SACS REAFFIRMATION OF ACCREDITATION

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING

 

November 1, 2001

 

Attendance:                Michael Hummel  (p)                            Mary Hall  (p)

                                    Keith Blundell     (p)                              Mark Henry  (p)

                                    Peggy Brockenbush (p)                        Jerry Scheerer  (p)

                                    Jackie Cole  (p)                                    Joe Sekul  (p)

                                    Marty Domke   (p)                               Fred Spaulding  (p)

                                    Larry Garrett  (p)                                  Marjorie Stewart  (p)

                                    Gary Hall (p)                                        Mark Zafereo  (a)

                                                           

 

Call To Order: Hummel called the meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. 

 

Minutes: No corrections were made to the Minutes of October 4, 2001. 

 

Update on Resources: Scheerer reported that survey questions were coming in and the deadline to submit questions was Monday, November 5th, because he needed to begin organizing the survey questions.  Also he added a new link to Southwest Texas State University to the web site and suggested that committee members examine the summary and recommendations near the end of that report.  

 

Section IV: Henry reported that four of his six subcommittees have turned in rough drafts.  He has sent some questions to Scheerer for the survey but has some questions that need to be directed to the Board.   Hummel suggested getting together with other members who need responses from the Board and handle these collectively.  Brockenbush volunteered to coordinate the questions for board members.   She was working with Susan Windwehen and Dr. Goodson on whether to send questions by e-mail or regular mail.  Henry reported that the Financial Resources Subcommittee was somewhat behind but he did not want to push too hard.   He set November 30th as the deadline for all rough drafts to be submitted and was trying to schedule the week before Thanksgiving for the next meeting. 

 

Section V.2-.5: Garrett discussed potential problems his section was finding with poorly defined policies. He distributed copies of a proposal concerning information about student services to attach to course syllabi, to bring the College into compliance with the Criteria. 

 

Discussion followed concerning the input of information on the shared drive.   The Halls stated that they would highlight corrections and changes on the report for each Chair to review.  Hummel asked that Bohac, M. Hall, G. Hall, Spaulding, and Scheerer get with Daniel in Technology Services and come to an agreement on procedures for editing on the Shared Drive.   

 

Section V.1: Blundell reported that he was lighting fires under his group to get questions back for the survey.  October 19th his group had a very productive meeting.  All have received the data that they have requested.  Although he communicates with them by e-mail at least every two weeks, he is concerned about the lack of attendance at meetings, with at least one-third not showing up due to other scheduled meetings.  His next meeting is set for November 16th. 

 

Section IV.5: Spaulding reported that his groups have completed the initial “gathering of information” and are ready to begin writing their rough drafts.  He intends to have his rough draft compiled by November 27th. 

 

Section IV.2.1; IV.4; IV.7-.9: Stewart reported that she has set the first two weeks of November as the deadline for drafts to be submitted.  The problems she has encountered have been that interview questions have strayed from Criteria and that she has not seen supporting data.  She has asked her groups to submit narratives that include a lot of detail.  When editing their reports she will cut some of the detail.     

 

Section IV.1; IV.2.2-2.5; IV.6: Cole reported that her subcommittees are gathering information.  In a meeting on October 18th  they reviewed the 1992 Faculty Survey.   She has assigned homework to her groups to research and develop survey questions, which will be submitted to Scheerer on Monday, November 5th.  Cole stated that no drafts will be compiled until the spring, after the survey results are published. 

 

Section III: Domke reported that all subcommittees have met and have turned in preliminary findings and research.  She had one change of personnel, Agnes Jewitt has been replaced by Tisha Darilek.  Her deadline for a draft is November 16th or 17th.  She stated that there would be at least one recommendation from her section, but felt it could be easily corrected. 

 

Section II: Brockenbush reported that her committee has submitted questions for the survey and is conducting interviews.  Discussion followed on focus groups.  Brockenbush will be responsible for coordinating a student focus group with Cole, Spaulding, Garrett and possibly Henry.  Stewart will be responsible for coordinating with Spaulding, Cole, and Garrett a faculty focus group.  Brockenbush stated she was ready to begin merging her members’ writings.  She is not encountering any problems at this time.   Her next meeting is scheduled for November 9th and she has set December 4th as the deadline for submitting a rough draft, except for the last must statement, which is all-inclusive.  Hummel stated that the Steering Committee will review all rough drafts before the final report is submitted. 

 

Discussion followed concerning the template that was created for the final drafts with the consensus that each section will have a rough draft folder and that they will submit to the editors their completed report on the template under Secretary/Self-Study Report. 

 

Section I: Sekul stated that his deadline for submitting drafts was November 12th.   He has received two rough drafts so far and seven out of nine will meet his deadline. One of the problems that his committee has encountered is that David Green is at Laurent Towers; not only did he not have access to the shared drive, he also does not have Microsoft Office.  The solution is to send all correspondence through Sandy Schramek who has Word Perfect as well as Microsoft Word.    

 

Manual: Hummel directed the Committee’s attention to two sections of the Self-Study Manual. 

 

The Institutional Resources and Services section was approved with a new format.  (Garrett/Blundell) 

 

The proposed revision of The Editorial Manual: Format, Style And Organization of the Self-Study Report section was approved with two changes: use of  “the College” and “Victoria College” are both acceptable, and first mention of titles and names should be written out with the acronym in parenthesis.  After that, the acronyms may be used.  (Domke/Sekul)

 

Announcements: Hummel urged Principal Committee Chairs to remind their committee members to use the proper Interview Form and to use the correct section numbers and letters when referring to must statements.   Committees should be sure that the questions are germane to the criteria.  Also, each Principal Committee Chair should carefully check the must and should statements on the template for accuracy.   He discussed the possibility of meeting on the alternative date for this month.

 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.