest of the undergraduate student body.

They presented this to the Bloomington Faculty Council where it was discussed, and I have to say the discussion was very lively. There was a significant amount of opposition, particularly amongst the faculty and especially amongst the students. So this is not a policy that has unanimous support. The primary reason is that it isolates one group of students. The sentiment I heard repeatedly in favor of passing it is that this may set us on a path to correct the problem that occurred in the move from the Legacy system to the PeopleSoft system, and allow all students who might have similar types of problems to be able to get into the courses they need so they can progress toward their degrees and graduate on time. In fact, built into our resolution we make those statements. This is a three-year interim policy. During that time we’ve asked the registrar to collect data on the consequences that this program might have on students who are not athletes. We do not want to adversely affect any other component of the student body. We’ve also encouraged the university to pursue adding the functionalities to PeopleSoft that we’ve just discussed so that all students would have the same type of a benefit and ultimately would make this policy irrelevant. At least at the minimum, we asked that during the course of this time, the faculty council is going to be considering a replacement policy that would narrowly target those students that have problems with registration and not broadly casting that over even just one specific group. The numbers are sufficiently small enough we feel that that is reasonable to do but certainly something we couldn’t do in a very short time. And as I mentioned this policy will expire in three years unless the council acts otherwise.

As you know from my previous reports, the University Faculty Council has a fairly heavy legislative agenda of items that may come before you some time this semester. I’d like to give you an update on a few items that will come to you at the next meeting and give you a brief preview of something that will come to you at the meeting after that.

As you all know, shortly after the president began his term he assembled two task forces to address the Graduate School and the School of Continuing Studies. Those task groups worked for approximately six or nine months throughout last year and issued reports. The president and vice president for academic affairs rendered their opinions on the report and passed those along to the faculty council early last fall. We then asked our appropriate committees to address these reports in the recommendations, and we heard the first readings at the last UFC meeting last week. We had a good discussion on both of those issues. Without going into detail, both of the UFC resolutions pretty much accept all of the recommendations that the president and vice president for academic affairs had. These will come up for final votes on February 8 at the next UFC meeting.

The next document that we’re going to consider at the February 8 meeting is the chancellor’s review policy. As you know, this is a policy that we’ve been working on for some time now. It has come before you at least once and was referred back to the UFC and the chancellors for further revision. Again I won’t go into too many of the details because you know them already but I would like to say that this fall, Bart and I undertook a more open conversation with the chancellors in order to resolve any final issues. We had a very productive meeting with a group of the chancellors at the last board meeting. We have discussed their proposed revisions with the entire UFC and we are expecting to bring this to a vote at the February 8 meeting. This is a policy that will come to you at your March meeting for your consideration.

There are two other policies that will come to you, probably by the April meeting. One of them is the student code. This is a complete revision. I am pleased to report that we are ahead of schedule in some ways on that revision. We have taken the previous student code and divided it into two sections, a policy section and a procedural section. The policy draft has been completed and is now being circulated for discussion amongst our councils. We are going to have a reading of those revisions on February 8 and a final vote on March 8 so it will come to you for your consideration in the April meeting. This policy document is a lot shorter than the document that currently exists. I’m not sure how many pages this will translate into, but actually it’s something that you can read in a short amount of time. This, actually, was one of our goals: to make it short enough that students would have easy access to it, and would actually read it. There will also be some procedural guidelines that will come along with this, but most of the procedures will be campus based. Each of the campus councils will be tasked with developing their own procedural guidelines.

The next policy that will come to you, probably at the same meeting, is a policy on criminal background checks for academic employees. As you know, IU currently has a policy for criminal background checks for staff, and over the past year we have been working on a draft of a policy for academic employees as well. This is currently in our Faculty Affairs Committee. It is due for a first reading on February 8 and it will come up for a final vote on March 8. As with our student code policy, this policy was discussed broadly amongst all the affected groups, the dean of faculties, and we consulted with university counsel as well as with our faculty groups.

Another issue related to UFC business, and I want to follow with what the president had said, is that the faculty have been very concerned about some of the House and Senate bills that have been introduced recently, especially those that deal with health care and academic freedom. We want to thank the president for helping to facilitate a conversation with Vice President Healy and J T. Forbes. In fact, the UFC Agenda Committee is having a meeting with them on the morning of February 8, which is day of the State House visit. Unfortunately, the UFC meets at 1:30, the same time that the visit starts, so we won’t be able to attend the meeting. However, we are going to encourage our members to attend the reception and Dr. Herbert’s speech afterwards, after the UFC meeting. So we are looking forward to that. That’s the UFC business.

Trustee Ferguson: David I want to congratulate you on all the work that’s been going on …(End of tape).

Trustee Ferguson: … (F)rom my standpoint, I’d like to emphasize the need to have a background-check policy that covers all employees across the university, and have it uniform between the campuses. You’ve been working on various issues of human resources, but I think it’s important that we have uniform policies throughout the university in all areas, and uniform enforcement. We have responsibilities not only as trustees for the welfare of faculty, staff and students, and I think we ought to take every precaution that we can to protect them and so I encourage you to look at that very carefully.

David Daleke: In case you don’t know, IUPUI already has an academic-employee background-check policy in place, and one of the reasons why we are taking this up at the UFC is to try to come up with a university-wide policy that can be applied to academic employees. We are cognizant of the policy for staff as well, and are well aware of the details of it, too. So yes we are in agreement in both of those points.

I have one last point. Again, it follows on something that the president mentioned. That is the recent announcement of the Lilly Endowment’s $53-million gift to establish the Metacyte program. You’ve heard lots of positive things already. You’ve heard many of the details. But from a faculty point of view, I have to tell you that those who are involved in this project are not only excited, but the level of morale has risen quite substantially. As you know this gift not only emphasized some of the strengths of this campus, but it also is going to stimulate some of the fast-rising areas of research in the life sciences in Bloomington. I think that this is going to have a tremendous effect, and you’ll see some results immediately, others within a few years. You’re going to see a complete change in our approach to life sciences here. So once again we thank the Lilly Endowment for their large gift.

D. Remarks from Tyson Chastain, President, Indiana University Student Association

Tyson Chastain: As always I’d like to thank you for having us here today. It’s always nice when students can express their concerns to the trustees because we know you are very busy people and we do appreciate you giving us this time.

IUSA has been working on a number of issues, one being priority registration. The Student Body Congress voted on it last night, and were in approval. They wanted to show that students support athletes, especially in light of criticism that we are not supportive.

The Congress is also interested in seeing improvement in the PeopleSoft issues, especially wait-listing and reinstatement of the old rain-check system, and we’d like to know how do students get a commitment to getting those systems fixed. The BFC has done their part, and I’d like to thank them and David Daleke for including us.

I would also like to reassure Trustee Talbot that we are going to be starting a cleanup campaign for IDS newspapers. This issue came up when we were talking about the Readership program, and we feel that students have a role in keeping our campus clean and beautiful.

I am involved in the Student Trustee Search and Screen process. Trustee Breese has done a great job. We will be reviewing applications shortly, and I’m pretty sure we’ll get some good candidates.

The Big Ten Student Government Conference will be hosted at IUB in coming weeks. We will be discussing issues such as fees, tuition increases, state funding, state representation and the upcoming State House visit, which IUSA is participating. The conference provides a great opportunity for student governments to get together and address what other campuses are doing.

As you know, as student body president, I chair the CFR, the Committee for Fee Review. It is wholly comprised of students, and I do not have a vote. The president and the chancellor have committed to this process over time. The committee provides a process for students to voice their concerns about mandatory fees. The committee is meeting now.

One point that comes up repeatedly is that students support fees that are connected to services. One of the things that students have been talking about is the transportation fee. Initially, the fee covered Bloomington transit and the Stadium Express and Midnight Special. Now students have some free services, but they also have to pay for bus passes for specific routes. What we’re working on is getting that second step implemented, which would provide access to safe transportation anywhere on campus. We feel this is a fee that students support because they are getting a direct service for it. I think that’s important to stress. It’s an interesting process. Transportation Director Maggie Whitlow has met with the Congress and the BFC, and relayed both pro and con sentiments about the service. We think that transportation is going to be an interesting topic because we all know that IUB has problems with parking and such, and we need to start doing something about it.

I’d also like to mention the athletics fee. President Herbert and I met before Christmas break and we discussed the fee. I would like to thank him for talking to us about the student body’s concern, and for the Athletic Department committing to make a presentation to the Committee for Fee Review.

A number of issues about the fee have been raised by professors, students and even some administrators. They have asked if this fee is covering the deficit, where is it going, and why are we covering a deficit? Are we setting a precedent for other schools and departments to use a fee to cover a deficit? It’s been a very interesting conversation, and I don’t know where things will go. The members of the committee are students who are well respected on campus. They understand the need for fees, and they realize there are always financial problems.

I might mention that we are trying to do is make the CFR an annual process rather than a two-year process.

Trustee Talbot: I would like to thank you for the cleanup effort. Interestingly, at our luncheon with faculty today, it became clear that the learning environment, in the broadest sense of the word, is something we need to be more aware of. You’re making a step in the right direction for this university and we’re very proud of you for taking this on and for reporting that to us. Thank you.

Trustee Breese: Tyson, for our information with regard to the fee review process, who does the committee work with, and how do you come up with numbers for such things as how much it would cost or how much the fee would have to increase to be able to support the increased services?

Tyson Chastain: I’ll start by explaining the Committee for Fee Review. The IUSA president chairs the committee, and Damon Sims in the Dean of Students’ office co-chairs. Vice Chancellor Neil Theobald also attends. They are both ex-officio members. It is not student government; it is a board comprised of students. It looks at budgets and reviews their mandatory fees.

We receive budget requests, line-item budgets, from various organizations. For instance, IUSA submits a budget, and if we have a fee request, we outline that in the budget. The committee evaluates all of the requests.

Trustee Breese: So if you’re dealing with transportation or the Health Center or something, if they’re submitting budgets, where does that budget come from to know that that is sufficient money to cover what it says it will cover?

Tyson Chastain: Various budgets are reviewed by different administrators, such as Vice President Clapacs or Vice President Palmer. We review the budgets of various student organizations with our advisors, and if there’s a substantial request, we send that on to Dean McKaig. So these are budgets are respected. They definitely outline where the money is going. Students can do this job and students can understand the financial problems that we have here at Indiana University. They respect the process and they are very professional.

Trustee Shoulders: I heard you say that the students support priority enrollment because they support athletics. Is the athletic fee going to be considered as part of this? Describe the process there for me.

Tyson Chastain: Athletes are students and they are part of us, so yes we do support them, but that doesn’t mean we always support decisions that are made for them. In regards to priority registration, we understand that athletes have a problem. Some of them couldn’t get into their classes, but that doesn’t mean that we directly support priority registration because of the problems with PeopleSoft. So you can support people, but not always support exactly what has been given to them. So that’s sort of split then.

Trustee Shoulders: So you can support athletics but not be real happy with an athletic fee?

Tyson Chastain: Yes, and I feel that a majority of students are unhappy with the process of the request for the fee.

Trustee Shoulders: But Congress acted upon the priority enrollment situation.

Tyson Chastain: Yes, they take a position on a lot of policy changes.

Trustee Shoulders: How is it that you are proposing to consider the continuation of the athletic fee in some way, shape or form?

Tyson Chastain: There are two separate processes. IUSA is different from the Committee for Fee Review. We’re a student government. We’ll take it through the Congress, which represents all students. If the Committee for Fee Review came out with certain requests that the representatives didn’t support, we would have to note that it’s two different processes. One is the voice of the Committee for Fee Review, the other is the voice of Congress. But I totally support the Committee for Fee Review.

Trustee Ferguson: I had two questions. One, the governor’s Commission on Affordability has recommended certain timelines and hearing dates and processes for tuition and mandatory fees and has recommended that the Board of Trustees hold a public hearing in March on tuition and fees. That means you need to have something to present and discuss and for the public to comment on by March. Secondly, we set fees and tuition for two-year periods. How does that fit with your process, and have you discussed it?

Tyson Chastain: I think that’s the hardest thing. We have been asking should we respect the 4% cap on tuition? The Committee for Fee Review has decided, even though we haven’t really heard specifically, to work within a 4%-increase, in case you are given that kind of limit.

The two-year timeline is very hard. Yes, we are getting money in two years, but every year there’s fee requests and there’s a tuition request. You hope for the best from the state, but you’ve got to deal with the problems when they arise. We will make sure that the Committee for Fee Review has its proposal done so that trustees will have adequate time to review it. It’s hard to go every two years when there’s requests every year. That’s why we are suggesting that the Committee for Fee Review make annual decisions so students can have a voice in that process.

Trustee Ferguson: In your discussions with representatives of the other campuses have you got a feel for how they feel on their particular campus for supporting athletics on those campuses?

Tyson Chastain: We talked about it at the AUSA meeting today, especially in the context of fees and PeopleSoft across the board. Their thoughts on fees, we are being put in a crunch by the state. Money needs to come from somewhere and usually what we do is tax students. So they’re a little nervous about fees in general. We thank the trustees for capping tuition and fees last year. Most campuses don’t have fee breakdowns; they only have one fee or a couple fees. At IUB, we’re lucky enough to have breakdowns, our fees have been around long enough, we have intramural sports for students, rec sports and then an athletic fee. So we separate the student services from subsidizing a deficit. So yes, they are concerned. They are concerned about where the fees are going to go, and if one goes to athletics or other departments, they are very concerned. Why they are concerned is that this money comes out of their pockets. Many students are not as fortunate as me as to have their parents paying for school; they are paying from their own pockets, so they are very concerned and concerned because a lot of these satellite campuses have fees that go to athletics and their wondering if the trend will go towards what IUB has been doing. So yes they are concerned.

Trustee Ferguson: Thank you.

Trustee Belanger: I would like to make a comment. I’m glad the athletics fee is going through the Committee for Fee Review. That’s the right thing to do. At this point, I’m not supporting the fee nor trying to come across either in favor of it or opposed to it. I would just ask that students make a concerted effort to really think about the larger picture; to make sure that if athletics comes in to present a fee that you work with them to understand really what’s behind the deficit, what’s driving it.

I understand your concern that when the fee was implemented last spring there was nothing additional granted to students. But I also don’t think it’s fair to say that students don’t receive any benefits. They already had benefits in place, such as the 8,000 student tickets allocated for Assembly Hall, and the lower prices they pay for tickets. Yes, you weren’t paying for something before, I understand that. You didn’t necessarily get anything additional with this fee, but I would just ask that as you go through the process this time you just try to understand the larger picture of what’s driving the deficit. Think of what you get from athletics if anything. Without the fee obviously we know there’s a larger problem, and maybe athletics isn’t something that students want to support and want to have on this campus in the way that we do right now. So just try to think of the larger picture and the support for the athletics department, sort of a larger context than just we’re not getting anything for this specific fee in addition to what we’re already receiving.

Tyson Chastain: I think that’s a good point to bring up and some students do need to think about that. But as a student government we have thought about that and one of the things that is always expressed is what are we getting for a service, where is this trend going? What students are scared of is having mandatory fees for certain schools, do we have mandatory fees for capital improvement projects? So that is a concern.

Trustee Belanger: We do have fees for certain schools, don’t we?

Tyson Chastain: Specifics, but not mandatory. The Business School, for example, taxes their students for technology, but it’s not an across-the-board mandatory fee. Another good point that has been brought up is that students in the past have given money to the Athletic Department. Assembly Hall was first announced as a rec sports center for students. I remember when I first got into this whole ordeal, Sara McNabb telling me of the times when she was part of student government and when Assembly Hall came up it was a big student concern. So we have to remember that over time students have helped out the Athletic Department.

We may be as interested in accountability as services. If students have to pay let’s at least try to get them something. It’s not always possible but at least try to get them something and express accountability.

Trustee Belanger: I agree. I would again stress, you already get something, you have an athletic department that obviously a lot of students take advantage of it. I do think there is some merit to IU having an athletic department. You mentioned meeting with other student governments from the Big Ten; this sounds like a perfect opportunity to talk with representatives from other schools about how they handle these things. I’m not pushing one way or the other but we’re left with the bigger picture. If we’re facing cutting services for students, cutting sports, this department can no longer continue to run a deficit, something has to be done.

II. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES

A. FACILITIES COMMITTEE

1. Report from Trustee Breckenridge

Trustee Breckenridge: Thank you President Eichhorn. We had a very good committee meeting. All of the trustees on the committee were present as were the rest of our trustees. So we had the entire board there.

2. Project Approval

3. Design Approval

4. Real Estate Matters for Approval

Trustee Eichhorn: Consideration of the lease of real estate located at 919 East 10th Street, Bloomington, was postponed. It will be taken up at another meeting.

B. FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE

1. Report from Trustee Shoulders

Action Item: Approval is requested for the IUPUI Student Residential Housing Rates for 2005-06

2005-06 Proposed Rental Rates

Ball Residence Hall per semester
Room Type 2004-05
Approved
Increase
2004-05
Current
Rates
2005-06
Proposed
Increase
2005-06
Proposed
Rates
Amount
Increase
Single Room 4% $1,328 4% $1,381 $53
Deluxe Single Room 4% $1,602 4% $1,666 $64
Double Room 4% $1,125 4% $1,170 $45
Double with Bath 4% $1,527 4% $1,588 $61
Triple Room 4% $1,047 4% $1,089 $42
Triple with Bath 4% $1,385 4% $1,440 $55
Graduate Townhomes per month
Room Type 2004-05
Approved
Increase
2004-05
Current
Rates
2005-06
Proposed
Increase
2005-06
Proposed
Rates
Amount
Increase
One Bedroom 4% $735 4% $764 $29
Two Bedroom 4% $851 4% $885 $34
Campus Apartments per month
Room Type 2004-05
Approved
Increase
2004-05
Current
Rates
2005-06
Proposed
Increase
2005-06
Proposed
Rates
Amount
Increase
12 Month Contracts
One Bedroom 3% $716 3% $737 $21
Two Bedroom 3% $613 3% $631 $18
Four Bedroom 3% $510 3% $525 $15
9 Month Contracts
One Bedroom 3% $795 3% $819 $24
Two Bedroom 3% $681 3% $701 $20
Four Bedroom 3% $567 3% $584 $17

Trustee Shoulders: Thank you President Eichhorn. We met on Thursday, and our first order of business was consideration of student residential housing rates for IUPUI during the year 2005-06.

Karen Whitney, vice chancellor for student life and diversity, presented a report on campus housing at IUPUI. We reviewed the current rates and the proposal for next year. It was very spirited discussion, with a lot of questions, hard questions and hard answers. Ms. Whitney requested approval for an average 3.3% increase in IUPUI student residential housing rates for 2005-06. Trustee Cohen, as I recall, made a motion to approve the 3.3% average increase, some as low as 3% some as high as 4% and requested that we be kept updated quite regularly on occupancy projections. That motion was seconded and passed and we bring it to you therefore, for action by the full board.

Trustee Breese: I appreciate that this has been brought forward with a recommendation to approve by the Finance and Audit Committee, but I personally feel that I can’t support the 3% increase for the apartments. I feel that the prices are already at a high level and with the occupancy rate as low as it is, we had discussions about the benefits of living on campus, the benefits to students and I feel by increasing these we are going to have more empty apartments, not being able to get 100% occupancy and still increasing rates. We’re preventing students from taking a full benefit of living on campus. So for that reason I cannot support that increase.

Trustee Eichhorn: Thank you for your comments.

Approved by a vote of 8-1 on a motion duly made and seconded.

Trustee Breckenridge: Before we go on to another topic, I think we need to remember what Trustee Ferguson said about raising fees for housing at IUPUI. It was his thinking that this should be done very tentatively, and that if we notice that the housing is not being occupied, then the fees should not be raised. I agree with Trustee Breese that we should not raise fees when we don’t have to … (end of tape).

Trustee Shoulders: … (W)ell I think realistically they are going to do the 3% and 4% this year, but I also think they said that we would know by August whether they will be full or not. Cora and Erin are both exactly right, none of us felt great about this and we’re going to watch it very carefully.

Trustee Eichhorn: Very good.

Trustee Shoulders: We next moved to the presentation on four new financial and internal control policies. These were brought to us by Kathleen McNeely, our managing director of financial services. She reviewed these new internal control policies and the training that has been implemented to enhance these internal controls. They deal with things such as fiscal misconduct and fraud. We also heard from Michael Ford, special assistant to the vice president and chief financial officer. Michael chairs our Financial Policies Committee. He described the steps taken, how we generate and the genesis of new policies, how they are brought to his attention, changes and discussed that process for us. He had some updates and some ongoing projects.

We then heard several brief reports: The first, by Stew Cobine, focused on the development of a debt capacity projection, so we could know just how much debt we could carry. We moved next to a project on the request on underwriting services, a request for information so that we can qualify a group of firms to serve as underwriters in the commercial paper area. Finally, we had a report on state finances and the governor’s budget recommendations from Judy Palmer and John Grew.

C. ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AND UNIVERSITY POLICIES COMMITTEE

1. Report from Trustee Talbot

Trustee Talbot: Thank you Mr. President. We met this morning and we packed the room because we had a very engaging seminar on the volatile world of college rankings. Ken Gros Louis did a great job leading the discussion and explaining the rationale behind the rankings. He talked about the various methods used by publications like U.S. News & World Report and what kind of things they look at, such as faculty resources, financial resources, and graduation rates. We learned a great deal about how SAT’s figure into this and how profiles of projection of graduation from incoming freshman classes make a decided difference.

We also heard from three other speakers. First was the dean of the law school, Lauren Robel, who talked about what is happening with law school accreditations around the country. Next, Dan Smith, interim dean of the Kelly School of Business, discussed various business school rankings, and then Dean Kumble Subbaswamy talked about the rankings within the arts and sciences community.

It was very nice at lunch today to talk with several faculty members representing some of these schools and ask them why they think their schools continue to receive high rankings. To a person, it kept coming back to faculty expertise and the work ethic that the faculty and staff have within their schools, the students they attract, and whether or not they are catching up or on the cutting edge of technology and of research.

Trustee Talbot: Thank you very much Chancellor Gros Louis for organizing that and bringing that information to us. I think everybody came out a lot more educated about what rankings are about and maybe next time we read a ranking profile, we will look at it a little differently than we have in the past. That concludes my report Mr. President.

D. LONG-RANGE PLANNING AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE

1. Report from Trustee Belanger

Trustee Belanger: Thank you Mr. President, I too will keep this short since most of you were there this morning and won’t get too much into our discussions. But we did spend some time first discussing the legislative session. We heard updates from J T. Forbes, Tom Healy and Debbie Stitt. Among other things, we talked about pending legislation covering everything from health care to research bonding to the IUPUI hotel, and we also talked a little bit about the State House visit, which I encourage everybody to attend on February 8. We also spent some time going over the new government relations website, which I would encourage everyone to visit at http://www.gov.indiana.edu/state/index.shtml.

I would also like to thank our government relations team for all of the hard work that they have done in keeping us informed through their conference calls as well as the email and again through the website. We again thank them for their hard work in that regard.

We next heard the second installment of a report on research from Vice President McRobbie, following up on the report that we heard at the last meeting on our research facilities. Today we spent time talking about the life sciences and we talked about a lot of things that I have trouble pronouncing so I’m not going to take a stab at talking about them because that would be a disservice to Michael and his presentation. We covered lots of important things regarding the life sciences. I guess most importantly the work that is going to be done is developing a university wide strategic plan for the life sciences, specifically related to developing a unified message for the university so that we are effectively communicating the progress that we have made in the life sciences, and our efforts to enhance the life sciences in the state of Indiana.

E. STUDENT TRUSTEE REPORT

1. Report from Trustee Breese

Trustee Breese: Thank you Mr. President. I had a very good meeting with the All University Student Association while you were meeting with faculty.

There are just three things I want to touch on. We had good representation again; our meetings have been very well attended throughout this year and throughout my whole term on the board. They have instituted a monthly leadership corner in which somebody talks about some aspect of leadership and sharing ways to strengthen these aspects of leadership across campus. Melissa Harbeson from IU Southeast was nice enough to spark a conversation about effective listening and how to actually hear the student body when you are a student leader.

Secondly we had a surprisingly quick discussion about spring enrollment and financial aid distribution. From the student leaders things seemed to be going very well this semester, just as we heard earlier in our meeting. So they have heard few, if any, reports of problems that students have had this semester and that was a very positive thing to hear and our discussion didn’t take very long because of that.

Finally, I wanted to say that Kelly Kish came to our meeting. She has been working with the University Faculty Council on the review of the student code. The faculty council has had quite a bit of student input throughout this process, and she was kind enough to come to the AUSA meeting and hand out a draft of the student code to all the student leaders from the different campuses so that they can take it back to each of the student governments and look over it at the same time and have time to voice any concerns that they might have. She explained the rationale behind the changes and what the faculty and the university were trying to do, and made sure that all the student leaders from all the campuses are informed about what’s going on and have a voice in the process. That concludes my report.

Trustee Eichhorn: That part that she handed out was that the policy portion? I think David said it’s in two portions.

Trustee Breese: Right, she handed out both the policy and the procedure portions. Apparently both of them are available on the UFC’s website.

Trustee Eichhorn: Thank you. It’s good to hear from the student side of things that the enrollment for the second semester went OK.

III. PERSONNEL ACTIONS

INDIANA UNIVERSITY – Dr. Adam W. Herbert

No Items

INDIANA UNIVERSITY BLOOMINGTON – Interim Senior Vice President and Chancellor Ken R. R. Gros Louis

INDIANA UNIVERSITY-PURDUE UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS – Vice President and Chancellor Charles R. Bantz

INDIANA UNIVERSITY EAST – Chancellor David J. Fulton

No Items

INDIANA UNIVERSITY-PURDUE UNIVERSITY FORT WAYNE – Chancellor Michael A. Wartell

INDIANA UNIVERSITY KOKOMO – Chancellor Ruth J. Person

No Items

INDIANA UNIVERSITY NORTHWEST – Chancellor Bruce L. Bergland

No Items

INDIANA UNIVERSITY SOUTH BEND – Chancellor Una Mae Reck

No Items

INDIANA UNIVERSITY SOUTHEAST - Chancellor Sandra Patterson-Randles

No Items

All unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

IV. AWARD OF DEGREES

Approval is requested for the award of degrees as of December 31, 2004.

Unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

V. DISTINGUISHED RANKS APPOINTMENTS

Approval is requested to designate individuals as Distinguished Professors. These appointments will be announced at Founder’s day on March 6, 2005, and reported for the record at the April 1, 2005 board meeting.

Unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

VI. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Trustee Eichhorn: We need to approve the four conflict of interest statements that are in your book.

Unanimously approved on a motion duly made and seconded.

VII. OLD BUSINESS

VIII. NEW BUSINESS

Trustee Breckenridge: Mr. President before we adjourn I’d like to congratulate Trustee Shoulders who will receive the Maynard K. Hine award at IUPUI next month.

Trustee Shoulders: Thank you Cora. Thank you very much.

Trustee Belanger: Along those lines congratulations to President Herbert for being named as a Sagamore of the Wabash. Congratulations.

Trustee Talbot: And let’s recognize Trustee Ferguson, who’s receiving a prestigious award in the state of Indiana in business next month.

IX. NEXT MEETING

March 3-4, 2005
IUB
Bloomington, IN

X. ADJOURNMENT

Robin Roy Gress
THE TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION REPORT, DECEMBER 10, 2004

GENERAL ACTIONS

No Items

FISCAL ACTIONS

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARDS

REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION WORK

  1. Approved Change Orders

    A list of approved change orders appears as an exhibit for information of the Board.

PERSONNEL ACTIONS

REAL ESTATE ITEMS

No Items

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION REPORT , JANUARY 12, 2005

GENERAL ACTIONS

No Items

FISCAL ACTIONS

No Items

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARDS

REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION WORK

  1. Approved Change Orders

    A list of approved change orders appears as an exhibit for information of the Board.

PERSONNEL ACTIONS

REAL ESTATE ITEMS

No Items