Supporting:

The Full Board Convened at 1:30 P.m.

ROLL CALL

Regents Present:  Stephen Barrett, Mike Foster Vice Chair, Lynn Hamilton, Kala French, John Mercer Chair, Mark Semmens, and Lila Taylor.  Also present was Commissioner Sheila M. Stearns

Regent Absent:  Governor Brian Schweitzer ex officio, and Linda McCulloch ex officio both excused

ADMINISTRATIVE/BUDGET ITEMS

a.

President Dennison gave an update on the accomplishments of the campus in reducing the deficit in the Athletic budget.  He believes they should be able to eliminate it by 2007, but have reported 2008 on the side of caution.  They have also reduced the game day price of tickets for students from $7 to $4.  Based on the recommendations of Don Read they now have one stop shopping with centralized ticketing which frees up the Griz Scholarship group to do fund raising.  He commended Don Read and the collegiate athletics department.

  Regent Semmens moved APPROVAL of Item a.

Chair Mercer stated he was proud to see how well this was turning out.  He said The University of Montana and the Athletic Department deserve praise, because there was a mess and it was cleaned up ahead of schedule, and they went on to play in the finals.  The State needs to appreciate this accomplishment.

   Motion APPROVED unanimously on 7-0 vote.

b.

Commissioner Stearns said it was her pleasure and honor to have known and worked with Don Read over the last many years.  She said many people over the years had said that as a Coach and as the Athletic Director, Don Read had always treated them with respect and attention.  President Dennison said he didn�t know if there were words to convey his appreciation, and that Don Read had done a marvelous job.  President Dennison said that Don Read is a wonderful human being, an excellent coach, and a fine administrator.  He thanked him for his service to the university.  Don Read indicated he was touched by the comments of President Dennison and Commissioner Stearns.  He found it an honor to work at the university and to serve the State every single day.  He appreciates their recognition of what has been accomplished in the Athletics Department.

   Regent Mercer moved APPROVAL of Item b.

   Motion APPROVED unanimously on 7-0 vote.

c.

Public Input

Mr. Jeff Easton was neutral on the proposal, but believed it should have gone through the bid process.

The following individuals gave oral testimony on the proposed development:

Against:

Supporting:

Written Testimony was provided by the following individuals:

Against:

Phone calls were received from the following individuals:

Against:

END PUBLIC INPUT

Following a 10-minute break, the Board reconvened at 5:25 p.m.

President Dennison commented that the plans are not final, but they want to proceed with the planning.  There is no financial expense to UM, it is not gated, but an open community, and the amount of open space will be about the same as on the main campus.  They looked at the need for academic building space and have enough for 40% expansion, which would accommodate a student population of 23,000.  Walt Brett applauded the passion they had heard today during public comment.  He pointed out approval today would not be for the project but to move forward with planning only, and to clear up public misconceptions.  He believes this project is in the best interest of the campus, but he respects the opinions expressed.  Regent Semmens asked if the City and County had taken a position on the project.  President Dennison indicated he didn�t think they took a position, but it was discussed with the City Council and the Facilities Committee on campus.  Regent Semmens noted the lack of student involvement, and that this project is not part of the long-term master plan.  President Dennison said it is not in the master plan, but has been discussed with the Student Housing Committee.  It was not discussed with students because it is still in the early planning stages.  Regent Foster asked about the timing on bringing such proposals to the Board.  He wanted to know what the magic moment is to present a proposal that is neither too early nor too late.  President Dennison replied he had mentioned it to the Board for the first time about a year prior.  They continued to talk about it throughout the year.  He agreed he did not have the answer to what would be the appropriate time to approach the Board on such items.  President Dennison indicated that it was too early in the planning process to say yes or no to decide to actually commit to the project, but they need to continue the planning to make a reasonable decision.  Chair Mercer noted the lack of procedures or directions in policy, and a lot of work had been done at the campus level, and lots of money spent.  He indicated the Commissioner should come up with specific timelines for these issues.  Regent Semmens thanked the public for joining the meeting, and commended President Dennison and his staff for seeking creative ways to create incremental revenues.  He indicated the State level of funding for peer states is 28% higher than Montana.  He appealed for help from the public.  Regent Barrett indicated it was too early to be opposed to the plan or to support it.  The decision today is whether they want to study it to get the needed answers.  Regent Barrett has questions on how the funds would be used, the generation of taxes, implications of the tradeoff of space to the proposed use, if there are alternate sites, what are the zoning requirements, what is the partnership, what are the dollars, and if this is the appropriate mechanism.  He noted that intelligent examination of all the alternatives is good.  He believes the Board would be remiss if they did not authorize UM to get the answers.

  Regent Semmens moved to SUSPEND active planning on this project, and to evaluate the best and highest use of the land, and alternate means and forms of revenue generation.

Regent Hamilton indicated this issue had been before the Board at least three times with no real discussion by the Board.  She noted the Board was aware this was taking place even if it was not well developed.  Regent Hamilton indicated the campus had done what the Board requested of them by going to the community first.  The golf course now generates $14,000, but the proposed development would generate $800,000.  She indicated the Board needed to give clear directions to the developers, and that she would vote against this motion.  Regent Semmens said it is not clear, and needs additional work and input from the students.  Regent Foster indicated he thought there would be action taken at this meeting to approve the development, but the community is not embracing the proposal, and he cannot support it.  Regent French said the students gave a clear message that they do not support this proposal, mostly because of the location, but also because they don�t feel the $61 tuition relief would offset the loss of something they want and use.  She indicated she appreciated the option for the campus to continue to find some way to generate revenue since the Board has directed the campuses to do this very thing, and she doesn�t want to see them discouraged.  Regent French said she hoped the China issue would continue regardless of the outcome on this item.  Regent Barrett said they needed to focus on what they came to do.  He would expect the campus to come back with the reason this proposal is better than something else.  Regent Semmens indicated it would be a mistake to have the campus put in more time and money based on the input received today.  He preferred a broader study for opportunities aside from this proposal.  Regent Taylor agreed with Regent Semmens, and wasn�t sure the MUS should be in the residential development business.  Regent Hamilton asked if the Motion was approved, how long they would give students for their input, and when would the Board want all this information.  Chair Mercer asked if the Motion was approved, if it meant the campus could not start again until the Board took formal action.  Regent Semmens indicated he hadn�t thought that through.  The time frame would require guidance from the campus.  These are very important, long-term, and permanent decisions that merit careful deliberation.  He did not believe that trying to accomplish this in four months made a lot of sense.  Regent French said it must be made clear that the students have already said they are against this proposal.  Chair Mercer indicated he did not want to lead people on and have them continue to put in their money.  In weighing the input, he did not think it was good to build a residence on the golf course.  He indicated he would like to take a vote to stop the proposal.

   Motion FAILED on 4-3 vote with Regents Mercer, Semmens and Taylor supporting.

   Regent Foster moved to NOT ADOPT the proposal, and for planning to be discontinued.

Regent French asked if the Motion was for the south campus, or in general.  Regent Foster indicated it would be for the south campus only.  Regent Barrett urged the Board to deny the Motion because he wanted to hear the answers to the questions raised at this meeting.  He is concerned the Board is creating a Catch 22 for the campuses to deal with any complex issues.

  Motion APPROVED on 5-2 vote with Regents Barrett and Hamilton dissenting.

Commissioner Stearns noted that regardless of the outcome, the issue was first brought to the Board in July of last year.  She believed it was her obligation, and if the campuses are caught in a Catch 22, it is not the system�s finest hour.  The campus should have been advised sooner.  She indicated the Board had taken the issue seriously, but she also felt the heartburn and heartbreak of the people who did not make a secret of this issue, but had no defined process to follow.  Chair Mercer indicated there is a difference between informing the Board and getting the Board�s approval.

With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.