7

There are requests also for non-resident increases at UNC Asheville, additional increases
for non-resident students in certain situations, and graduate students in the original plan
that are not considered in Jeff’s motion. Since the Budget and Finance Committee
unanimously made the recommendation on its total program, I hope the board will defeat
this substitute motion and favor the motion that was brought by the Budget and Finance
Committee. Thank you.

Mr. Nieman said his substitute motion changed only the resident undergraduate

portion of the tuition recommendations and did not substitute or amend any of the extra special

requests to which Mr. Warwick referred. Mr. Nieman and Mr. Sanders agreed that the motion

would amend the original motion and concurred in Mr. Reaves restatement of the motion as

follows:

From the 2000-2001 Supplemental Budget Request, [page one]
•across the board tuition increase is in the amended motion;
•additional increases for graduate students is in the motion;
•increases associated with the reclassification of ECU is in the motion;
•non-resident increases at UNCA is in the motion;
•requests for increases in graduate and professional programs is in the motion;
•instead of additional increases of $300 in each of the next two years, we are talking
about $200 for next year for State and Carolina, and if the financial aid package is not
passed, we are talking about $300 for one year for State and Carolina
•the net increases of $150 in each of the next two years to East Carolina University and
UNC Charlotte is no longer in the motion; and
•increases in resident tuition of $120 in 2000-2001 and $115 in 2001-2002, and
increases in non-resident tuition of $200 in 2000-2001 and $200 in 2001-2002 at UNC
Wilmington is no longer in the motion.

Mr. Sanders was recognized by the chair and made the following observations:

Mr. Reaves correctly stated the substance of the motion that Mr. Nieman presented and I
seconded. I oppose the recommendation of the Budget and Finance Committee because I
think the 39% ($600) at NC State and UNC Chapel Hill would constitute an inordinate
burden on their families. I think it would widen the discrepancy between tuition charged
at those two institutions and at the next tier of institutions within the University. I think
the recommendations with respect to the other three institutions do not meet the standards
that this board established in its tuition policy of November 1998, that there be
extraordinary circumstances to justify those requests. And I believe if we approve them
as the committee recommended them to us, that we would create a good deal of
unhappiness, dissention, distress on the part of the other institutions, and we may fully
expect that we will be back here this fall asking for tuition increases to justify a wide
array of objects of expenditure. I think that by the action we have taken we have
effectively abandoned the standard that we set out 15 months ago for increases initiated
by the campuses. We have also, by the terms of the Budget Committee’s report,
abandoned the requirement of that policy that the institutions spend the money in
accordance with the terms stated in the request presented to the Board; rather, we have
said they are to come up with a spending plan and get it approved by the president. I
hope Mr. Chairman that we will stand by the policy adopted in November of 1998 and
reject those three recommendations and stand by the president’s recommendation with