It was the only one offering graduate training in public administration, urban planning, and architecture among others. In addition, special health schools such as pharmacy, dental, physical therapy were also located on this campus. Its management process has experienced a lot of issues. To begin with, managing university budget had been a great area of contention between the involved bodies. Tension began growing between Owens, the university system and the higher education commission on this effect and consequently, the Board of Regents increased tuition fees by 28%. On the other hand, the state cut its appropriations. While Owens believed in independent university governance, he made a serious campaign for Referendum C that led to the suspension of Tabor restrictions and later, a state legislation that restricted any tuition increases to not more than 2.8 percent. However, more recommendations were made to other sectors of the university system whereby propositions ensured that segments such as the transport system and healthcare got more appropriations. This left an implication of a collaborative approach to budget management (Dale, 2008). Arrival on financial management decisions on the board has not been spontaneous but rather evolving. For instance, TABOR, amended in 2000 and followed by a veto in 2003 made it difficult for the system to manage its own funds and thus budget. There was the imposition of expenditure limits, abilities to expand and any appropriate tax refunds when there was a necessity for such arising from financial surplus. However, the twenty-third amendment in 2003 under bill SB 264, the university system was exempted from TABOR and thus brought about greater flexibility in the financial management process. While discussing these issues, it is important to incorporate each of them into the appropriate discussion as done below. Planning Policy drawing within the institution is one of the most complex processes since it entails creating a foundation for the management process and thus a good ground for planning. Policies have largely been delegated as a duty to the Board of Regents, the president, and the state legislature. While the mandate of the president and the state legislation are limited to observation of implementation of policies, a direct influence from these two can have an equal impact on the creation of new policies. This is evident when Owens drew a policy that accentuated on efficiency and productivity within the institution. Thus the structure of planning is divided into layers. Implementation of these policies is executed within the institution. In this regard, the president, who is an internal element to the institution, becomes solely responsible for implementation of policies drawn by the Board of Regents (Daft, 2010). However, policies by the Board are limited in some aspects. For instance, the board can not have a sole authority to handle cases of financial uproars. In one scenario, happening in 2001, the Board of Regents had to be backed up by the joint budget committee, a state body, and the university system in order to raise influential concern on several issues such as continual increases of tuition fees, the rigidity of the system and state appropriations to higher education.