SACS REAFFIRMATION OF ACCREDITATION

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING

 

December 6, 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   (a)                               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 1:35 p.m. 

 

Minutes: No corrections were made to the Minutes of November 1, 2001. 

 

Editing: Mary Hall reported that she has been receiving rough drafts from various sections.  Mary and Gary will highlight all changes they make and asked that all chairs not remove the highlighting as that will be done near the final draft.  Chairs should feel free to ask Gary or Mary for input or for editing drafts in the “maverick” folders.  Gary distributed a MLA handout on documenting interviews.   He suggested that all committee and subcommittee members need access to the MLA Handbook.   Anyone who has a question or problem in writing the parenthetical references should contact Gary or Mary.    Discussion followed concerning the links within the document; the consensus was to wait until the final draft to include links in the Works Cited section.  An automatic link will be created when URL address is listed.  Hummel stated that when citing references within the text of the report to include the title of the resource as well as the year and page number. 

 

Resources and Data Collection: Scheerer reported that all results from the Faculty and Staff Survey and the Student Survey have been compiled and that all members should have received the information via e-mail.  He asked if the committee would like the results put on the web site; the consensus was yes, that subcommittee members would find it very useful in drafting their reports.  It was agreed that when reporting survey results, items marked neutral and above should count as satisfied.     

 

Section VI:  Henry reported that he has received information from all his sections.  He has some recommendations but not sure how many.   Hummel asked him to send a written report of all possible recommendations to him by Wednesday, December 12th. 

 

Section V.2-.5:  Garrett had no problems but also no progress to report.  He stated that almost all of his sections were waiting for policies and procedures to be revised or developed.   Hummel advised him to list all of those items as possible recommendations and to e-mail him a copy by Wednesday, December 12th. 

 

Section V.1: Blundell reported that all of his sections have completed rough drafts and that he has compiled a rough draft of the report for them to critique.  He has asked them to make corrections on paper or by highlighting the original document.  He submitted a written copy of his recommendation (attached).  Discussion followed concerning what qualifies as a recommendation and what qualifies as a suggestion.  It was agreed that recommendations refer to must statements and suggestions refer to should statements and that proposals can be made throughout the text of the report without being formal recommendations or suggestions. 

 

Section IV.5: Spaulding discussed areas of Distance Education that are not in compliance with the Criteria.  He has tried to meet with the Distance Education Department to discuss the goals as lined out in the SACS Criteria.  Hummel asked him to submit in writing possible recommendations by Wednesday, December 12th. 

 

Section IV.2.1; IV.4; IV.7-.9: Stewart submitted her committee’s probable recommendations (attached) and  reported that her section is close to being finished.  In January she will put her report in the final report folder for the Editors to critique.   Hummel stated that it is the responsibility of each member of the Steering Committee to read the entire report and check for mistakes and inconsistencies.    

 

Section IV.1; IV.2.2-2.5; IV.6: Cole submitted her committee’s possible recommendations (attached) but reported that her groups were not even close to being completed and that one group has only begun this week.  Discussion followed concerning the practice of converting CEUs into credit hours and the consensus was that the committee should address the issue in a recommendation. 

 

Section III: Domke was not present to submit a report.

 

Section II: Brockenbush reported that she had a rough draft written and the results of the survey information have been inputted into the report. She was experiencing no problems at this time.  She stated that at this time she has three possible suggestions and recommendations.  Hummel asked her to submit in writing her possible recommendations and suggestions by Wednesday, December 12th.

 

Section I: Sekul stated that his deadline for his committee members to submit rough drafts was November 12th and that four of his groups made the deadline and two others will submit a draft soon.  He discussed some of his problem areas and felt that at this point he would not be making any recommendations.

 

Announcements: Hummel stated that he has not heard back from Donna Wilkinson concerning the Manual but that he would be attending a SACS conference this weekend and hoped to meet with her. 

 

He discussed the Employee Handbook, which is in need of revision.  He stated that Dr. Goodson has chosen the TACC format and that Mary Smith will have until May of 2002 to revise and update the Handbook.  He suggested that the Steering Committee select one version (of at least two in circulation) to reference in their reports and that the Addendum will report on the Handbook revision.   He observed that not having the revision ready in time for the Report will make the Committee’s work more difficult and the Report less readable.  He discussed the Resource Room and items that are available for reference. He instructed all members to make copies of all documents used in the report and to file them  in the proper folders in the Resource Room. 

 

The next committee meeting will be held on January 10th at 8:00 a.m. He instructed Principal Committee Chairs to set subcommittee meetings that afternoon.  Discussion followed concerning the Manual with the agreement that a copy should be placed in each division as well as in the Library Archives. 

 

Henry suggested having a workshop to demonstrate styles of writing and documentation.  Hummel asked him to work with Gary and Mary Hall, Stewart, and Bohac, to organize the presentation.  Spaulding agreed to schedule the Johnson Symposium beginning at 10:30 on January 10th. 

 

Hummel commended all on their diligence and hard work and reminded them of  the March deadline for a rough draft of the Report.

      

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.