SACS
REAFFIRMATION OF ACCREDITATION
STEERING
COMMITTEE MEETING
Attendance:
Michael Hummel (p)
Mark Henry (p)
Keith Blundell (p)
Jackie Robinson (p)
Peggy Brockenbush (a)
Jerry Scheerer (p)
Ed Byerly (p)
Joe Sekul (p)
Marty Domke (p)
Marjorie Stewart (p)
Larry Garrett (p)
Jennifer Yancey (p)
Gary Hall (a)
Mark Zafereo (a)
Mary Hall (a)
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 1:07 p.m.
Critique of Section I: For the first review of Section I, the Committee made it through 1.4 II. An introduction or preface was recommended. Other comments were to add more support to statements in the narrative, use original sources for citations, reorganize the content of certain sections, and some rewording throughout. There were also a couple of changes and corrections to the "must" statements. The Recommendation changes follow.
Recommendation 4.2.3 B: To improve the appropriateness of the plan relative to courses outside the core curriculum, the need for improvement and the plan to meet this requirement for "appropriate…evaluation".
Change to:
Recommendation 5.1.1 C: To develop a more comprehensive evaluation method to determine the usefulness, availability, and relevance of library resources and services for faculty, staff, and students.
Change to:
Recommendation 5.3 H: To establish policies to regularly evaluate the policies for allocation and use of information technology resources.
Change to:
Consider Resolution Regarding Evaluation of Committee Members: The Committee reviewed the revised memo to Goodson. Yancey felt that the subcommittee members should be evaluated, and therefore, was not in agreement. Byerly added that everyone gets evaluated, but many may not be aware that it happens; yet it does. Garrett again expressed his concern about the evaluations not being introduced at the onset. Domke stated that she might have done things a bit differently had she known about the evaluations of her subcommittee members ahead of time. Stewart added that she has received great enthusiasm and attitudes from some for being a part of the subcommittee. Garrett asked Hummel if he had a feel for what Goodson was looking for as a result of the evaluation. Hummel stated that he wanted to determine who the stellar performers were and if some had not performed. Robinson added that we are looking at two levels of participation, those who were asked to be on subcommittees and those who contributed a great deal though interviews or in some other way. How, if at all, would the latter be evaluated?
Domke moved to send the memo as revised to Goodson and it was seconded by Sekul. There were no motions to amend. Nine were in favor and one opposed. Hummel will deliver the memo to Goodson with the vote that was taken.
Adjustment of Critiquing Schedule: Monday the Committee will continue with Section I.
Other Business: None.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.