SACS REACCREDITATION

Michael Hummel (p) Jackie Robinson (a)

Keith Blundell (p) Jerry Scheerer (p)

Peggy Brockenbush (p) Joe Sekul (p)

Marty Domke (p) Fred Spaulding (a)

Larry Garrett (p) Marjorie Stewart (p)

Gary Hall (p) Jennifer Yancey (p)

Mary Hall (p) Mark Zafereo (a)

Mark Henry (p) Joyce Miller (guest)

Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m.

Minutes: No corrections were made to the minutes of May 9, 10, 13, 14, 23, or 28, 2002.

Status Reports on Second Drafts: Blundell reported for Section V that all corrections have been made. He is tracking down a few more interviews and has sent out e-mails and left voice messages to those involved. Once these references have been obtained, his resources will be complete. Blundell also reported that Joe Dahlstrom has read the entire report. Blundell’s section is ready for G. Hall and M. Hall to proof.

Garrett reported that his portion of Section V is complete. There is a possibility of some changes if the Draft Technology Plan is adopted. However, it is ready for G. Hall and M. Hall to review and he noted that they will see the most notable changes with Section V.3. All of Garrett’s resources are complete. Garrett will send an e-mail to the Committee with the report attached.

Hummel interjected that a quick turnaround of the changes made by G. Hall and M. Hall is necessary so that the reports can be re-read by the Committee as soon as possible.

Stewart reported that the Subsections of IV that she is responsible for require at least a week before they are ready to be reviewed by G. Hall and M. Hall, as there are still some holes in the Undergraduate section. Stewart expects to be ready by next Friday, June 7^th.

Neither Robinson nor Spaulding was present, so nothing was reported, but it is assumed that they will both require additional time.

Domke reported that she is about halfway finished with Section III and will be ready by next Friday, June 7^th.

Editing Schedule: Section VI will be continued on Monday, June 3^rd and tentatively Section I on Tuesday. However, Sekul reported that Section I will probably not be ready for review until Thursday.

G. Hall and M. Hall agreed with last week’s decision to have them edit the reports on the back end, but to attend any on the front end, as their schedules allowed.

Hummel reiterated the importance of those sections that are through the Committee’s critique to quickly turnaround the changes and get to G. Hall and M. Hall for their review.

Calendar for Summer and Fall: Hummel stated that agenda’s for each meeting would be determined as the Committee progresses. Some of the meetings will be canceled, but the Committee Members need to hold all dates until otherwise notified. He did state that sometime between Section I and the final review of the reports, there would be a short break in the meetings. Hummel also pointed out that on August 19^th, the Committee will meet at 2:00 p.m. and the Subcommittees will meet the following day at 9:00 a.m. Therefore, the Chairs need to give their Subcommittees adequate notice of the meeting and also mention that we will be gearing up for the addendum approximately that same time.

Scheerer noted that there will be a Planning and Assessment meeting in September, probably the first Thursday and will inform Boyd of the actual date so the Steering Committee schedule can be revised accordingly.

Henry asked for Hummel’s opinion on having President Goodson and Dean Isaac review Section VI. Hummel responded by saying that Chairs should wait until the Committee is finished with the final reviews. Goodson and top-level administrators are supposed to remain in the background, but are valuable resources and we will gather their input after final reviews.

Update on Evaluation of Committee Members: Hummel introduced the evaluation form that was created based on feedback from the last meeting and asked for comments. Domke stated that she felt uncomfortable with having to conduct the evaluations, but if required, she would. Henry felt that a vote was in order on whether or not to conduct the evaluations. He believes it to be academically unsound and the Committee should vote on the issue, especially since this precedent was not set initially.

Hummel stated that this is a request from Goodson. He then added that the evaluations would not be conducted until late fall and this would allow time for all subcommittee members to get more involved, if they have not been thus far.

Committee Members then stated how imbalanced the results would appear (with the current form), given that some subcommittee members participated at different levels, based on experience and knowledge. For example, those with minimal experience that were not able to contribute much would consequently get a low score; and vice versa, those with a great deal of experience would get a high score. The common reaction to this was that it seemed unfair.

Stewart then suggested not using a rating scale and perhaps use wording like: participated, not participated and superior. Garrett suggested: performed as expected and did not participate. Sekul felt that despite the form that is used, there should still be a vote and that introducing this evaluation is after the fact, a burden on time, would cause hard feelings, and it is not part of the job.

Hummel then added that he has expressed some of these opinions to Goodson and Goodson is aware that many subcommittee members are surprised and concerned. Perhaps by sending out an FYI, this would make clear what is trying to be done. This is part of the job and that some have reneged or withdrawn (justified and not justified) on their responsibilities and that is not fair. The evaluations would ultimately be given to each subcommittee member’s supervisor.

Hummel was asked for his feelings and he stated they were mixed, but concluded that an FYI with some explanation would suffice for him and he feels there should be some assessment. M. Hall also agreed that a vote should be taken. Blundell stated that although he agreed with some of the sentiments expressed, the Chairs (Blundell included) have done their jobs with the SACS Steering Committee and does not believe there is such a big difference. Domke pointed out that the Chairs directive came from Goodson and the subcommittee’s directives came from the Chairs and perhaps this was a marked difference.

Hummel said that rather than take a vote at this meeting, those opposed to the evaluations should write a resolution noting their opposition and explaining their concerns. The Committee then will vote on it. He said such action would carry more weight. Domke, with the help of Henry, will draw up a resolution that expresses the Committee’s sentiment, and will present it to the Committee for review at an upcoming meeting. The final proposal will be presented to Goodson.

Critique of Subsections VI.2.2 – VI.6: The Committee reviewed VI.2.2 through VI.3.12 and suggested adding introductions to some subsections, citing interviews, organizing content layout, and some minimal rewording throughout. Regarding Subsection 6.3.3, Budget Planning, Henry discussed the possibility that additional surveys may be needed to reflect adequate opportunity for all administrators to fully express their concerns regarding issues in the budgeting process. The committee considered this in its review but agreed the survey data and interview information as provided, or changes as requested in the review process, was adequate. No additional surveys were recommended.

Regarding Subsection 6.3.9 a, Henry said that this would be a good place to enter a “Suggestion: That a Business Procedures Manual be created so there is one place for all the written Business Office Procedures.” Blundell stated that there is already an electronic one existing on a shared drive in a folder titled Business Office Policies and Procedures, and is available to all Business Office personnel. The committee agreed that no suggestion was warranted.

Following is the Recommendation change that occurred. There were no changes to Suggestions.

q Add a Recommendation to 6.2.2 C: That the College look at the Institutional Effectiveness Plan and be certain it reflects the current practice for fund raising policies, procedures and dissemination.

Other Business: None.

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.