See the latest updates and information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, including a list of University contact information at semo.edu/covid19.
In Attendance: Co-Chair Jane Stephens, Rick Althaus, Jim Ermatinger, Christina Frazier, Allen Gathman, Dane Huxel, Crystal Kaufman, Carolyn Rainey, Bruce Skinner, David Starrett
Absent: Adam Hanna, Dennis Holt, Susan Swartwout
Recorder: Christie Renner
Handouts e-mailed prior to meeting: agenda; Draft Revised AQIP Application Questions 6, 7, and 8; Draft Question 1 Criteria 1 & 2; and draft minutes from 3/3/06 meeting. Handouts distributed at the meeting: Revised AQIP Application Question 8 flowchart.
Minutes: A. Gathman moved to approve the 3/3/06 meeting minutes. J. Ermatinger seconded and the minutes were unanimously approved.
The feedback report was e-mailed to the committee 3/14/06. There was a good response from the campus community. C. Frazier stated that there were lots of comments that will be very useful while evaluating the results. The report did not include any comparative data.
Consultant for Examiner Evaluation
C. Frazier was unaware of the status of the consultant for the Examiner evaluation. D. Holt is contacting Frank Adams.
Revised Writing Schedule
C. Frazier updated the writing schedule to reflect current working plans on the application.
Review of Revised Draft Questions 6, 7, & 8
See attached document noting revisions discussed about the revised draft questions 6, 7, & 8. Additional notes include:
A revised flowchart for question 8 was distributed. The yellow highlighted boxes indicate committees that are highly represented. A “Chairs Forum” box should be added next to “Council of Deans” and an arrow directing to “Administrative Council”. Also, a “Professional Staff” box and “CTS Staff” box should be added.
Discussion was held on members of CTS Staff and Professional Staff being involved in the Strategic Plan initiatives. Representatives from both groups serve on committees/councils, such as University Planning, Budget Review, and Administrative Council. Still, many are unaware of the process.
Discussion was held on the appropriate process of potential action projects receiving some type of assessment review. This will be discussed again at the next meeting.
Review of Draft Question 1 Criteria 1 & 2
See attached document noting revisions discussed about draft question 1 criteria 1 & 2.
Wrap-Up and Next Meeting
C. Frazier encouraged committee members to read the 2000 accreditation study.
Revisions from today’s discussion will be made and returned to the committee for review. C. Frazier will rework the writing schedule and members should be prepared to brainstorm at the next meeting.
The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 29, at 12 noon, in the UC Indian Room.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.