SACS
REAFFIRMATION OF ACCREDITATION
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
March 21, 2002
Attendance: Michael Hummel (p) Jackie Robinson (p)
Keith Blundell (p) Jerry Scheerer (p)
Peggy Brockenbush (p) Joe Sekul (p)
Marty Domke (p) Fred Spaulding (p)
Larry Garrett (p) Marjorie Stewart (p)
Gary Hall (a) Jennifer Yancey (p)
Mary Hall (p) Mark Zafereo (p)
Mark Henry (p)
Call to Order: Hummel called the meeting to order at 1:33 p.m.
Minutes: No corrections were made to the Minutes of February 7, 2002.
Section I: Sekul reported that seven of nine reports for this section are on the shared drive. One report on the sufficiency of learning resources (Condition of Eligibility 12) must await completion of other reports. The remaining report on Conditions 7, 8, and 9 is delayed due to illness of the author.
Sekul further reported two problem areas. First, further investigation must be done on the report dealing with Condition 10. He would like to further verify a possible problem involving the substitution of courses for the “General Education” requirement under the Associate of Applied Science degree. Indications are that the requirement is not being violated, but the language in the catalog may be sufficiently unclear to warrant a recommendation. Hummel interjected a word of caution, noting that the Conditions of Eligibility section has been drawing recommendations at many institutions. The second problem Sekul reported was that further consultation may be required for Condition 11. It is unclear what faculty credentials are required of faculty for Curriculum Areas. Another report on Undergraduate Curriculum appears to ignore this criterion for Associate of Arts and Associate of Science degrees.
Section II: Brockenbush reported that everything is on the shared drive and awaiting editing.
Section III: Domke stated that all sections are on the shared drive. Corrections are still needed to comply with MLA format and she needs to compile the reference list. Domke suggested that all departments incorporate specific strategies to gather and include qualitative data in the overall evaluation of courses, programs, curriculum content, and services.
Section IV.1; IV.2.2-2.5; IV.6: Robinson stated all subcommittee members have submitted their reports, and all reports are available on the self-study shared drive. She has met with several committee members and had them fill in some gaps and clarify certain areas of their reports.
She considers 4.2.4, Undergraduate Completion Requirements,
to be complete. However, there is some
controversy over the issue of “must” statement F: The institution must demonstrate that its graduate of
degree programs are competent in reading, writing, oral communication,
fundamental math skills and the basic use of computers. The members who wrote this report
believe the College is not in compliance with this “must” statement and are
considering making a recommendation.
Domke indicated that in examining the same issues, her committee
concluded the institution is in compliance.
After some discussion, Hummel state he wanted to meet with Domke and
Robinson to try to resolve the discrepancies.
The members who submitted 4.2.3, Undergraduate Curriculum, argue that it is complete. Robinson told them that several “must” statements lack elaboration, but they argue that since these statements are contingent upon “must” statement B, with which we are not in compliance, there is nothing to add on the subsequent statements except to say, “see recommendation 1 for statement B.” Garrett commented that his committee had the same type of issue (no formal written processes) but they described the practices and then made separate recommendations. More discussion of 4.2.3 is needed and Hummel stated that he would like to be involved.
Robinson considers 4.2.5, Academic Advising, to be complete and sees no problems with it; she would, however, like someone from Counseling Services to read it.
For 4.2.2, Undergraduate Instruction, there are five reports. Different reports have different strengths and weaknesses and Robinson thinks some of the information can be shared or combined. She has instructed these subcommittee members to read all five reports next week and then meet to discuss what information should be combined, revised, deleted, and added. She will send the report out on either the 22nd or 25th and is hoping to meet with subcommittee members on April 2nd.
To finish, Robinson stated that she considers 4.6, Continuing Education, Outreach and Service, to also be complete. She met with the members a few times to make revisions and asked a few interviewees to be more specific about how their programs are evaluated. She is a little confused about a “must” statement response on how CE credit hours are calculated and has asked for clarification. The confusion is around the different responses that Marilyn Morris and Nancy McCulloch gave for the same must statement. She will resolve the inconsistency.
Section IV.2.1; IV.4; IV.7-9: Stewart reported all sections are complete and on the shared drive. All sections have been reviewed by the full subcommittee and checked against the criteria and some sections have been read by appropriate department heads for accuracy. Stewart stated that the reports err on the side of more information rather than less and the editors may choose to condense. However, subcommittees endorse using the longer version since one intention of the process was completeness. The summary information from some of the surveys would be useful to the Dean or other administrators and wondered if that information should be sent as available or at the end of the review process? Hummel said there is no reason to withhold the information until the report is complete.
Stewart also suggested that Wanda Boyd do all transferring of reports into the template rather than members fixing the problems. She stated that getting the table/template to look right is probably a matter of finessing the final product.
Section IV.5:
Spaulding reported that each section was addressed and the bulk of the
report consists of the responses to the “Definitions and Principles”. There are still some issues that have not
been fully addressed and some need better support documentation. In response to a question from Hummel,
Spaulding estimated he would have the report completed in two weeks. Hummel said it is very important that the
report be completed no later than that.
Section V.I: Blundell reported that all sections have been materially completed, typed and preliminarily edited. He is waiting on three references: Becky Payne, Interview on library hours; Marty Domke, ADA Compliance; and Joe Dahlstrom, Collections Development Policy. Blundell had submitted the document for editing. His next steps will be to gather documents from section members and attempt to find and file all works cited in the Resource Room.
Blundell asked if anyone had filed a University of Houston-Victoria catalog; no one had, so he will.
Section V.2-5: Garrett reported that everything is on file and ready for editing.
Section VI: Henry reported that all six subsections are on the shared drive in rough draft format. Each section is either in the editing process or is being reedited by a committee member independent of the sub-section team.
Discussion of Editing and Formatting: M. Hall reported that they have looked at
the drafts as they have been posted.
Most of Garrett’s section has been edited, portions of Henry’s and
Sekul’s and almost all of Brockenbush’s.
Their plan is to finish Henry’s and then alert all committee members
that his section is available to be read.
Hummel suggested all follow this process.
An issue that M. Hall brought up is to decide on how to format the works cited lists at the end of each section. It was agreed to use the MLA formatting (page 293) with the first line of each entry out to the margin and the second line indented five spaces.
Other editing and formatting decisions were:
Regarding “must” and “should” statements, if it is a “must” statement, then the recommendation is something that the college is expected to comply with and if it is a “should” statement, then our recommendation is just that and is less mandatory. Hummel reported that at the SACS convention one speaker advised using a word other than “suggestion”. He will review his notes and report his findings to committee members. The term “opportunity” was suggested by Domke. Robinson found a mistake on the template with a “must” statement in 4.2.4 and will forward that to Boyd . Scheerer volunteered to get the PowerPoint file of common sources, posted to web site for committee reference.
In order for all to stay aware of all editing and comments, Boyd will get a list serve set up.
Report on Arrangements: Yancey reported that the committee members have been selected. The committee will be fairly small but will enlist the help of others. The Student Center has been reserved as well as the hotel. The hotel is also aware of dates and general requirements for the visit. A meeting will be scheduled early next week to discuss specific duties and responsibilities of committee members. Yancey further stated that they are gathering sample documents from other visits for use with ours.
Set Schedule for Reviewing the Draft Report: Members agreed with the editing schedule submitted by Hummel, but Hummel told M. Hall to revise the schedule as she sees fit.
Other Business: Hummel reported that the SACS Annual Convention will be held December 7-10, 2002, in San Antonio and asked for interested participants. He said members of the Arrangements Committee would benefit by attending and Yancey agreed. Yancey, Domke, Zafereo, Robinson and Boyd are interested.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 3:33 p.m.