See the latest updates and information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic at semo.edu/covid19.
In Attendance: Co-Chair Holt, Rick Althaus, Christina Frazier, Allen Gathman, Dane Huxel, Carolyn Rainey, Bruce Skinner, David Starrett, and Susan Swartwout
Absent: Co-Chair Stephens, Jim Ermatinger, Adam Hanna, Crystal Kaufman
Recorder: Christie Renner
Handouts e-mailed prior to meeting: agenda, Draft Question 2, Draft AQIP Application Question 8 revised, Writing Schedule – AQIP Application Revised 4-6-06, minutes from 3-29-06 meeting
Minutes were unanimously approved.
D. Holt distributed two handouts summarizing the Examiner Feedback Report responses. The first handout is broken down by employee category and each category is ranked. The second handout is a ranking of the key processes for each criterion for Southeast’s responses and other organizations responses. Committee members can review the summaries and share with their constituent groups. The committee will discuss the results at a later meeting.
Consultant for Examiner Evaluation Update
Discussion was held on the time period to have the consultant on campus. Comments made during the discussion were to wait until the beginning of fall semester when faculty and students are back. Also, in the fall the consultant could help prepare for the November Strategic Forum. A concern was shared about waiting four or five months before being able to involve faculty, staff and students. The steering committee will continue to meet over the summer. D. Holt stated that it was important to go ahead and share the Examiner results with the campus as soon as possible (e.g., Executive Staff, Faculty Senate, Administrative Council). Selection of the Action Projects will be decided after the major groups on campus have their planning meetings over the summer. D. Holt suggests that the committee look at the planning processes of the major groups (e.g., Administrative Council, deans) after they meet. The discussion on the time period to have the consultant on campus was tabled to a future meeting.
Revised Writing Schedule
C. Frazier talked about the new writing schedule.
Review of Draft Question 2a & 2b
Review and discussion was held on the draft of question 2a. C. Frazier stated that the draft answer to Question 2 was taken verbatim from the Institutional Interim Report submitted on January 13, 2004, to the NCA Commission on Institutions of Higher Education Chicago, Illinois. Comments made regarding the section on diversity included:
D. Starrett suggested providing an easier URL to the University’s response listed in the first paragraph.
Discussion of the draft concluded that many of the responses listed have been met. The committee suggested that the response to Question 2a should just state that the University responded to the NCA’s report of their visit in 2000 on January 13, 2004, and the NCA approved the response on (add date). The same approach should be taken to Question 2b.
C. Frazier will copy the University’s response to the last visit that is posted on the Provost’s Office website to a Word document and post it on the AQIP webpage.
Review of Revised Question 8 and Draft Flowchart
Review and discussion of the flowchart was held. The dotted arrows to groups/committees represent advisory roles to the AQIP Steering Committee and President. The University Assessment Review Committee will serve as an advisory role to the AQIP Steering Committee and will validate the assessment of Action Projects that are requested for review of assessment by the AQIP Steering Committee.
“Technical, Clerical, Service Council” should be changed to “Clerical, Technical, Service Council”.
Discussion was held on the importance of the “Unit Level”. Concern was shared that it was too complicated and was not representative of all groups. A suggestion was made to eliminate the “Unit Level” or attach an organizational chart describing in detail what the labels represented (e.g., Unit Staff). C. Frazier stated that as a Reviewer she thinks it is important for the flowchart to show where the councils and committees are getting their information. Also, concerns were shared that faculty, staff or students may look at the flowchart and not feel included in the process. Discussion was held to eliminate the flowchart altogether, but many members felt it was important to have a visual aid of the Action Project development process. The committee decided to make one box at the Unit Level and include “All Faculty, Staff and Students”.
Information Technology Committee and AVP Information Technology should be removed from the flowchart.
See revisions to attached Draft AQIP Application Questions 8 revised that are highlighted in red.
D. Holt asked how to conceptualize the cross-section of divisions in committees (e.g., SEM Task Force). C. Frazier added that the accreditation committee favors cross-section of committees.
D. Starrett stated that at the last Dean’s Council meeting the Provost announced that the University Planning Committee will be heavily involved this coming year.
Revisions on Criterion 1 and 2
C. Frazier stated that the draft to Criterion 1 & 2 will be discussed at the next meeting.
Brainstorm Criterion 3, 4, and 5
Criterion Three: Student Learning and Effective Teaching. The organization provides evidence of student learning and teaching effectiveness that demonstrates it is fulfilling its educational mission.
Criterion Four: Acquisition, Discovery, and Application of Knowledge. The organization promotes a life of learning for its faculty, administration, staff, and students by fostering and supporting inquiry, creativity, practice, and social responsibility in ways consistent with its mission.
Criterion Five: Engagement and Service. As called for by its mission, the organization identifies its constituencies and serves them in ways both value.The organization learns from the constituencies it serves and analyzes its capacity to serve their needs and expectations.