January 25, 2005

Members Present:
Stephen Tomasovic, Ph.D., Committee Chair
Michael Ahearn, Ph.D.
Marilyn Greer, Ph.D.
Dr. Toya Candelari
Paul Darlington, Ph.D.
Weldon Gage
Donna Hemphill
Kathy Hoffman
Robert Jenkins
Shreya Kant
George Stancel, Ph.D.
Jon Wiener, Ph.D.

Members Absent:
Shaun Caldwell
Victoria Knutson, Ph.D.
Marvin L. Meistrich, Ph.D.

Dr. Tomasovic stated that most of the committee members were present at various stages during the SACS Consultant visit. A list of improvements was pointed out in various areas of the Compliance Report.

Dr. Sullivan suggested that the institution plan to meet the May 1 deadline for submission of the Compliance Report. The Compliance Report will be submitted without the 2005 audit report and may result in a recommendation, but the recommendation can be resolved prior to the site visit. The internal deadline for submittal of departmental documentation is April 1. According to statements expressed by Dr. Sullivan to Dr. Greer, if the institution receives a visit by late June an 2005 audit would not be necessary; 2004 would be suffice.

Dr. Tomasovic and Dr. Greer will follow-up with Dr. Jack Allen to update him on the current status of the institution and discuss scheduling.

The SACS Principles of Accreditation -Core Requirements document was distributed to each committee member. Dr. Tomasovic reviewed documentation with committee and pointed out areas which Dr. Sullivan provided comments.

• Core Requirement 2.1 - Did not contain any comments.

• Core Requirement 2.2.- Dr. Tomasovic will have to clarify how the institution deals with possible conflicts of interest on the Board and site the Texas Higher Education Code.

• Core Requirement 2.3 - Dr. Sullivan requested more language in the narrative regarding the chief executive officer's experience. She also stated that it is unusual for university systems to have Presidents reporting to Vice Chancellors as opposed to Chancellors. Dr. Tomasovic will provide justification of the structure of the institution. Dr. Sullivan also felt it was important to emphasize that the President reported the budget to the Chancellor and the Regents and received approval. Dr. Sullivan had comments regarding the organizational chart, indicating that the site team may expect strategic plans and outcomes from the organizational chart. Dr. Tomasovic indicated that the original organizational chart was detailed to a level that may not be necessary. Dr. Tomasovic indicated that he may have to visit with several of the executive offices to obtain more detail about their tactics and outcomes and assessment methods.

• Core Requirement 2.4 - Ensure that the mission statement is on all internal and external documents and minor word modifications.

• Core Requirement 2.5 - Requires a better explanation. Dr. Sullivan provided a fairly extensive list of comments related to Institutional Effectiveness. Some of the responsibility falls on the academic programs to provide additional data in which they are currently gathering and other responsibilities fall on the administrative program to provide additional data. Dr. Stancel suggested more specific wording regarding the Graduate School and how the institutions handle the financial functions in regard to formula funding. Dr. Tomasovic agreed and indicated that he and Dr. Stancel would work together to put in writing how the institution would handle the situation and discuss with the President. In regard to Strategic Planning, Adrian Lang in the president's office is the front person for the strategic planning process in the president's office. She has been working with an expanded management committee that has assignments to work on each of the goals and proceed to collect information about the tactics related to each goal and the outcome measures, and report back to the president on progress during the year. Dr. Tomasovic suggested the development of a strategic planning tool such as a database that would include the goals, tactics and provide a tree of administrators who have access to the database. The administrators would enter their tactics associated with each goal and strategy their outcome measures, their targets, progress and other information as needed. The administrators would be triggered to enter the information through an email notification system. Dr. Sullivan has no doubt the institution will succeed in this process, but the information must be documented in a way that the reviewers will understand.

• Core Requirement 2.6 - No problem; continue updating.

• Core Requirement 2.7 - Has multiple parts related to outcomes and assessments; qualities of faculty, and expectations that the institution verify the competency of incoming students in General Education. Dr. Tomasovic indicated that there were some problems with AAS transfers. Most of the issues under Core Requirement 2.7 are for SHS. An update of the information should be available February 22nd.

• Core Requirement 2.8 - A matter of sorting. Need to include SHS faculty in the table. Must have files on all faculty. Need copies of CV's, transcripts, verifications, and equivalency documentation. Dr. Stancel and Dr. Candelari offered the services of their staff who are Notaries to assist in obtaining the necessary documentation for the faculty files. Dr. Tomasovic indicated that he has met with Dr. Bui and Linda Brandon and assured them that the budget would be established to help cover the cost of requesting the faculty transcripts. Questions posed by Dr. Stancel:
  
  

  1. The folders need not be ready until site team visit? Dr. Tomasovic response: Correct.

  2. There must be a current appoint letter in the file ; which appointment letter and for what year? Dr. Tomasovic response: Will clarify with Dr. Sullivan.

  3. Is an appointment letter needed from GSBS and SHS?

  Dr. Tomasovic response: Will have clarify with Dr. Sullivan.
  
  Dr. Tomasovic indicated that the files should consist of the transcript, CV (one year old), equivalency for a foreign graduate and the faculty evaluation. Dr. Greer indicated that more documentation is required for any faculty that has questionable qualifications to teach some of the courses. Dr. Sullivan indicated that the faculty tables should be reorganized by teaching semester.

• Core Requirement 2.9 - Dr. Sullivan indicated that there was a good description of the library, but other learning resources were not included such as other computer teaching rooms, infrastructure for learning, Distance Ed, computing standards, hardware and software standards, etc. Dr. Tomasovic is currently collecting more learning resource information. Larry Jones is providing the Distance Ed capabilities documentation; Don Lyons is currently working on computer infrastructure documentation. Dr. Sullivan commented that some of the narratives were relying too much on "See documentation" and not providing an adequate explanation. Kathy Hoffman indicated that Dr. Sullivan continually emphasized the ability of the library to stand alone. Ms. Hoffman stated that there is a great deal of information regarding consortium in the current narrative and inquired if the consortium would need to be deemphasized. Dr. Tomasovic indicated the consortium documentation is important to have, but he suggested documentation that the institution has adequate resources to support its programs if the consortium agreements are no longer in existence.

• Core Requirement 2.10 - Dr. Sullivan emphasized writing a more global picture of what we feel are the desired student development support services for the graduate school or the SHS; the strategic plan for that; and how we accomplish those plans with the ususual assessment and improvement methods.

Meeting adjourned at 9:50 a.m.
The next committee meeting: To be scheduled bi-weekly or with sub-groups.
Submitted for review by Maxine Stredic, Education Research and Assessment

Back to Table of Contents