Meeting Minutes - June 1998

Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
Held At 270 Washington St., S.W., Atlanta, Georgia
June 9 and 10, 1998

CALL TO ORDER

The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia met on Tuesday, June 9 and Wednesday, June 10, 1998 in the Board Room, room 7007, 270 Washington St., S.W., seventh floor. The following Committees of the Board of Regents met on Tuesday, June 9: the Executive Committee, the Audit Committee, and the Committee on Real Estate and Facilities as a "Committee of the Whole." The following Committees of the Board of Regents met on Wednesday, June 10: the Committee on Finance and Business Operations: the Committee on Real Estate and Facilities; the Committee on Education, Research, and Extension; and the Committee on Organization and Law. The Chair of the Board, Regent S. William Clark, Jr., called the meeting of the full Board to order at 11:10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 10. Present on Wednesday, in addition to Chair Clark, were Vice Chair Edgar L. Jenkins and Regents Thomas F. Allgood, Sr., David H. (Hal) Averitt, Juanita P. Baranco, Kenneth W. Cannestra, J. Tom Coleman, Jr., Hilton H. Howell, Jr., George M. D. (John) Hunt III, Charles Jones, Donald M. Leebern, Jr., Elridge W. McMillan, Edgar L. Rhodes, and Glenn S. White.

INVOCATION

The invocation was given on Wednesday, June 10 by Regent Donald M. Leebern.

ATTENDANCE REPORT

The attendance report was read on Wednesday, June 10 by Secretary Gail S. Weber, who announced that Regent Shannon L. Amos had asked for and been given permission to be absent on Wednesday, June 10, 1998.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Motion properly made and duly seconded, the minutes of the Board of Regents meeting held on May 12 and 13, 1998 were unanimously approved as distributed.

UPDATE ON TWO-YEAR COLLEGE REPORT

Chancellor Portch approached the Board. He reminded the Regents that at the February 1997 meeting, there had been a report on the two-year colleges and ways in which they could more effectively be made the cornerstones of access to higher education for the System. There was a series of recommendations made at that time, and there would be a progress report on those recommendations at this meeting. The Chancellor introduced President Harold E. Wade of Atlanta Metropolitan College ("AMC"), who would begin the presentation.

President Wade thanked the Chancellor and expressed gratitude to the Board for its support of two year institutions in their efforts to become the cornerstones to access. At this meeting, there would be two briefings, one by Assistant Vice Chancellor for Media and Publications Arlethia Perry-Johnson and one by Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs David M. Morgan. They would be updating the Board on the progress made toward implementing the recommendations that the Board endorsed as a part of the two-year college utilization study. First, President Wade wanted to comment on the student satisfaction survey, which was administered earlier this academic year to a significant percentage of the student population in the University System of Georgia.

The survey measured the degree to which System students are satisfied with the nature, scope, and quality of the various institutional programs and services. President Wade reported that the survey did not uncover many surprises. For the most part, students were pleased with campus environments, the quality of instruction, and the services offered. They were less satisfied with things like parking, financial aid services, and food services. The Chancellor would be forwarding to the Regents more details on the findings of the survey. There were a few unexpected revelations, however, explained President Wade. For instance, the two-year colleges did not do as well in areas such as admissions, registration procedures, and advisement. AMC did not fare as well with its students in the area of admissions and registration procedures as it had expected. Just over half of AMC students were satisfied or very satisfied, and 22% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied and 20% were neutral. AMC had done a great deal of work to streamline and improve those processes in recent years, and it will continue to work on them. President Wade stated that the presidents of two-year institutions are concerned about changing the perceptions of students in some areas. For that reason, those presidents met in Atlanta in May to discuss the issues and develop strategies to effect the outcomes they seek to achieve in the areas where they did not fare as well as they would have liked to. He then introduced Ms. Perry-Johnson.

Ms. Perry-Johnson demonstrated to the Board a brief video clip advertising AMC from a CD-ROM entitled Two-Year Colleges of the University System of Georgia: A Pretty Cool Way to Get Started. This is one of the key products in the marketing campaign for two-year colleges, which she would discuss further in a moment. She explained that the two-year presidents report called for a marketing campaign to increase awareness of the advantages of attending a two-year college in the University System. This effort marked the first time that the System had allocated funding for positioning itself in the commercial marketplace. The various goals of the campaign are to enhance awareness of colleges, impact perceptions of traditional and nontraditional students, position institutions as access points into the System, increase equivalent full-time and headcount enrollment, and help distribute anticipated growth. The key desired outcome is to ultimately increase enrollment in the two-year colleges. This Statewide marketing campaign complements the existing efforts of campuses, which include regionally targeted recruitment advertising and other marketing efforts. The aim of the centralized campaign is to position the two-year colleges as viable and attractive points of access into the System. This campaign was approved by the Board last year, and it is jointly funded ($200,000) by the Board and allocations from the two-year college presidents. Planning began in August 1997, and the campaign was launched on March 16, 1998 after extensive planning and production of high-quality marketing projects such as the CD-ROM. The planning was highly collaborative, with input from the Central Office staff and institutions, including presidents, public relations directors, and admissions officers. Several of the people who served on the committee to develop the campaign were present at the meeting and Ms. Perry-Johnson asked them to stand and be recognized.

Ms. Perry-Johnson stressed that every good marketing effort begins with solid research. The Central Office employed GCI Atlanta to provide training for seven public relations officers to conduct focus groups on the campuses which enabled a consistent collection of data. These groups assessed the perceptions of the current students as well as alumni. The Regents were provided a research report that included some of the research also conducted by Georgia State University's ("GSU") applied research laboratory. GSU's researchers conducted telephone surveys with close to 500 eleventh and twelfth grade students who are the potential pool of first-time freshmen that the marketing campaign seeks to target. The research was used to help shape the campaign's messages. There were many exciting pieces of data that was uncovered by the research project, much of which was too extensive to be presented at this meeting, which was why it had been provided to the Regents for them to review. Ms. Perry-Johnson noted that 38% of those planning to attend a two-year college could not name one; 16.5% of those planning to attend a four-year college also could not identify the name of a two-year college.

Ms. Perry-Johnson stated that the tools employed to reach the target audiences of first-time freshmen and returning adults included radio and television commercials. The System also partnered with an education marketing firm, CollegeView, to produce the interactive CD-ROM. This is a mini electronic viewbook containing all 15 two-year colleges with video clips, audio clips, pictures, and text. Additionally, CollegeView's World Wide Web site is linked to the System's Web site and the System is included on CollegeView's own viewbook, which has 4,300 international high school subscribers in 25 countries. The marketing campaign also employs a toll-free telephone number and a 24-hour message center to receive and track responses.

The messages conveyed in the marketing campaign were shaped by the research, reiterated Ms. Perry-Johnson. One key finding of that research was that many potential students did not realize that they could use HOPE Scholarships to attend the two-year institutions. So, this was stressed in the marketing efforts. Transferability of two-year degrees to four-year institutions was also emphasized. Other messages included that two-year institutions are conveniently located, have caring professors and smaller class sizes, and are "a pretty cool way to get started."

The results of the first eight weeks of the campaign were very good, reported Ms. Perry-Johnson. There were more than 1,200 calls logged on the toll-free number, which has been an excellent tool for measuring the response to the marketing campaign, including identifying the source of the call. The television spot was identified as the source of interest by many students who called the phone number. More than 1,100 persons have visited the System's presentation on CollegeView's Web site. There have also been many positive articles and editorials in newspapers around the State as well as radio station interviews.

In closing, Ms. Perry-Johnson restated that the campaign is intended to increase the visibility and enhance the perceptions of the two-year colleges. More importantly, she stressed, these efforts should have an impact on enrollment and allow the two-year institutions to better serve the students and the State. The next steps in this campaign include determining the effect of the efforts to date and building on these efforts in future campaigns. Ms. Perry-Johnson then introduced Dr. Morgan.

Dr. Morgan thanked Ms. Perry-Johnson and said that he would be explaining how the institutions have responded to the other recommendations from the presidents. The presidents felt that if there were more targeted scholarships available at the university level, two-year college students would have the opportunity to receive additional funding. There are now additional scholarships. Several institutions have very specific scholarships for graduates of two-year institutions, and HOPE Scholarships are portable from two-year to four-year institutions. Some scholarships even go unclaimed, but the marketing campaign should help in that regard.

Some presidents were also concerned about the transferability of core courses, explained Dr. Morgan. The Board was also very concerned about this, and as a part of the semester conversion process, this issue was addressed. There is a new core curriculum with guarantees of transferability built into it.

Dr. Morgan next addressed Post-secondary Options, a program where colleges deliver college-level courses to students who are still in high school. He noted that the State pays the tuition for those students. Two-year colleges recommended that the Board allow them alone to offer this program, but the Chancellor felt that the local institutions, whatever their classification, should be responsible for this. So, the program is being delivered locally in the communities where the students are.

The System also has relationships with the Department of Technical and Adult Education to offer cooperative associate of applied science degree programs. The two-year presidents wanted primary responsibility for those programs, and 88% of such degrees are offered by the two-year colleges.

The two-year presidents also wanted to ensure that the universities were not encroaching in the area of career degrees, which they feel belong at the two-year institutions. Dr. Morgan reported that 74% of career degrees are awarded by two-year colleges. Approximately 95% of the career degrees awarded by four-year colleges are in the areas of nursing, allied health, and criminal justice, and about half of those were at Valdosta State University, which has as part of its mission offering bachelor of applied science degrees that build upon the career associate degrees. He assured the Board that this issue will continue to be monitored.

Dr. Morgan said that the two-year college presidents were also concerned that their institutions provide an access point for nontraditional students so they could sample college courses without meeting all of the admission requirements. This was a recommendation that the Board adopted in September 1997 when it adopted the admissions policy, and it has since been implemented. He asserted that this should help in the workforce arena as well.

There was also a concern that nontraditional students would not be able to get the HOPE Scholarship until after they had been in college for two years, explained Dr. Morgan. The presidents recommended to change it to one year, and the Board agreed. The Governor, General Assembly, and Georgia Student Finance Commission all agreed, and this has been implemented.

The last recommendation was that students should be encouraged to stay as long as possible at two year colleges to benefit from the smaller student-teacher ratio and the environment, stated Dr. Morgan. This, too, was implemented as part of the admissions policy. Students who enroll at two year colleges must now complete a full year's work before they can transfer to a four-year institution. In addition, the Board adopted as part of its policy that students from two-year schools would have preference for admission over other students on a transfer basis. With that, Dr. Morgan concluded his report and announced that he would be willing to answer any of the Regents questions along with Ms. Perry-Johnson and President Wade.

Chair Clark remarked that with regard to the Post-secondary Option where high school students can take college courses, there was much resistence from the local school boards, because they would lose State funding if students went into such programs. He asked whether that had been changed.

Dr. Morgan replied that it was still the case that there is no double funding. A student is not funded to be at the high school when he is really at a college. There have been some attempts to change this, but it has not been changed. He said that overall, high schools are more open to this and see that it really does benefit a number of students who might not have access to calculus classes or other upper-level high school courses. It is, however, still a point of tension.

Chair Clark suggested that the Board do what it can to support this option for high school students. He then asked whether there was a grade point average requirement for a student transferring from a two-year college to a four-year institution after one year.

Dr. Morgan responded that it varies from institution to institution.

Regent McMillan asked what kind of mechanisms are being put in place to enable transferability from two-year to four-year institutions.

President Wade replied that this was also a concern of the committee and that it would like for students to finish their two-year programs and then guarantee transfer to the senior college or university. The problem is that this is not consistently practiced or enforced at the senior institutions. Students may try to get in and be denied admission, particularly for certain programs within an institution that might have higher admissions standards than the rest of the institution. The key is enforcement of the guarantee of access to senior colleges.

The Chancellor added that when the Board adopted the enrollment plan, it made institutions consider the role of transfers in their enrollment targets. Georgia Southwestern State University ("GSSU"), which has an aggressive growth plan, has been extremely assertive in reaching out to the two-year colleges, forming scholarships, and making partnerships. He added that this was a good strategy because GSSU has low numbers of junior and seniors. Chancellor Portch also noted that the philosophy makes a difference. He said that President Adams has adopted the philosophy that qualified students should be able to transfer into the University of Georgia ("UGA"). However, for every transfer student UGA takes, there is a freshman it cannot take. President Adams has made the commitment that transfers are going to be an essential part of the enrollment plan for UGA. So, because the Board made this an issue for discussion, there are many activities going on at the institutional level and the marketplace will likely play a roll in transferability.

Vice Chair Jenkins asked if a transfer student also needed to meet certain Scholastic Aptitude Test ("SAT") score requirements.

President Wade responded that SAT scores are only considered for initial admission into the first institution.

Vice Chair Jenkins noted that although core courses are transferable, a student may not be admitted into a particular program.

Chancellor Portch replied that the philosophy for admission into a program must be that transfer students are treated exactly the same as students already enrolled at the institution. So, if a 2.75 GPA is required to get into an education program, it is required of both native and transfer students alike.

Regent Baranco asked about the transferability of athletic status.

President Wade responded that there are some minimum conditions which must be met from transfer of athletes to participate in athletic programs of institutions.

The Chancellor asked President Wade what percentage of AMC basketball players are transferring to four-year institutions on full scholarship.

President Wade speculated that approximately 35% to 40% are transferring with scholarships to division 1 institutions.

Regent Baranco asked if those students must "red shirt" for a period of time.

President Wade replied that they do not, but they must finish AMC before they can be accepted into four-year institutions.

Regent Leebern asked how many students have gone to division I-A during President Wade's tenure at AMC.

President Wade could think of five such students who went to such institutions as University of Hawaii, Seton Hall, University of Miami, and Oklahoma State University. He added that one AMC student may be attending Louisianna State University in the fall. There are also former AMC students who now play for Kennesaw State University and Clayton College & State University. Several former AMC students have been named captains of their teams.

Regent McMillan expressed his feeling that the two-year college committee should stay in place going forward. He felt this committee would be important in ensuring that students continue their college careers beyond the two-year college level.

Chair Clark thanked the presenters for their work to improve the two-year colleges in the System.

INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS

Vice Chair Edgar L. Jenkins introduced to the Board former Regent James E. Brown and Mrs. Mary ("Sis") Brown from Dalton, Georgia. Regent Jenkins commented that former Regent Brown continues to do a wonderful job in Northwest Georgia for education and the community.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

The Executive Committee met on Tuesday, June 9, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. in the Chancellor's Conference Room for the purpose of discussing the fiscal year 1999 salary of the Chancellor. Committee members in attendance were Chair S. William Clark, Jr., Vice Chair Edgar L. Jenkins, and Regents Thomas F. Allgood, Sr., Juanita P. Baranco, and Donald M. Leebern. No actions were taken at this meeting, and the full Board further discussed the salary issue during Executive Session on Wednesday, June 10.

AUDIT COMMITTEE

The Audit Committee met on Tuesday, June 9, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. in the Board Room. Committee members in attendance were Chair Charles H. Jones, Vice Chair George M. D. (John) Hunt III, and Regents Juanita P. Baranco, Kenneth W. Cannestra, and J. Tom Coleman, Jr. Chair Jones reported to the Board on Wednesday that the Committee had reviewed one item, which required action.

With motion properly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the Board approved and authorized the following:

1. Presentation of Fiscal Year 1999 Audit Plan

Approved: The Board approved the Fiscal Year 1999 Audit Plan, as presented during the Committee meeting. The audit plan is on file with the Office of Capital Resources.

Assistant Vice Chancellor for Management and Audit Advisory Services Levy G. Youmans presented the Fiscal Year 1999 Audit Plan to the Committee. The plan includes a coordinated and comprehensive review of up to 30 institutions in the System by the Board of Regents internal audit staff, institutional internal auditors, and the State auditors.

Regent Coleman commended Mr. Youman's audit work for the Central Office and the Board. Mr. Youmans would be leaving the Central Office on July 1, 1998 to become Vice President for Business and Finance at Macon State College. Senior Vice Chancellor for Capital Resources Lindsay Desrochers also lauded Mr. Youman's work and announced that Mr. Ron Stark would be filling his position in the Central Office.

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS

The Committee on Finance and Business Operations met on Wednesday, June 10, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. in the Board Room. Committee members in attendance were Chair Kenneth W. Cannestra, Vice Chair Glenn S. White, and Regents Thomas F. Allgood, Sr., J. Tom Coleman, Jr., George M. D. (John) Hunt III, Edgar L. Jenkins, Charles H. Jones, and Donald M. Leebern, Jr. Chair Cannestra reported to the full Board on Wednesday that the Committee had reviewed two items, both of which required action. With motion properly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the Board approved and authorized the following:

1. Amendments to Fiscal Year 1998 Budget

Approved: The Board approved the consolidated amendments to the Fiscal Year 1998 Budget of the University System of Georgia, as presented below:

UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA FISCAL YEAR 1998 BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT
SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1998
BY BUDGET	ORIGINAL BUDGET	APPROVED AMENDMENTS	REQUESTED AMENDMENTS	AMENDED BUDGET
Operating	$3,197,544,095	$96,455,884	$83,684,311	$3,377,684,290
Capital	149262649	69089203	25975788	244327640
Auxiliary Enterprises	264943337	21244340	2558088	288745765
Student Activities	42881116	5388094	650248	48919458

Background: In accordance with current policy, the Board of Regents approves all budget amendments submitted by System institutions. The monthly budget amendment report highlights and discusses amendments where changes exceed 5% of the budget or add significant ongoing expenses to the institutions. The following amendments are presented for review by the Board of Regents in accordance with these guidelines:

Operating: Several institutions requested authority to increase nonpersonal services budgets to reflect increases in sponsored operations, departmental sales and services and general operations object transfers. These institutions include:

Georgia Institute of Technology ($11,339,706), University of Georgia ($29,451,478), Albany State University ($7,453,816), Columbus State University ($3,013,716), Clayton College & State University ($717,133), Southern Polytechnic State University ($6,782,904), Atlanta Metropolitan College ($918,450), Bainbridge College ($260,780), Dalton College ($326,198), Floyd College ($1,121,620), and Gainesville College ($494,135). Many of these increases are related to HOPE and Direct Student Loan increases, federal indirect cost recoveries, and increases in sponsored project revenue.

The Advanced Technology Development Center requested authority to increase its nonpersonal services budget by $1,395,331. This reflects an increase of $1 million in private-sponsored grants, $200,000 in federal indirect cost recoveries, and an object transfer of $92,000. The Center for Rehabilitation Technology requested authority to increase its nonpersonal services budget by $1,067,464. This includes $200,000 in indirect cost recoveries;$755,000 in federal, State, and private research grants; and $64,000 in endowment income. Athens/Tifton Veterinary Lab requested authority to increase its nonpersonal services budget by $250,000 to reflect actual sponsored operations.

Capital: Georgia State University requested authority to increase its capital budget by $1,310,644 to reflect a transfer of resident instruction funds of $793,000 and an increase in investment income of $500,000. These funds will be used to update electronic cable infrastructure and renovate several facilities. Medical College of Georgia requested authority to increase its capital budget by $400,000 in interest income for renovation of several campus facilities, including Emergency Medicine and Biostatistics Pavilion I and to construct a storage facility for low-level radioactive waste. Albany State University requested authority to increase its capital budget by $130,685 to reflect actual interest income and transfers from auxiliary enterprises. These funds will be used for equipment purchases. Clayton College & State University requested authority to increase its capital budget by $30,000 to reflect unanticipated interest income. These funds will be spent to upgrade the campus exterior lighting system. Coastal Georgia Community College requested authority to increase its capital budget by $23,000 to reflect actual interest income. These funds will be used for computer purchases related to PeopleSoft implementation. DeKalb College requested authority to decrease its capital budget by $310,697 to reflect actual interest income.

Auxiliary Enterprises: Several institutions requested authority to increase or decrease auxiliary budgets to reflect actual revenue related to student fees, cafeteria and bookstore sales, and other revenue. These institutions include: Augusta State University (decrease of $290,000), Kennesaw State University (increase of $812,661), Savannah State University (decrease of $919,551) Atlanta Metropolitan College (increase of $19,964), Darton College (increase of $158,588), and DeKalb College (increase of $60,260). Fort Valley State University requested an increase of $2,224,967 to reflect the budgeting of prior year cash balance.

Student Activities: Several institutions requested authority to increase or decrease student activity budgets to reflect actual revenue related to student fees and other revenue. These institutions include: Georgia Institute of Technology (increase of $523,481), Savannah State University (increase of $18,822), State University of West Georgia (increase of $84,666), Atlanta Metropolitan College (increase of $6,655), Bainbridge College (increase of $5,910), and Middle Georgia College (decrease of $2,000).

2. Approval of Institutional Operating and Capital Budgets for Fiscal Year 1999

Approved: The Board approved the institutional operating and capital budgets for many System institutions. The list of those institutions as well as tables providing a comprehensive picture of their recommended budget from several perspectives and breakdowns of the budgets by functional category are on file with the Office of Capital Resources. These budgets were thoroughly reviewed by the Office of Capital Resources staff for compliance with Board of Regents' policies and directives and were recommended for final approval by the Board.

Background: The fiscal year 1999 operating and capital budget recommendations represent the culmination of a process begun in late January 1998. Beginning that month and continuing into February, senior Central Office staff from the Offices of Capital Resources and Academic Affairs met with presidents and senior administrators from each college and university in the System. Using information gathered from these meetings, allocation recommendations for State appropriations were developed which provide for merit-based salary increases, workload changes, and new strategic initiatives. Appropriations also target $25 million for redirection proposals related to instructional effectiveness, economic development, technological innovation, productivity, high-priority academic areas, and collaborative projects. These recommendations were approved by the Board in April 1998 then forwarded to University System institutions to be incorporated into formal budget requests, reflecting state appropriations and all other revenue sources.

The tables presented to the Board provided a comprehensive picture of recommended institutional budgets from several perspectives. The recommendations included a breakdown of budgets by fund source (i.e., educational and general, capital, auxiliary enterprises, and student activity) and a more detailed description of educational and general budgets by revenue source and expenditure category (personal services, operating expenses, and equipment). The capital budget recommendation indicated sources of funds and type of project. Capital projects which are to be supported by institutional funds will be subject to appropriate review, as required by policy. Finally, an additional table was presented this year which showed the breakdown of the budget by functional category: instruction, research, public service, and academic, student, and institutional support.

COMMITTEE ON REAL ESTATE AND FACILITIES

The Committee on Real Estate and Facilities met on Wednesday, June 10, 1998 at approximately 9:30 a.m. in the Board Room. Committee members in attendance were Chair J. Tom Coleman, Jr., Vice Chair Charles H. Jones, and Regents Thomas F. Allgood, Sr., Kenneth W. Cannestra, George M. D. (John) Hunt III, Edgar L. Jenkins, Donald M. Leebern, Jr., and Glenn S. White. (The Committee had also met as a "Committee of the Whole" on Tuesday, June 9, 1998. See pages 16 to 33.) Chair Coleman reported to the full Board on Wednesday that the Committee had reviewed five items, all of which required action. With motion properly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the Board approved and authorized the following:

1. Five-Year Capital Outlay Program

Approved: The Board adopted the rank order of projects 21-26 for a cumulative cost of $127.7 million and added these projects to the fiscal year 2000-2004 five-year capital outlay rolling plan, as presented below:

	Institution	Project	Requested State Funds	Cumulative Costs
21.	Georgia Institute of Technology	Advanced Computing Technology Building	$31.5 million (not including $8 million to be provided by university)	$427,201,000
22.	Georgia Southern University	Library Addition	$14 million	441,201,000
23.	Kennesaw State University	Social Science Building	$26.2 million	467,401,000
24.	DeKalb College	Student Center, Clarkston Campus	$6.3 million (not including $1.1 million to be provided by college as a payback)	473,701,000
25.	Middle Georgia College	Campus Utilities Loop	$14.7 million	488,401,000
26.	University of Georgia	PVAC (School of Art), Phase 2	$35 million (not including $8.6 million to be provided by university)	523,401,000

COMMITTEE ON REAL ESTATE AND FACILITIES

1. Five-Year Capital Outlay Program (Continued)

Approved: The Board also adopted the payback project list in the following rank order:

Housing Residence Hall Savannah State University	$ 7,500,000
Parking Deck University of Georgia	10,500,000
Parking Decks Kennesaw State University	15,000,000
New University Center Augusta State University	8,000,000
New Student Center DeKalb College	1,125,000

For further information on this item, see pages 16 to 33, "Committee on Real Estate and Facilities, 'Committee of the Whole.'"

2. Resolution Covering the Issuance of 1998A G.O. Bonds by the State of Georgia

Approved: The Board adopted a resolution covering the issuance of 1998A general obligation ("G.O.") bonds by the State of Georgia. This resolution authorized the Central Office staff to sell G.O. bonds issued by the General Assembly to support the funding of projects requested by the Board last year and approved by the General Assembly. This was the first increment of the sale and was a $13.05 million bond sale. The resolution is on file with the Office of Facilities.

During the Committee meeting, Chair Coleman announced that this was an additional item that had not originally been on the Committee agenda. With motion properly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the Board approved the addition of this item to the agenda. Vice Chancellor for Facilities William K. Chatham explained to the Board that this was an off-docket item because there is no way to know very far in advance when the bond market will be in an appropriate stance to sell.

3. Increase in Project Funding for Projects Currently on Capital Projects List

Approved: The Board approved a 3% increase to account for 1997-1998 construction-related inflation in funding for projects currently on the capital projects list.

For further information on this item, see pages 16 to 33, "Committee on Real Estate and Facilities, 'Committee of the Whole.'"

4. Increase in Scope and Budget for Georgia Institute of Technology Environmental Sciences and Technology Building

Approved: The Board approved the proposed increase in the scope and budget of the Georgia Institute of Technology Environmental Sciences and Technology Building.

For further information on this item, see pages 16 to 33, "Committee on Real Estate and Facilities, 'Committee of the Whole.'"

5. Project for Decommissioning the Nuclear Reactor at Georgia Institute of Technology and Request for Funding in Fiscal Year 1999 Supplemental Budget

Approved: The Board approved the project for decommissioning the nuclear reactor at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the request for funding in the fiscal year 1999 supplemental budget.

For further information on this item, see pages 16 to 33, "Committee on Real Estate and Facilities, 'Committee of the Whole.'"

COMMITTEE ON REAL ESTATE AND FACILITIES, "COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE"

On Tuesday, June 9, 1998 at approximately 10:00 a.m., Chair Clark convened the meeting of the Committee on Real Estate and Facilities as a Committee of the Whole. He then turned the chairmanship of the meeting over to Regent Coleman. Board members in attendance at this meeting in addition to Regents Clark and Coleman were Regents Thomas F. Allgood, Sr., Shannon L. Amos, David H. (Hal) Averitt, Kenneth W. Cannestra, Hilton H. Howell, Jr., George M. D. (John) Hunt III, Edgar L. Jenkins, Charles H. Jones, Donald M. Leebern, Elridge W. McMillan, Edgar L. Rhodes, and Glenn S. White.

Chair Coleman explained that this meeting's purpose was a continuation of the Board's five-year capital outlay plan for the fiscal year 2000. He reminded the Regents that they had received a book entitled "Fiscal Year 200-2004 Major Capital Projects," including summaries of 13 proposed projects, which the respective institution presidents would present. The Chair then turned the floor over to Chancellor Portch.

The Chancellor thanked the Regents for the extra time they spend on this process. He explained that this process was begun in June 1997 and that no university system before had turned over the capital priority setting process to its board. This process involved the staff, the presidents, and the Board very directly as a culmination of Strategic Planning, which began with academic program planning, then moved to setting enrollment goals for the next five years, and then examined some of the workforce needs. Having reviewed those issues, facilities priorities were then determined and some principles were developed to guide the Regents in their decision making. Dr. Desrochers would be further explaining those principles. The Chancellor felt that the process went well in June 1997 and that the new process might have been a factor in the record budget the System secured in the legislature this year, because when Regents were called upon during the legislative session to explain particular projects, they knew the projects in far greater detail than ever before due to this process. Chancellor Portch reminded the Regents that the capital outlay projects list is a five-year rolling list. Each year, the projects that were funded by the legislature will be replaced on the list with new projects. The Chancellor expressed that he was pleased with the process because of its partnership among the staff, presidents, and Board, with the Board appropriately having the final decision-making authority. He then introduced Senior Vice Chancellor for Capital Resources Lindsay Desrochers and said that he would return at the end of this meeting of the Committee of the Whole to explain the voting process for these proposed projects.

Dr. Desrochers thanked the Chancellor and explained that she would be discussing the capital planning process that the staff undertook this year. She said that the Board adopted ten principles in June 1997 to be used by the Regents in making determinations about the projects that they would go forward with. Those principles, however, are also used by the Central Office staff. The principles include, among other things, giving priority to existing space needs for existing enrollment, trying to achieve balance between new facilities and renovation, recognizing the efforts of institutions to achieve multiple funding sources and to raise funding where they can, and trying to move out of leased space. Dr. Desrochers explained that the full list of these principles was included in the Regents' binders.

The proposed projects were difficult to narrow down, she explained, and there were many more proposals that would not be presented to the Board at this meeting. The goal of this meeting would be to achieve the addition of a number of projects that total approximately $120 million to $125 million on the five-year plan. Going beyond that figure would create a plan that is too big. So, she was suggesting that the Board consider adding approximately half of the projects that would be presented to the overall five-year plan. She explained that her advice to Vice Chancellor for Facilities William K .Chatham and the staff as they went through this process was to work interactively with the institutions to help them with their projects, to demand high-quality projects, to keep raising the standards, and to double-check all projects with the Office of Academic Affairs to ensure the projects are on track with the respective academic program requirements. Dr. Desrochers handed out a diagram of how the staff in the Offices of Capital Resources and Facilities had worked and what steps they had taken. First, guidelines were sent to the institutions early in the year that included the principles for how they should go forward with their major capital planning. Then, the institutions presented plans and specific projects to the Office of Facilities, which reviewed those projects in detail. The staff then worked with the institutions to improve the projects as necessary. Next, the staff developed a list of projects, based on the principles, that were the most urgent or necessary or which fit best within the overall plan. That list was then submitted to Dr. Desrochers, who in turn worked with Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs James L. Muyskens to determine the academic program need. Finally, recommendations were made to the Chancellor, who together with Dr. Desrochers was bringing them forward to the Board at this meeting. She stressed that every institution had the opportunity to be involved in the process and that her office worked with them to make their proposals as effective as possible.

Dr. Desrochers explained to the Regents that in section one of their notebooks, there was an introduction explaining the process and a list of the projects which were funded last year and the projects that were funded for design but not funded in the current list. There was also a list of what projects were proposed that the Board would be hearing about at this meeting. The second section was divided campus by campus with project summaries which were carefully devised to include as much information in as small a space as possible. She welcomed any suggestions for improvements on what should go into the summaries and explained that they were very similar to the summaries used the previous year. This year, enrollment charts for each campus were included to demonstrate the existing enrollment trends and anticipated future enrollments. The third section of each Regent's notebook consisted of five payback projects. Chancellor Portch would discuss these later, and there would be no presentations made on them. Those projects would be handled separately at the end of the meeting on a separate ballot. Dr. Desrochers then showed the ballots to the Regents and reiterated that the Chancellor would go over the voting process at the end of the meeting. Dr. Desrochers added that the staff had a few recommendations for the Regents in their consideration of the current list. Mr. Chatham would be discussing those recommendations as well as a special project that needs consideration separately from the list.

Regent McMillan remarked that when he had reviewed the proposed projects, he noticed the project costs and the sources of funds. In some instances, there were other sources of funds, but the total amounts were reflected in the project costs. There was no differentiation between the other sources and the total project costs. He asked whether that was important.

Dr. Desrochers replied that it was not very important. The total project cost of a project was on one page, while the breakdown of sources of funds was on another page. All of the money from the various sources was added together to fund any particular project, and all sources would be needed to complete the project.

Regent McMillan commented that all of the money was therefore not from general obligation ("G.O.") bonds approved by the legislature.

Dr. Desrochers explained that in some cases, all of the money would come from G.O. bonds. However, the monies may be in different categories, such as paybacks. She stressed that the Regents should review the pages explaining the breakdowns of funding sources.

The Chancellor added that the balloting process of ranking the projects 1 through 13 would determine how many of the projects would be funded, because the projects would be cut off wherever the dollars run out. Regent Hunt asked how much this list had changed from the original list.

Dr. Desrochers answered that Mr. Chatham would speak about the current list and the two changes on that list, one of which was general and one of which was project-specific. He would also discuss the new set of projects.

Mr. Chatham thanked Dr. Desrochers. He reminded the Board that when it met in December 1997, it confirmed a list of 28 projects that made up the rolling five-year plan. Eight of the projects have been fully funded for fiscal year 1999 and, therefore, have rolled off the list.

Chair Coleman interjected that he would be asking the Committee to vote on the items Mr. Chatham would be addressing at the end of this presentation.

Regent Allgood asked whether payback projects are funded by G.O. bonds, which are issued by the State, as the other projects are.

Chair Coleman replied that they are.

Regent Allgood asked whether there is another type of bond used.

Chair Coleman replied that there are revenue bonds, but he did not know if the legislature ever used this type of bond for such projects.

Chancellor Portch remarked that Regent Allgood had raised an important policy issue because the Board has strived for the last two years to get a separate bonding authority for paybacks, but it has not been able to get that through the legislature yet.

Mr. Chatham reiterated that 8 of the 28 projects on the rolling capital projects list have been funded and have rolled off the list. There are 20 projects left on the list, and the staff has reviewed and examined cost indices. It would not be wise for the Board to take a project that had been on the list a year and just roll it forward, because the same project will cost more a year or two years later. So, an independent cost consultant was brought in to determine the inflation factor for last year. In the Georgia area, the inflation factor was determined to be between 3% and 5%. Therefore, the staff adjusted all of the remaining 20 projects at a 3% inflation over last year, which Mr. Chatham explained was a reasonable but conservative inflation factor. The staff also looked at revalidating the 20 projects, and 14 of the 20 institutions requested an increase in the projects either in size or in cost. Of the 14 projects that requested an increase, 1 of them (the Environmental Science and Technology Building at GIT) is recommended for change. Analysis indicated that adding $3.5 million of State funds and $7.5 million of GIT's funds to the project would create $1 million in savings to the State by providing some electrical and utility improvements for the complex of which this building is a part that would have to be done anyway in the near future. So, the staff is recommending that this change be made.

Next, Mr. Chatham explained that, from time to time, a project comes up that requires consideration outside of the normal sequencing and the decommissioning of the nuclear reactor at GIT is such a project. Construction of this five-megawatt heavy water nuclear reactor was started in 1961, and the reactor began operations in 1964. The reactor served the needs of the institution as well as the System and the State for 31 years. In 1995, it was determined that the facility was no longer providing a state-of-the-art service. It as very costly to operate, and GIT could perform its educational and research mission without the outdated reactor. Therefore, the reactor ceased operations in 1995, and the fuel was removed in 1996. Last July, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was notified that the reactor would permanently cease operations. Mr. Chatham stressed that shutting down a nuclear reactor is neither inexpensive or quick. GIT commissioned a study which indicated that it will take 15.5 months and $7.7 million to fully perform a decommissioning of the facility. However, it would cost over $10 million to put the reactor back in service, and it is no longer necessary for research at GIT. Mr. Chatham stated that the staff was recommending that $7.7 million be requested by the Board from the supplemental budget for the decommissioning of the nuclear reactor.

Regent Cannestra stated that he thought there were only two reactors in the country with the capability to help brain tumors and this was one of them. He also said that he thought there were a number of institutions working with GIT on the reactor. He asked how the reactor had become unnecessary in light of these facts.

Mr. Chatham asked President G. Wayne Clough to respond to that question.

President Clough explained that Regent Cannestra's assessment of the situation was likely the status of affairs about three years ago. It was determined that the reactor was not a feasible operation. It is not a patient-oriented facility, and to make it capable of that type of treatment would be very costly, because that was not the purpose for which it was designed. Additionally, GIT has carefully examined the issue with Emory University, and it was concluded that there are far more effective treatments. Emory University, with the help of GIT, is designing smaller-scale equipment that will work in a medical environment.

Regent Cannestra asked whether there was a private company that wanted to partner with GIT for this purpose.

President Clough responded that the company that spun out of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratories had many ideas, but it did not bring capital to the table and did not realize what it would take to get the reactor into an operating mode. Some experiments were conducted that showed that this is a highly mixed-value process, so there was still doubt as to whether the reactor could work in the way that interested the company. More importantly, there is an element to the technology that physicians believe will work, but they can make it work in a much more appropriate use of nuclear medicine than going into an old reactor.
Regent Cannestra asked whether the company was not willing to pay the costs to put the reactor back in service.

President Clough replied that it was not.

Mr. Chatham explained that GIT was asked to examine costs and further reviews revealed that numerous reactors have been shut down in recent years at educational institutions, and the projected costs for closing the GIT facility are consistent with those costs. Moreover, in all cases, the federal government has not participated in funding and the costs have been born locally by the institutions.

Regent Cannestra stated that not all reactors are the same and that the heavy water reactor is unique. He asked if there would only be one heavy water reactor left.

President Clough replied that the reactor is unique but that medical professionals believe that there are more appropriate ways to treat brain tumors and there is very little federal funding for such projects.

Regent Jenkins asked whether the federal government has contributed at all to decommissioning.

President Clough responded that the government has not contributed to decommissioning at universities. A consulting team hired by GIT discovered that the federal government only helped Argon National Laboratory, a federal facility itself, and no university. He added that the only place to take the highly radioactive parts of the reactor is Barnwell, South Carolina.

Regent Cannestra asked what kinds of contamination issues will have to be addressed.

President Clough replied that no contaminants would be left behind and the building would be used as a calibration facility for other types of nuclear studies. He added that the core was removed before the 1996 Olympics. After the remaining contaminated parts are removed, this will be a clean building.

Mr. Chatham remarked that the staff had already expressed a similar concern and asked if $7.7 million was a reasonable comparison to similar facilities that have already been shut down. The answer to that question was "yes." The estimate was reasonable for the work that must be undertaken.

Mr. Chatham said that before he introduced the proposed new major capital projects and the presidents who would present them, this might be a good time for Chair Coleman to take a vote on the first three items.

Chair Coleman reminded the Board that in the past, by the time the legislature approved a project, the cost projections were outdated and there was not enough money to create the projects. In their binders, the Regents had a list of projects which had already been funded for design. This was only the second year that the capital projects process had been handled in this manner, and Chair Coleman asserted that this process was smarter and much more efficient than it used to be.

Regent Cannestra noted that the original inflation factor for Georgia was 3% to 5%.

Mr. Chatham reiterated that an independent company had determined those figures.

Regent Cannestra asserted that 3% was not just conservative, but was also on the low end. He asked whether that was a more risky number.

Mr. Chatham replied that it was risky only if there was not enough money to absolutely fund the projects. The study performed determined that depending upon the trade, location of work, and the building type and materials, the inflation rate was between 3% and 5%. Since this type of request had not been made before, the staff felt that 3% would be a reasonable request.

Chair Coleman added that it was more risky, but it was also better than 0%, which is what it has been in the past.

Mr. Chatham added that it would be possible to ask for 4%, the average of 3% and 5%.

Chair Coleman asked for a motion to approve the 3% inflation factor.

Regent Leebern made the motion, which was variously seconded. The motion was unanimously approved and carried.

Chair Coleman asked for a motion to approve the change in scope and cost for the Environmental Sciences and Technology Building at GIT, which would be funded partially by State funds and partially by GIT funds.

Regent Leebern made the motion, and it was variously seconded. The motion was unanimously approved and carried.

Chair Coleman asked for a motion to approve funding for the decommissioning of the nuclear reactor at GIT. With motion properly made, variously seconded, and unanimously adopted, the Board approved such funding.

Mr. Chatham thanked the Chair. He explained that, as a result of the rolling plan process, there were 64 requests by the System institutions for major capital projects to be added to the list. Many of those projects were worthy, and all of them would have benefitted the institutions and the System, but the staff had to evaluate those projects based upon need and the principles. Growth and costs were studied, and this year, there was a list of 13 projects for the Board to consider. About half of those project will total the $100 million to $125 million needed to round out the five-year rolling capital projects list. At the end of the presentations at this meeting, the Regents would be asked to rank the projects from 1 to 13, and from that information, the staff would determine the Board's preference for projects and would report back on Wednesday the findings for Board consideration and final vote.

Regent Allgood asked Mr. Chatham how the General Assembly's appropriation of monies for design impacts the Regents' capital priorities list.

Chair Coleman explained that the items already on the list would move up where the others have been funded and rolled off the list. Then, the items voted on today would be added at the end of the existing list. So, the number one item voted on at this meeting would become item 21 on the existing rolling capital outlay list.

With that, Mr. Chatham introduced the first speaker.

The following presidents, representing their respective institutions, presented their proposed capital projects to the Board:

President	Institution	Project (Cost)
Dr. Portia Holmes Shields	Albany State University	Liberal Arts Building ($18.5 million)
Dr. Robert A. Burnett	Armstrong Atlantic State University	Library Renovation and Addition ($12 million)
Dr. Jacquelyn M. Belcher	DeKalb College	Student Center, Clarkston Campus ($6.3 million, $1.1 million to be leveraged by institution)
Dr. Rosemary DePaolo	Georgia College & State University	Parks Nursing/Health Sciences Renovation ($7 million)
Dr. G. Wayne Clough	Georgia Institute of Technology	Advanced Computing Technology Building ($31.5 million, $8 million to be leveraged by institution)
Dr. Harry S. Carter	Georgia Southern University	Library Addition ($14 million)
Dr. Betty L. Siegel	Kennesaw State University	Social Sciences Building ($26.2 million)
Dr. David A. Bell	Macon State College	Nursing/Health Science, Phase 2 ($14.5 million)
Dr. Joe Ben Welch	Middle Georgia College	Campus Utilities Loop ($14.7 million)
Dr. Sherman R. Day	North Georgia College & State University	Library and Technology Center ($15 million)
Dr. Beheruz N. Sethna	State University of West Georgia	Health, Wellness, and Lifelong Learning Center ($26 million)
Dr. Michael F. Adams	University of Georgia	PVAC (School of Art), Phase 2 ($35 million, $8.6 million to be leveraged by institution)
Dr. Hugh C. Bailey	Valdosta State University	Fine Arts Center ($7.5 million, $19 million to be leveraged by institution)

After each presentation, the Regents had the opportunity to ask questions of the respective president or make comments regarding the project. Those question and comments were as follows:

Albany State University ("ASU")
Regent Cannestra asked about percentages listed in the information on this project and what they represented.

Dr. Desrochers explained that the particular percentages referred to the functional use of the building by square feet.

Regent Cannestra asked what category bathrooms and hallways fell under.

Mr. Chatham explained that the percentages reflected the usable part of the building.

Regent Cannestra noted that there are 63 faculty and administrative offices and only 41 instructional areas. He asked whether Holley Hall, the existing liberal arts building, would be destroyed.

President Shields replied that it would.

Regent Cannestra remarked that although it was an old building, he remembered its being a good building.

President Shields responded that Holley Hall is in the flood plain.

Regent Cannestra asked whether it could be used for storage.

President Shields replied that it would become a playing field for intramurals.

Regent Leebern noted that at the April 1998 Board meeting in Albany, he had been impressed by the environment, but he noted the conservative enrollment increase.

President Shields stated that over 1,000 students have visited ASU from as far away as California and Michigan and there is a student coming to ASU from Bermuda in the fall.

Regent Leebern asked if the new facilities were improving recruitment.

President Shields replied that they were and that ASU has already accepted more students for the fall semester than it accepted all year last year.

Regent Hunt asked whether ASU received any Federal Emergency Management Association ("FEMA") funds from the flood for this building.

President Shields responded that there was a women's restroom upstairs and a men's restroom downstairs, and FEMA added bathrooms, painted, and updated the wiring.

Regent Jones asked what enrollment was anticipated for the fall semester.

President Shields replied that there are currently 3,200 students at ASU and a 5% increase is anticipated, making fall enrollment approximately 3,358.

Vice President for Fiscal Affairs Kenneth Dyer added that, on the information sheet, it was noted that the room utilization rate was below the System average, but the room utilization had not been re estimated since 1994 since ASU has been using modular classrooms.

Armstrong Atlantic State University ("AASU")
Regent Howell asked President Burnett how many volumes are held in the current library.

President Burnett replied that there are 185,000 volumes.

Regent Howell asked if there were plans to increase the number of volumes along with the expansion of the library.

President Burnett responded that the number would likely increase to close to 300,000.

Regent Howell asked what the volume count of the library was when it was originally constructed.

President Burnett did not know, but he noted that the institution had only 1,200 students at that time.

Regent McMillan remarked that his question was more general and likely applied to all three of the library projects being presented at this meeting. He asked what impact technology will have on the future need for library size. He cited the example of JStore which computerized the saving of many journals for many noteworthy institutions of higher education and which significantly reduced the need for shelf space for journals. He recognized that there needs to be space for student interaction, etc., but he questioned whether it was wise to continue to increase library size in the face of developing technology.

Dr. Desrochers responded that in preparation with all three presidents who would be presenting library projects, the staff raised the same question. She commented that the accrediting agencies that currently define what university libraries should possess have not come to terms with this issue yet. They talk about technology, but they are still using traditional standards. She also noted that technology is changing so rapidly that it is uncertain where it will end up. Only certain kinds of volumes are currently online, and there are a great deal that are not. As a professor, she felt there would always be a need for books.

President Burnett stressed that the library was originally built for a two-year school that had just become a four-year institution and that had only 1,200 students. In the year 2012, it is anticipated that AASU will have about 8,000 students. The growth factor, therefore, was a major element to this project request. He felt Dr. Desrochers had adequately answered the question, and he reiterated that although it is uncertain what the future will hold for libraries, he did not believe that books would totally disappear. With the new technologies, there will be more interaction and there needs to be a place for that to occur. He reminded the Board of collaborative learning and stressed that there must be a place for that to occur and a central focal point for the technology.

Regent Leebern added that the accreditation organizations should be concerned about accessibility, such as that provided by Georgia Library Learning Online ("GALILEO").

President Burnett responded that access is currently a problem in the library, because students must stand in line to use CD-ROMS and computers. He reminded the Regents that the library plan has built-in flexibility so that it can adjust to whatever the future holds. If stacks are reduced by electronic storage, then there would be additional space for technology, multimedia, and collaborative learning.

Regent Leebern asked whether the proposed library project currently accounts for additional accessibility.

President Burnett assured him that it does and demonstrated where the technology would be located.

Regent McMillan wondered if the names of libraries should be changed to reflect the scope of the changes.

President Burnett suggested "student learning center."

Regent Cannestra commented that although it is not certain where technology will end up, it is clear where it is going. He expressed that he felt it would be a mistake to include space for many books. He noted that the sales of encyclopedias have dropped, since people are now buying them on CD Rom. He stressed that it is important to think in terms of where technology is going rather than considering buying big volumes of books.

President Burnett reiterated that the library would be flexible to be modified significantly in the future. He explained that if enrollment projections are correct and there are 8,000 students in 2012, they will still need a place to access the information.

Regent Cannestra stated that they could access it in their dormitories or in their homes.

President Burnett stressed that this was a preliminary design for the library and that once the architect is hired, the library will be built with a vision for the future.

Regent Cannestra expressed that he agreed with Regent McMillan that technology is getting away from hard copies of texts.

President Burnett agreed with Regent Cannestra, but he did not think that books would disappear entirely.

Regent Allgood stated that books are absolutely essential to lawyers, but he had noticed that in law offices now, books are being replaced by modern technology. Five years ago, one of his law firm's major assets was its law library, which was housed on the entire ninth floor of the building. For every case that was filed in Richmond County, $1 was collected to maintain that library, and it was a state of-the-art library. However, a few days before the Board meeting, he had visited that library and there was no one there. He asserted that lawyers today use libraries for conferences; everything else is done electronically. Therefore, he felt this may be true in other areas.

Regent Allgood noted that AASU owns some very valuable real estate across the highway from the campus. He asked where that land was located.

President Burnett explained that there was a triangular space of about 32 acres across Abercorn Street.

Regent Allgood said that he knew that AASU and the Central Office have looked into doing something with that acreage, and he asked whether the acreage on the rear of the campus would be enough for the foreseeable future.

President Burnett responded that AASU's master planners had been working on that and that he would be back soon to discuss the master plan, including that space.

Regent Allgood asked whether AASU should consider selling that valuable land and using some of the proceeds for this project.

President Burnett replied that the last time he visited the Board, he was told not to sell the property and that there could be useful needs for it in the future, which he will discuss when he presents AASU's master plan to the Board.

DeKalb College
There were no questions or comments.

Georgia College & State University
Regent Cannestra asked whether the $7 million requested was too low an estimate for the cost of the project.

President DePaolo replied that Dr. Desrochers and Mr. Chatham felt the original estimates were too low, but she worked closely with them to create accurate estimates.

Regent Cannestra expressed concern that the costs of replacing plumbing and electrical work and renovating would be higher.

Mr. Chatham explained that the current estimates do reflect a cost increase. He expressed that he shared Regent Cannestra's concerns but that the buildings in question are very modest in terms of their overall size.

Regent Jones asked how much square footage would be in the connecting portion between the two existing buildings.

President DePaolo replied that it would be 6,500 square feet, of which 3,500 would be for instructional use.

Regent Jenkins remarked that this was a very good use of existing buildings to respond to concerns of the American Disabilities Act.

President DePaolo commented that elevators are expensive.

Regent Allgood commended President DePaolo's presentation.

Regent Hunt added that using the two existing walls between the proposed addition also saves money.

Regent Cannestra also commended the proposal.

Georgia Institute of Technology
Regent Jones asked President Clough what was the anticipated total enrollment for the fall semester.

President Clough replied that 13,500 students were expected in the fall.

Regent Howell asked how well the existing facilities can handle technology needs.

President Clough responded that in the area of computing, students and staff are spread out into seven different buildings. Because this is an area of rapidly increasing demand, GIT is struggling to keep up with it. Students are being put into these other buildings, while GIT attempts to keep them in relative physical proximity.

Regent Cannestra asked whether there is an upper limit on enrollment in the GIT master plan.

President Clough replied that there is an upper limit of 15,000 on campus, but there is a substantial distance-learning enrollment anticipated and there may be off-site opportunities in the future to accommodate growth.

Regent White remarked that the cost estimate of $173 per square foot seemed rather high. He asked if there was a reason for the high cost.

President Clough explained that this project is a high-tech building but that the cost was actually a little lower than some buildings because it does not include wet labs. There are dry labs and a great deal of research space to accommodate $25 million worth of research. He added that in the city of Atlanta, construction is expensive.

Regent White reiterated that $173 per square foot still seemed high.

Georgia Southern University
There were no questions or comments.

Kennesaw State University
There were no questions or comments.

Macon State College ("MSC")
Regent Cannestra remarked that the Medical College of Georgia ("MCG") has an exemplary distance learning program for nursing and asked whether MSC is participating in it.

President Bell replied that although it was currently not participating in that program, MSC would certainly plan to participate.

Regent Cannestra asserted that the ratio of traditional classrooms to distance learning classrooms (7:1) seemed backwards in light of that. He noted that the MCG program was very good and other institutions are taking advantage of it. He suggested that MSC consider more distance learning classrooms and fewer traditional classrooms.

President Bell responded that this was a good suggestion and MSC is very much interested in doing that.

Regent White asked for an explanation of the history of the enrollment figures. He noted that enrollment peaked in 1992-1993 and has diminished in recent years.

President Bell explained that there had been an enormous number of students (approximately 1,500) who were on campus studying nursing or pre-nursing. The beginning of the restructuring of the healthcare industry and the fact that the market became saturated decreased that segment of enrollment significantly when those graduates were not finding employment. MSC also lost 300 to 400 students to programs that Georgia Military Academy offered in Warner Robins. The rest of the decline President Bell could not explain.

Regent Cannestra remarked that the projected enrollment seemed rather optimistic, considering this trend.

President Bell replied that the program in information technology would create interest and that the local business community is interested in educating its employees at MSC because the college has created certificates especially for them. So, he felt there was enormous potential for growth. Additionally, the new health information management program should help build enrollment.

Regent Cannestra pointed out that the enrollment had declined slightly over the last several years but now exponential growth is projected.

President Bell responded that enrollment is getting better, because applications are up 14% for the fall semester and credit hours for the last quarter were higher than last year. He asserted that the new programs hold great promise for MSC and the community.

Middle Georgia College
Regent White asked what would be the savings on electrical repairs and maintenance in annual dollars rather than percentages.

President Welch remarked that the estimate of the electrical utilities was about $150,000 a year and the estimate of maintenance was about $7,000 or $8,000 a year.

North Georgia College & State University ("NGSU")
Regent Cannestra remarked that the drawing of the proposed building did not seem to fit in with the existing architecture on campus.

President Day replied that the artist's rendering was only a demonstration of the size of the building. The building would be red brick with columns and would blend in well with the existing buildings. He stressed that the artist's rendering of the building and the sample floor plan were only examples to give the Regents an idea of what the building might be like. At this point, there were no design funds, so the proposal of the project was not necessarily an accurate depiction of the actual building that will be designed when architects are hired.

Regent McMillan noted that the information regarding the type of space of this project read only "technology support and other," and he wondered how this related to the library.

President Day explained that the project was far more technology-oriented than the library was when it was first envisioned a few years ago and became the first priority on NGSU's list.

Regent Jones complimented the emphasis on technology in this project but asked where the books would be located.

President Day replied that the books would be in a number of places.

Regent Jones noted that technology is moving away from books.

President Day responded that there will likely always be books that are relevant to instructional programs. The library, through technology, can also supplement that.

Regent Jones asked if the enrollment is solid at NGSU.

President Day stated that NGSU had its largest overall class enrollment last fall. The entering class for this fall semester consists of 225 young men and women, the largest class since the 1980s.

Regent Jones asked whether the dormitories appropriated for the military are now full.

President Day replied that there are two military dormitories and two women's dormitories. The military dormitories are approximately 90% full, and the women's dormitories filled up in October 1997.

Regent Allgood commended President Day's presentation and noted that it had "demonstrative evidence," a term that was a catch phrase when he began practicing law. The only argument against "demonstrative evidence" was that it was not very flexible. So, he suggested that the project be amended to a "capital request for an old library/new learning technology center."

President Day agreed that would be an appropriate amendment.

State University of West Georgia
Regent White asked how much the leased space for continuing education was currently costing per year.

President Sethna did not know the exact figure, but he estimated that it was between $50,000 and $100,000 per year, which he did not consider a large amount of money. He added that those were just the offices, however, and classrooms add to that estimate.

Regent Jones commended the energy of President Sethna's presentation.

Regent Allgood also commented on President Sethna's enthusiasm.

University of Georgia
Regent Howell asked whether President Adams was requesting funding for only Phase 2 of the project.

President Adams explained that the project was listed as Phase 2 because it is a part of the expanding east campus but that the entire project would be built at one time.

Regent Howell asked if the cost listed was then for all three phases.

President Adams responded that $44 million is the total cost; $35 million is for instructional space, and $9 million is for expansion of the museum.

Regent White requested further clarification. He asked whether this figure included the Lamar Dodd School of Arts, the 3-D Art Building, and the 2-D Art Building.

President Adams stated that all of those buildings are considered the Lamar Dodd School of Arts, so this was a total package. He reminded the Board that Lamar Dodd is one of Georgia's most renowned artists and a long-time instructor and chair at UGA, so the entire school is named after him.

Regent Leebern asked if Phase 1 is where the fine arts auditorium currently exists.

President Adams explained that Phase 2 would be an expansion of the existing fine arts museum. There were monies committed during Dr. Knapp's presidency to build the museum, but the school itself stayed in its existing location on Jackson Street. Because of the improvement in the museum and the growth in the program, there has been much demand to expand the museum. Therefore, President Adams anticipates raising the $9 million necessary to expand the library and would like to locate the Lamar Dodd School of Art adjacent to it so that the programs can be integrated together again, since the museum serves as a major teaching facility.

Regent Howell asked how many students are enrolled in the Lamar Dodd School of Art.

President Adams replied that approximately 8,000 students take classes and that there are approximately 1,200 majors annually. Of those 1,200 majors, approximately 120 are graduate students.

Valdosta State University ("VSU")
Regent Howell noted that the percentage of funding to be raised privately seemed extremely large for a State school. He asked how confident President Bailey was that he could raise those funds.

President Bailey replied that he was very confident. He said that he might have asked for more, but VSU is known for its conservative approach to things. He added that the Board has been very generous to VSU in recent years.

After the presentations, Chancellor Portch commended the presidents' work and noted that the presidents appreciated this opportunity to present their campus needs to the Board. He explained that at this point in the meeting, the Regents needed to rank the proposed projects 1 through 13 with number 1 being the highest priority.

Regent Cannestra asked whether the Middle Georgia College campus utilities loop was appropriate for the capital projects list.

Dr. Desrochers explained that in the principles adopted by the Board the preceding year, it was decided that there will be the occasional need for infrastructure projects which fall into the major capital projects list because they will cost more than $5 million. The various arguments made for why it was appropriate to upgrade all the utilities at one time also made it a major capital project.

The Chancellor added that it would need to be a major capital project to be done properly.

The Regents then took a few minutes to consider their selections and turn in their ballots, while Chancellor Portch explained that the staff would calculate the results overnight and come back to the Board with the results on Wednesday.

After the ballots were collected, the Chancellor addressed the issue of payback projects. He explained that the payback list was more fluid. The payback projects also require G.O. bonding, but there is a revenue stream behind them to pay them back. The presidents would not be presenting these, because the staff had determined that they are all worthy projects. They were listed for the Regents in the order of priority from the staff's perspective, but Mr. Chatham would be giving brief descriptions of each of the projects and answering any questions that the Regents might have.

Mr. Chatham explained that there were five payback projects presented for Board consideration this year and that the first project on the payback list was for Savannah State University. He reminded the Board that last year, it voted to put on the list a dormitory project in the amount of $15 million for Savannah State University. Half of the funding was to be State funded, and half was to be from campus resources. Now that this project is moving forward as project number 20 on the list and there is the chance for State funding this year, the proposed payback portion ($7.5 million) is for the matching funds from campus resources.

Mr. Chatham stated that the University of Georgia and Kennesaw State University ("KSU") were both proposing the construction of parking decks at $10.5 million and $15 million, respectively. Both would be paid for from student fees at existing authorized rates, and both are necessary to serve existing populations at those universities, particularly the one at KSU because of facilities currently on the capital projects list.
A university center was requested by Augusta State University ("Augusta State") to augment facilities there. Mr. Chatham noted that the $8 million project will be fully funded by currently authorized student fees and will include student government offices, publications and activities spaces, and food service and dining facilities.

Finally, DeKalb College was requesting $1.125 million for the payback portion of the student center under consideration for the capital projects list at this meeting.

Regent White asked if Augusta State would be able to pay back the $8 million under currently authorized student activity fees.

Mr. Chatham assured him that it would.

Regent Clark asked whether that project was a full payback or a matching funds project.

Mr. Chatham replied that it was a full payback project.

Chancellor Portch added that the students at Augusta State have voted on and approved a fee for this purpose. He asked Mr. Chatham if the students had begun collecting that fee.

Mr. Chatham did not know if the fee had been collected, but it had been authorized by the Board.

Regent White asked what the enrollment was at Augusta State.

Mr. Chatham replied that it was nearly 6,000.

Regent Jones asked whether the parking garage at UGA was to be built or if it was the deck currently under construction.

Mr. Chatham responded that it was in addition to the deck currently being constructed. He added that the main campus is approximately 600 acres, so there is need for more than one parking deck.

Regent Cannestra noted that the DeKalb College payback project would have to be tied to the proposed capital project. He asked how to prioritize this request in order to align it with the capital project.

Chancellor Portch remarked that this was a very good question that he had also asked.

Dr. Desrochers explained that two payback projects were funded last year and only one the year before. So, the Board should try to get it in line with when the capital project likely would be funded.

Regent Cannestra stated that it would likely be 2004 at the earliest.

Dr. Desrochers speculated that it could be 2003.

Regent Cannestra remarked that it should likely be ranked number 5, since it would be years before the capital project would be funded anyway.

The Chancellor responded that was why it was listed last on the list of paybacks.

Regent Howell asked how long the payback period would be.

Mr. Chatham replied that the G.O. bonds are 20-year bonds, so it was 20-year payback period.

Regent Allgood asked why it was difficult to get funding for payback projects from the current legislature.

The Chancellor responded that the State has been treating paybacks as though they were not paybacks. The Governor advocates shifting to a separate authority to issue the bonds for the paybacks so that they would not use up any of the State's indebtedness. It passed the Senate but has not gotten out of the Rules Committee of the House. Chancellor Portch predicted that it will be an issue back on the table again. He remarked that the University System has not been very successful with paybacks the last couple of years because the advocates for the different methodology want to try to get this on the table.

Regent Allgood commented that when he was in the Senate, capital improvements were paid in cash and the Senate could not persuade the House to deal with long-term capital improvements as any ordinary business would by capitalizing. He remarked that the rates are favorable right now and bonds are rated very high. He was puzzled as to why the legislature was having this problem.

Chancellor Portch added that the greatest safeguard against the System defaulting on these bonds is the marketplace. He said that some believe that even though the bonds would not be the indebtedness of the State, there would be a moral obligation to be considered. The System does not have a bad default record.

Regent Coleman stated that the House views this as an avenue for the System to get away from legislative control.

The Chancellor reiterated that this would be back on the table again. He noted that Connecticut recently approved a similar bill for its universities.

Regent Clark asked how close Savannah State University is to getting its funding.

Chancellor Portch replied that it is now number 12 on the major capital projects list.

The Regents then voted on the payback projects and returned their ballots to the staff for calculation, the results of which would be presented to the Committee on Wednesday.

Regent Clark commended the presidents and the staff for their presentations.

Chair Coleman adjourned the Committee on Real Estate and Facilities as a Committee of the Whole at 3:25 p.m.

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, RESEARCH, AND EXTENSION

The Committee on Education, Research, and Extension met on Wednesday, June 10, 1998 at approximately 9:45 a.m. in the Board Room. Committee members in attendance were Chair Edgar L. Rhodes, Vice Chair David H. (Hal) Averitt, and Regents Juanita P. Baranco, Hilton H. Howell, Jr., and Elridge W. McMillan. Chair Rhodes reported to the Board on Wednesday that the Committee had reviewed ten items, four of which required action. Additionally, 414 faculty and administrative appointments were reviewed and recommended for approval. With motion properly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the Board approved and authorized the following:

1. Establishment of the Bachelor of Science in Sport Management, Kennesaw State University

Approved: The Board approved the request of President Betty Siegel of Kennesaw State University to offer the bachelor of science in sport management, effective June 10, 1998.

Abstract: The bachelor of science in sport management is a unique degree which will allow students to select concentrations in fitness management, sport journalism, sport marketing, or recreation management. It is the restructuring of the existing concentration in sport management within the Department of Health, Physical Education, and Sport Science ("HPS"). Classroom theory will be matched with practical application experiences in community or corporate settings. The bachelor of science in sport management is interdisciplinary because faculty from three colleges and four academic departments provide instruction.

Need: The existing sport management concentration has 33 of the 421 students identified as health and physical education majors. It is anticipated that 33 of these students in addition to students from other disciplines will enroll in this major. Thirty-one of the 247 students in the non-P-12 certification program are currently pursuing a concentration in Sport Management. According to the Journal of Sport Management (1995), "sport has become America's 23rd largest industry with a 6.1% increase in the gross national sports product index ("GNSP"). The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the recreation services industry had a 27% increase in jobs between 1985 and 1995 (in Kraus, Leisure in a Changing America, 1990). According to the U.S. News & World Report, October 30, 1995, sport management/sport marketing is one of the top 20 job tracks for the future. Various companies in the State have inquired about the availability of sport management professionals. For example, the following companies have offered to serve as intern and placement sites for this program: ProServ, SportsLife, Clarion Sports and Entertainment, Advantage International, Roswell Recreation & Parks Department, YMCA of Cobb County, Turner Sports, Inc., Sporting Goods Agents Association, and Clayton International Park.

Objectives: The primary goal of the degree is to provide broad based training in the sport management field. The specific objectives of the program include: preparing students in fitness management with the skills to be employed as managerial professionals in private and corporate fitness facilities and health clubs; preparing students in sport journalism with the skills to be employed as college/university sport information directors or in print or broadcast media; preparing students in sport marketing with the skills to be employed by professional sport teams or the sporting goods industry; and preparing students in recreational management to be employed by the YMCA, YWCA, city recreational agencies, and governmental or private agencies.

Curriculum: The bachelor of science in sport management will be housed in the Department of Health, Physical Education, and Sport Science. The sport management degree candidate will receive a Bachelor of Science degree. The degree will require 120 credit hours of course work. Within the 120 semester hour curriculum, students will choose a concentration from one of the following interdisciplinary areas: fitness management, sport journalism, sport marketing, or recreation management. Each area will have a core body of knowledge from the HPS and business disciplines and specific training in the concentration of choice. In all concentrations, an internship will be required to place the student in an off-campus learning environment. Examples of such internships include: fitness management students working with managerial professionals at fitness facilities or health clubs; sport journalism students working in a college sports information office or employed by print or broadcast media; sport marketing students working with sporting goods manufacturers or sports teams; and recreation management students completing internships with the YMCA, YWCA, county recreational programs, or governmental/private agencies which have recreational components.

Projected Enrollment: It is estimated that for the first three years of the program student enrollment will be 46, 58, and 76.

Funding: No additional resources are requested for this program. Kennesaw State University will initiate and maintain this program through the reallocation of existing funds.

Assessment: The Office of Academic Affairs will work with the campus to measure the success and continued effectiveness of the proposed program. In 2001, this program will be evaluated by the institution and the System Office to determine the success of the program's implementation and achievement of the enrollment, quality, viability, and cost-effectiveness indicated in the proposal.

2. Establishment of the Master of Health Services Administration and Master of Public Health Degrees, Georgia Southern University

Approved: The Board approved the request of President Nicholas Henry of Georgia Southern University to authorize the establishment of the master of health services administration and master of public health ("MPH") degrees, effective June 10, 1998.

Abstract: Georgia Southern University proposed to establish programs in the master of health services administration and master of public health degrees. The master of public health and master of health services administration degrees were approved by the Board for Armstrong Atlantic State University at the December 10, 1997 meeting. It was anticipated that a collaborative arrangement would come forward in 1998. Georgia Southern University and Armstrong Atlantic State University will collaborate on the transfer of credits; the urban mission for the MPH at Armstrong Atlantic State University and the rural mission for the MPH at Georgia Southern University; the MPH core; cross-listing of certain courses; and the sharing of faculty for staffing of courses. Additionally, there will be a cross-listing of certain courses and transfer of credit. The degrees will be conferred by both institutions. The programs combine the resources of both institutions to create strong and visible public health and health services administration programs. The benefits of the proposed programs include better use of available faculty resources through increased class sizes; joint recruitment for students and collaboration on other student-related functions; and inter-unit cooperation throughout both universities.

Need: The U.S. Bureau of Labor projects that employment in the health field will account for 12% of total job growth between 1992 and 2005 (Horton & Knopp, 1994). The increase in health services is expected to increase more than twice as fast as the economy as a whole (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1996). Quality of life for Georgia's citizens has been a concern among policymakers as the state ranks forty-third overall in the health of its children (Kids Count, 1995). In addition, many of the coastal Georgia and contiguous counties have a rate of stroke deaths two times higher among people 35 to 54 years than the average for the same group in 42 states outside the area (Howard et al., 1997). The student demand at Georgia Southern University for an MPH was demonstrated by the results of a survey of students currently enrolled in the following programs: community health (n = 61), health behavior (n = 30), nursing (n = 13), and pre-allied health professions (n = 7). Overall 83% of the sample expressed an interest in the MPH and 79% reported that they would consider applying for admission to the program. Additionally, 72% of the student population expressed an interest in applying for admission to the master of health services administration program.

Objectives: Students completing the master of health services administration degree will be prepared to assess the health status of a population, understand the determinants of health and illness in a population and define the factors that influence the utilization of health services by a population; define the organization, finance and delivery services of health care systems; apply analytical skills from the disciplines of economics, financial management, quantitative decision making, and policy analysis to the administration of health service organizations and delivery systems; and identify the economic, political, social, and technological forces that affect healthcare delivery. The program is designed to prepare competent administrators who can plan, organize, coordinate, and supervise the delivery of health care.

The objectives of the master of public health degree are to enable students to identify and assess the health needs of human populations and to plan, implement, and evaluate programs that address those needs. Students will receive applied skills training to evaluate health promotion and education programs for diverse communities across a variety of health issues. Other objectives of the program include: training in new and emerging diseases and their prevention; demonstrating an understanding of how health promotion programs in several health content areas function across a variety of settings; and demonstrating an understanding of core public health concepts in the areas of health education, health behavior, community development and organization, health services administration, epidemiology, biostatistics, and health communications.

Curricula:

Master of Health Services Administration
The master of health services administration degree is a 37 to 39 semester credit hour program. The program is housed in the College of Health and Professional Studies. The curriculum consists of 15 semester hours of health, 12 semester hours of business, 6 hours of guided electives, and a 6 credit hour management residency experience. The Center for Rural Health and Research and the Magnolia Coastlands Area Health Education Center will provide opportunities for students to identify internship/residency opportunities.

Master of Public Health
The program requires students to pursue an instructional program of study that contains the knowledge areas basic to public health: biostatistics, epidemiology, environmental health science, health services administration, and social and behavioral sciences. The 45 semester credit hour program will be housed in the College of Health and Professional Studies. The program consists of five core public health courses, six community health education core courses, two guided elective courses, and one six credit hour field practice experience.

Organizational Structure/Program Governance: The appropriate administrators from the master of public health and master of health services administration programs at Georgia Southern University and Armstrong Atlantic State University will collaborate on schedule planning. Course schedules will be shared with faculty and students from both Armstrong Atlantic State University and Georgia Southern University for advisement and registration. GSAMS courses may be used to assure the most efficacious utilization of faculty only upon permission of the receiving site. There will be full transfer of courses between the two institutions for each program. Faculty from each institution will be represented on the other institution's advisory committee for each program. Faculty from each institution may serve on practica and theses committees. Faculty from each institution may direct independent studies.

Projected Enrollment: It is anticipated that for the first three years of the program, student enrollment will be the following for each program:

Degree	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3
Master of Health Services Administration	10	30	50
Master of Public Health	10	25	45

Funding: No additional state funding is required to implement the program. Redirection efforts will center upon internal reallocation from low priority programs.

Georgia Southern University and Armstrong Atlantic State University
Sample Common Courses
Master of Public Health and Master of Health Services Administration Degrees

Master of Public Health
AASU Course MPH Degree	GSO Course MPH Degree
HSCP 7110: Epidemiology	HLTH 7231: Epidemiology
HSCP 6700: Biostatistics	HLTH 6131: Biostatistics
HSCP 8710: Research Methods	HLTH 6130: Research Methods in Health Science
HSCP 8700: Public Health Planning and Evaluation	HLTH 7232: Health Promotion Planning and Evaluation
HSCP 7720: Theory in Health Education	HLTH 7232: Health Behavior Theory
HSCP 5700: Environmental Health Issues	HLTH 7233: Environmental Health
HSCA 7620: Health Care Administration	HLTH 7330: Health Services Administration
Guided Electives	Guided Elective

Master of Health Services Administration
AASU Course MHSA Degree	GSO Course MHSA Degree
Leveling Courses	Leveling Courses
Financial or Managerial Accounting	Accounting and Control
Biostatistics	Biostatistics
Macroeconomic Theory	Foundations of Economics
Courses in the Major:	Courses in the Major:
HSCA 7660: Quantitative Methods for Health Care Decision Making	MGNT 6320: Quantitative Methods for Business
HSCA 8600: Organizational Theory and Management and Behavior	MGNT 6320: Survey of Management and Human Behavior
HSCA 7620: Health Care Administration	HLTH 7330: Health Services Administration
HSCP 7110: Epidemiology	HLTH 7231: Epidemiology
Guided Electives	Guided Electives

3. Establishment of the External Associate of Applied Science Degree in Environmental Horticulture Technology, Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College

Approved: The Board approved the request of President Harold Loyd of Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College to establish an external degree offering of the existing associate of applied science ("A.A.S.") degree in environmental horticulture technology, effective June 10, 1998.

Abstract: Golf and grounds management is a concentration within the existing A.A.S. in environmental horticulture technology degree presently offered on the campus of Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College. Coastal Georgia Community College, Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College ("ABAC"), and area golf clubs propose a collaboration which will allow offering the program in Brunswick, Georgia. General education courses will be taught on the campus of Coastal Georgia Community College, and ABAC personnel will teach technical courses on site at various golf facilities in the area around the Golden Isles.

Need: Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College has been approached by a consortium of coastal golf courses and grounds operations to provide professional training at an off-campus location in the form of college courses to present employers. This is a response to regional industry workforce needs for entry level management personnel in the green industry. Approximately 35 employees in the green industry from this area have been identified as potential students by golf course and grounds management personnel in the collaborative effort. The size of the green industry is sufficient to accommodate such a program. The proposal has industry involvement with Sea Island, Ocean Forest, Hampton Club, Jekyll Island, and Sea Palms Golf Courses. This is a response to regional industry workforce needs.

Curriculum: Coastal Georgia Community College will supply the general education and learning support courses. Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College will supply the specialized courses in golf and grounds management. The technical courses in this program will be taught at Sea Island Company, which has agreed to provide facilities and equipment at one of the participating golf courses. Students will earn 27 semester credit hours at Coastal Georgia Community College and 42 semester credit hours from ABAC. This collaborative effort would culminate in the participant's earning an associate of applied science in environmental horticulture technology degree with a concentration in golf and grounds management from ABAC. Students will have access to all educational resources and technology available to the students at Coastal Georgia Community College. Students will demonstrate a working knowledge of turfgrass and ornamental species and maintenance requirements in a golf course and grounds environment.

Funding: There are no facilities costs or degree program approvals involved. This is a request for provisional siting.

Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College
A.A.S. in Environmental Horticulture Technology External Degree
Sample Calendar

General Education
Classes to be taught at Costal Georgia Community College, Brunswick, GA.

Technical Classes to Be Taught by ABAC Faculty

Semester	Course	Time	Day
Fall 1999	HORT 2202: Grounds Maintenance Equipment	3:00 - 6:53 pm	Fri.
Fall 1999	HORT 2231: Turfgrass Science & Technology	8:00 - 11:53 am	Sat.
Fall 1999	HORT 2239: Grounds Irrigation Systems	1:00 - 4:53 pm	Sat.
Spring 2000	HORT 2232: Turf Pest Management	3:00 - 6:53 pm	Fri.
Spring 2000	HORT 2233: Golf Course Design & Management	8:00 - 1:53 am	Sat.
Summer 2000	HORT 2281: Special Problems in Golf & Grounds Mgmt.	3:00 - 6:53 pm	Fri.
Summer 2000	HORT 2282: Special Problems in Golf & Grounds Mgmt.	8:00 - 11:53 am	Sat.
Summer 2000	HORT 2283: Special Problems in Golf & Grounds Mgmt.	1:00 - 4:53 pm	Sat.
Fall 2000	HORT 2241: Grounds Management	3:00 - 6:53 pm	Fri.
Fall 2000	HORT 2243: Urban Tree Maintenance	8:00 - 11:53 am	Sat.
Fall 2000	HORT 2270: Woody Ornamental Plant Identification	1:00 - 6:53 pm	Sat.
Spring 2001	HORT 2236: Environmental Issues	3:00 - 6:53 pm	Fri.
Spring 2001	HORT 2244: Ornamental Pest Management	8:00 - 11:53 am	Sat.

4. Administrative and Academic Appointments and Personnel Actions, Various System Institutions

The following administrative and academic appointments were reviewed by Education Committee Chair Edgar L. Rhodes and were approved by the Board. All regular appointments are on file with the Office of Academic Affairs.

CONFERRING OF EMERITUS STATUS: AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRESIDENTS OF VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, THE BOARD CONFERRED THE TITLE OF EMERITUS UPON THE FOLLOWING FACULTY MEMBERS, EFFECTIVE ON THE DATES INDICATED:

(A) GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

ALFORD, CECIL O.: PROFESSOR EMERITUS, SCHOOL OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, EFFECTIVE JUL 2, 1998.

JOY, EDWARD B.: PROFESSOR EMERITUS, SCHOOL OF ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, EFFECTIVE JUL 1, 1998.

THORNTON, SANDRA W.: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR EMERITA, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY, IVAN ALLEN COLLEGE, EFFECTIVE JUL 10, 1998.

(B) UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

EDWARDS, CHARLES HENRY JR.: EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, FRANKLIN COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, EFFECTIVE JUL 2, 1998.

PROKASY, WILLIAM F.: VP FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS EMERITUS & PROFESSOR PSYCHOLOGY EMERITUS, VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, EFFECTIVE JUL 1, 1998.

WOODRUFF, JOHN MEREDITH: PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF CROP & SOIL SCIENCES, DEPARTMENT OF CROP & SOIL SCIENCES, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES, EFFECTIVE JUL 1, 1998.

DOSIER, LLOYD N.: PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT, COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, EFFECTIVE SEP 1, 1998.

(D) ARMSTRONG ATLANTIC STATE UNIVERSITY

BREWER, JOHN GILBERT: PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY EMERITUS, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY & PHYSICS, COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, EFFECTIVE AUG 8, 1998.

(E) COLUMBUS STATE UNIVERSITY

ATKINS, JAMES T.: PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING AND CLINICAL PROGRAMS, SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, EFFECTIVE JUN 10, 1998.

CARLISLE, EARNEST: PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, SCHOOL OF SCIENCE, EFFECTIVE JUN 10, 1998.

JUSTICE, ARTHUR E., SR.: DEAN EMERITUS, SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, EFFECTIVE JUN 10, 1998.

(F) KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY

SPARKS, DONALD JACKSON: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF MATHEMATICS, DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, COLLEGE OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE, EFFECTIVE SEP 1, 1998.

TEBEEST, RONALD H.: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, COLLEGE OF ARTS, HUMANITIES & SOCIAL SCIENCES, EFFECTIVE AUG 14, 1998.

(G) SOUTHERN POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY

CHESHIER, STEPHEN ROBERT: PRESIDENT EMERITUS, EFFECTIVE JUL 1, 1998.

APPROVAL OF LEAVES OF ABSENCE: THE BOARD APPROVED THE FOLLOWING LEAVES OF ABSENCE AND THE SALARIES FOR THE PERIODS RECOMMENDED AT THE FOLLOWING INSTITUTIONS:

(A) UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

BLEISCH, PAMELA ROLANDA: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS, FRANKLIN COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, LEAVE FROM AUG 20, 1998 TO MAY 7, 1999, WITH PAY.

DOWNS, BERTIS E., IV: PART-TIME RESEARCH ASSOC, SCHOOL OF LAW, LEAVE FROM AUG 20, 1998 TO MAY 7, 1999, WITHOUT PAY.

MCLAUGHLIN, H. JAMES: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, SCH OF TEACHER EDUC - DEPT OF ELEM EDUC, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, LEAVE FROM JAN 1, 1999 TO JUN 30, 1999, WITH PAY.

PELLEGRINI, ANTHONY D.: PROFESSOR, SCH OF TEACHER EDUC - DEPT OF ELEM EDUC,COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, LEAVE FROM AUG 17, 1998 TO JAN 31, 1999, WITHOUT PAY.

THURMOND, MICHAEL: SR PUBLIC SERVICE ASSOC, INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT, VICE PRESIDENT FOR SERVICE, LEAVE FROM APR 27, 1998 TO NOV 3, 1998, WITHOUT PAY.

(B) GEORGIA SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY

PRICE, PATRICIA T.: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEARNING SUPPORT, LEAVE FROM AUG 1, 1998 TO MAY 31, 1999, WITH PAY.

FENSTER, KENNETH R.: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY (CENTRAL), DIVISION OF SOCIAL SCIENCE (CENTRAL), LEAVE FROM AUG 17, 1998 TO MAY 6, 1999, WITH PAY.

OTROSZKO, MARILYN R.: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH (GWINNETT CTR),DIVISION OF HUMANITIES (GWINNETT CTR), LEAVE FROM AUG 17, 1998 TO MAY 6, 1999, WITH PAY.

APPROVAL OF FACULTY FOR TENURE STATUS CHANGE: THE BOARD APPROVED TENURE STATUS CHANGES FOR THE FOLLOWING FACULTY MEMBERS, EFFECTIVE ON THE DATES INDICATED:

(A) CLAYTON COLLEGE & STATE UNIVERSITY

REYNOLDS, F. RICHARD: ASSISTANT PROFESSOR & COUNSELOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEARNING SUPPORT, SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCE, FROM TENURE TRACK TO NONTENURE TRACK, EFFEC

Main Navigation

Meeting Minutes - June 1998

Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Held At 270 Washington St., S.W., Atlanta, Georgia June 9 and 10, 1998

Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia
Held At 270 Washington St., S.W., Atlanta, Georgia
June 9 and 10, 1998