Arizona Board of Regents

SUMMARY

The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and Sunset review of the Arizona Board of Regents (Board) pursuant to a June 16, 1999, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This audit was conducted as part of the Sunset review set forth in A.R.S. §41-1951 et seq.

The Arizona Board of Regents is charged with the responsibility of governing the State’s university system. Article XI of the Arizona Constitution created the Board and provides it with general authority to supervise and control the State’s universities. Statutes establish more specific powers and duties, including setting tuition rates and admission requirements, and overseeing university operations, including reviewing requests for capital projects and operating budgets.

Board Has Made Progress
in Addressing Policy Issues
(See pages 9 through 13)

The Board has made considerable progress in addressing policy issues since a 1991 Auditor General performance audit (see Report No. 91-9), but should make some decisions regarding issues raised in recent statewide planning efforts. After the 1991 audit, the Board sought statutory authority to delegate more responsibilities to the universities. The Legislature’s 1992 amendment to A.R.S. §15-1626 permitted the Board to focus more attention on policy issues instead of operational details. As a result, the Board has been able to attend to such issues as faculty tenure, patents and other intellectual property deriving from faculty research, improving the undergraduate student experience, and planning and managing capital assets.

The Board participated in two statewide education initiatives, the 2000 Arizona Town Hall and the 1999-2000 Governor’s Task Force on Higher Education. These groups made numerous recommendations regarding higher education in Arizona. As the State’s policy-setting body for the public university system, the Board should take the lead on some of these suggestions. While some action has been taken to identify and implement a number of key recommendations from each of these reports, the Board has not systematically reviewed each of these recommendations to determine which ones it will adopt. Once it has identified which recommendations it should adopt, the Board should prioritize them and either implement them or delegate them to the universities.

Board Should Strengthen
Oversight of Information Technology
(See pages 15 through 18)

Although the Board has established reasonably extensive oversight practices with respect to university functions such as capital projects and accountability for undergraduate education, it should strengthen its oversight of information technology projects. The Board has not established a process to adequately oversee such projects which can cost several million dollars. Unlike other state agencies, the universities do not have to submit their information technology projects to the Government Information Technology Agency (GITA) for review. The Board has delegated IT project review to the Council of Presidents, a body comprising the three university presidents and the Board’s executive director. The Board receives only an annual list of projects costing over $1 million, without any information detailing the need or justification for such projects. To better ensure that university IT projects are appropriately planned and coordinated, the Board should establish a review process that is substantially equivalent to GITA’s process. This process should include a review of factors such as development costs and operating costs, proposed technology, major deliverables, other alternatives considered, and benefits to be achieved.

Board Should Continue
Its Progress in Developing
Arizona Regents University
(See pages 19 through 24)

The Board has made significant progress establishing its new distance-learning program, Arizona Regents University (ARU), and will need to address additional issues as it continues to move the program forward. The Board intends ARU to increase university access by offering courses and degrees online from the three universities. The Board has already made several strategic decisions regarding ARU’s overall scope, its degrees, and its target population. For example, it has initially allocated $2 million annually for ARU from the Proposition 301 initiative for education and workforce development. Additionally, it conducted a statewide survey of employers and potential students to assess the demand for distance-learning education. Finally, it has determined that ARU will initially offer degrees in three areas:  engineering, nursing, and education.

Although the Board has addressed several strategic issues relating to ARU, it will need to address some additional issues as it continues to implement the program. For example, the Board needs to conduct additional research on the demand for ARU’s programs, such as the groups who would likely enroll in ARU’s programs. Additionally, although the Board has decided to initially offer degrees in engineering, nursing, and education, it will need to decide whether ARU will offer degrees in other areas.