March 3, 2006

March 3, 2006

AQIP Steering Committee Meeting - UC Indian Room

In Attendance: Co-Chair Dennis Holt, Rick Althaus, Christina Frazier, Allen Gathman, Adam Hanna, Dane Huxel, Crystal Kaufman, Carolyn Rainey, Bruce Skinner, David Starrett, Susan Swartwout

Absent: Jim Ermatinger and Jane Stephens

Recorder: Christie Renner

Handouts e-mailed prior to meeting: agenda; Draft AQIP Application Questions 6, 7, and 8; Draft AQIP Application Questions 3, 4, and 5; and draft minutes from 2/17/06 meeting. Handouts distributed at the meeting: Major Accomplishments of the University 2004-2005 and AQIP Application Question 8 flowchart.

Minutes: The following changes were made to the 2/17/06 minutes: page 1 under Examiner Update, the sentence fragment [ask Christie to check on this] was removed; page 2 under Question 6a, “NCTE” was changed to “NCATE”; and page 3 under Question 7, “NESE” was changed to “NSSE”. The amended minutes were approved.

Examiner Update

The Examiner deadline was extended to March 3. Over 440 faculty and staff members have responded to the survey. This is a good sample. D. Holt will contact Chuck at the Higher Learning Commission on Monday to run the report and Holt should have the results by Tuesday or Wednesday. D. Holt will send copies of the results to the committee.

Consultant for Examiner Evaluation

D. Holt has left messages for Steve Spangehl asking advice on external consultants. The committee agreed they did not need to see a list of external consultants and that D. Holt and J. Stephens should move forward. D. Holt will communicate to the committee any updates as they arise.

Major Accomplishments of the University 2004-2005

D. Holt distributed copies of Major Accomplishments of the University 2004-2005. This document is an example of what has been done since the strategic planning process was developed. Also included in the handouts is a copy of Major Initiatives of the University 2005-2006. Each year, all divisions are asked to provide major initiatives for the year and the initiatives are then organized by the Strategic Plan Priorities. Concerns were shared at the last meeting to include the campus community in this process.

Review Draft Questions 3 – 5

The Steering Committee received an updated draft of questions 3, 4, and 5. Comments from the last meeting were incorporated in the updated draft. No other additions or comments were made.

Review Draft Questions 6 – 8

The Steering Committee received a draft of questions 6, 7, and 8. Discussion on each question is as follows:

Question 6

No changes were made to the draft answer. The committee agreed that the statement noted in the last meeting minutes concerning action projects should not be included.

C. Frazier added during the discussion that on-going committees may need to take on more responsibility in decision-making.

Question 7

The committee agreed that in the first sentence the faculty survey HERI should be spelled out as Higher Education Research Institute. Also, the second sentence “An external consultant...” should start a new paragraph and be a bulleted item.

Question 8

At the first bulleted item under general characteristics, “Strategic Plan Priorities” should be changed to “Strategic Plan Initiatives”.

A copy of the flowchart was distributed to describe the process of identifying Action Projects. The yellow highlighted boxes represent governing bodies. After discussion, changes will be made to the flowchart to make it more reader-friendly. Major points from the discussion include:

• Add Graduate Council to the flowchart
• Add Student Government to the flowchart
• C. Frazier described the process. Each Vice President organizes their division to generate potential action projects. The Provost already has a process set up. The AQIP Steering Committee will also generate potential projects. Significant project proposals will be collected and submitted to Administrative Council for review and prioritization. The list of potential projects will then go to three separate committees (Budget Review, Planning, and University Assessment) for input. The AQIP Steering Committee will then review the list of ideas again and submit a proposal to the President, highlighting the top Action Projects. (This process will repeat every four years. In between the four years, additional projects may be reviewed by Administrative Council.)
• The flowchart made need more written explanation.

No other changes were made to the draft answer.

During discussion, C. Frazier stated an emphasis should be put on the University Assessment Committee. Members have good insight outside of academics.

Brainstorming Questions 1, part 1 and 2

Criterion 1: Mission and Integrity
The organization’s mission documents are clear and articulate publicly the organization’s commitments.

• The mission statement is posted on the Provost’s website, one can do a Southeast Search (need to provide link on A-Z)
• Find out process that Planning Committee used to put the documents together and provide a brief explanation – process included review and revision through different stages with final approval by the Board of Regents
• Used as a structure for planning and reporting

In its mission documents, the organization recognizes the diversity of its learners, other constituencies, and the greater society it serves.

• Pull out key quotes in mission statements
• Pull out last mission accreditation review report

Understanding of and support for the mission pervade the organization.

• Pull out last mission accreditation review report
• Examiner (might find some results)
• Other department mission statements that are built from University’s mission statement

The organization’s governance and administrative structures promote effective leadership and support collaborative processes that enable the organization to fulfill its mission.

• Governance structures have not changed much in the last seven years. Duplicate in condense form from last review.

The organization upholds and protects its integrity.

• Faculty, Staff, Student handbooks - addresses integrity issues
• Consistency – processes and procedures (take for granted)
• Balanced budget
• Evaluates mission priorities
• Go back and look at criterion

Criterion 2: Preparing for the Future
The organization realistically prepares for a future shaped by multiple societal and economic trends.

• Being aware of external factors (e.g., SEM evaluates demographics)
• Academic program review
• Survived budget cuts

The organization’s resource base supports its educational programs and its plans for maintaining and strengthening their quality in the future.

• Process for adjusting tuition while maintaining enrollments
• Academic program review and departmental review

The organization’s ongoing evaluation and assessment processes provide reliable evidence of institutional effectiveness that clearly informs strategies for continuous improvement / All levels of planning align with the organization’s mission, thereby enhancing its capacity to fulfill that mission.

• Allocating resources accordingly
• Accreditation process
• Assessment review process
• Pull out last mission accreditation review report
• Have assessments and processes to feed into planning
• Administrative departments have objectives to maintain
• SEM plan, includes indicators
• Information Technology Committee plan – still there, but needs to do more planning
• Facilities Management has a 3 year plan
• Campus Landscaping Master Plan
• Greek Life Strategic Plan

Other Items

D. Holt stated that he will talk to Executive Staff about how communication concerning the AQIP accreditation process will be shared across the lines.

The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.