Dr. Tomasovic asked the committee to review the minutes of the November 19, 2003 committee meeting and forward any corrections to Maxine Stredic.

Dr.'s Tomasovic, Ahearn and Greer attended the Annual SACS Meeting in Nashville. Dr. Greer informed the committee of recent changes and requirements that have recently been developed by SACS. The new changes include the following:

1. New standardized format for web page submission. MDACC will have to comply to the new format, which will exclusively effect Dr. Greer.

2. Additionally, SACS wants actual web page links and are discouraging web pages and or catalogs that have only one link in which one has to scroll to access specific documentation.

In regard to the new procedure involving user friendly web links, Dr. Stancel indicated that the School of Health Science Center has only one link and one would have to scroll to access particular documentation. Dr. Greer stated that she had been informed that the PDF files can be indexed. Dr. Wiener indicated that there is an index at the front of the page numbers, but there is no way to change it. Dr. Tomasovic stated that if we have no choice other than the PDF files, the alternative would be to use the website address and assist with identifying the page numbers for particular documentation.

3. SACS is also requesting additional information as it relates to faculty. SACS requires more documentation than transcripts and CV's; SACS now wants documentation on how well each faculty members teaches.

Dr. Stancel indicated that The School of Health Sciences has recently developed an evaluation that will be implemented immediately upon approval.

Dr. Stancel indicated that the Graduate School of the UT Health Science Center has 500 faculty and the majority of the faculty in the course of a year do not teach, therefore there are no evaluations, nor will there ever be. Dr. Stancel stated that it is not practical to perform an evaluation for faculty who teach a special topics course with two people and was doubtful that the criteria can be met.

Dr. Tomasovic stated that he believes that SACS wants to know if teaching faculty are good educators. Dr. Tomasovic believes the criteria can be met because the major core courses are evaluated every semester and every faculty member who teaches in the major core courses are evaluated by the students. Many of the individuals that teach in the seminars and special topics courses also teach in the primary courses, therefore some evaluation is performed. Dr. Tomasovic expressed that there is also a peer review of the program every five years which includes an evaluation of the faculty and courses in a broad sense. Dr. Stancel concurred, but indicated that the evaluations are broad and cannot be pinpointed to any particular faculty member. Dr. Tomasovic stated that our current evaluation system will be presented to SACS during their visit. At that time, SACS can make a recommendation concerning what course of action should be taken.

Dr. Stancel indicated that the new criteria regarding faculty poses major implications to the planning stages of a quantitative instrument designed by Dr. Wiener. Being made aware of the new expectations Dr. Wiener will have to develop a method to link the individual faculty to the individual faculty files. Dr. Wiener and Dr. Stancel reported that the files are currently stored as part of the course evaluation and are not broken into individual faculty. Dr. Stancel believes if this is the expectation for the future that this becomes a staffing issue in which someone will have to separate the documentation for 500 faculty members.

Dr. Stancel inquired if the procedure needed to be performed for all faculty or just MD Anderson faculty. Dr. Greer confirmed that the procedure only applies to MD Anderson faculty. Dr. Greer consulted with Ann Chard of SACS regarding including all faculty or just MD Anderson faculty. The response she received from Ann Chard was that only MD Anderson faculty were to be included in the faculty files, but we should be assured that all the faculty documentation is available for the Health Science Center.

Dr. Ahearn confirmed for Dr. Stancel that the documentation would need to be completed by January or February when the first site visit may be scheduled. Dr. Tomasovic stated that any recommendations provided from the site visit can be corrected.

Dr. Stancel inquired if the faculty evaluations from Dr. Kripke's office could be acquired to meet the criteria for the faculty. Dr. Tomasovic indicated that the information was available and Faculty Academic Affairs has the electronic database. Dr. Tomasovic indicated that there may be some confidentiality and security issues and he would have to acquire approval to release documentation. Dr. Tomasovic indicated that theoretically there is a printed evaluation for all faculty members completed as of this year and he could have the staff of Faculty Academic Affairs go through the 200 plus faculty copies of the evaluations and extract the teaching portion to be placed in the faculty member files.

Dr. Stancel expressed concerns in completing faculty documentation by January. Dr. Ahearn expressed that there is no definite knowledge of when the SACS site visit will occur. Dr. Greer indicated that from discussions with Ann Chard if there were items that required a substantive review by SACS, then the institution would have to wait until June for a site visit. If there were no items that needed substantive then the site visit could be scheduled and the institution would receive a couple of months notice.

Dr. Stancel inquired if SACS wanted evaluations from last year. Dr's Greer and Ahearn responded that SACS would want to review several years. Dr. Ahearn indicated that someone asked the question at the SACS Annual Meeting and was told to include five years. Dr. Ahearn indicated that MD Anderson would only have to include three years because the institution did not become a school until 2001.

Dr. Tomasovic expressed that during the first SACS team visit we should strive to do the best with as minimal areas to correct as possible. Dr. Tomasovic expects, particularly in the faculty portion, that the SACS team will not depart without advising some recommendations. He suggests that the recommendations identified be corrected and proceed from there with the submittal of the Compliance Report.

Dr. Tomasovic stated that in terms of the staffing issue, he could look at budget issues for any of the programs that have to deal with increased compliance activities. Between now and September 1, 2005, if temporary personnel are needed to come in to sort files and/or other administrable duties, then the departments could come to him with any extra budget needs and he would identify funding sources.

Dr. Wiener inquired about the evaluation format required by SACS. Currently the format for a GSBS course evaluation contains the faculty names (all faculty teaching the courses; there may be up to twenty faculty teaching a course) and a numerical evaluation. Currently the evaluations cannot be separated between the two faculty. Dr. Wiener indicated what he could provide is the form to which MDACC faculty can be highlighted to include a note that states the evaluation is for the last year. Dr. Tomasovic suggested that the current format be submitted for the first visit and if it is not sufficient to the site team it can be revised. Dr. Tomasovic indicated that the goal was to do the best job upfront to create a minimum amount of discussion and concern. Dr. Stancel requested a meeting at the beginning of 2004 with Dr. Greer and Dr. Weiner to discuss what would need to be done concerning evaluations for the impending visit; what would need to be in place for the future or the second visit.

4. Dr. Greer shared responses received from Dr. Chard concerning questions compiled from the SACS committee meeting minutes. Regarding the length of responses, Ann Chard indicated that the responses need to be reasonably long for elaboration. Dr. Chard suggested keeping the documentation brief. Dr. Tomasovic suggested that the documentation be clear and succinct. In regard to the question of incorporating GSBS Spring 2000 information into the report; the response was to exclude the information.

In regard to the question of incorporating UTHSC faculty files for GSBS; the response was to include only MDACC faculty. Dr. Greer indicated that although the information is not included it should be readily available. Dr. Stancel assured Dr. Greer that the HSC Academic Programs area would be able to provide documentation of faculty transcripts.

Dr. Tomosovic briefed the committee about the SACS briefing he attended in Atlanta which expressed that if certain deadlines were met the application would receive a response. The application according to Dr. Tomasovic and confirmed by Dr. Ahearn was sent in a month early and no response was ever received. Dr. Tomasovic was informed at the December SACS meeting that the application had not been reviewed and MDACC was first on the list for January. Dr. Tomasovic indicated that he was not sure when the SACS team would be scheduled to visit and the compliance report could not be submitted until after the application site visit. He anticipates completion of the report well in advance of the application site visit. Dr. Tomasovic inquired if there was a specified interval of time in which to submit the compliance report. Dr. Ahearn indicated that the institution has to gain candidacy before SACS will accept the compliance report. Dr. Ahearn explained if the site visit is conducted in the spring; when the SACS representatives meet in June the institution could gain candidacy and the compliance report can be submitted soon thereafter. Dr. Tomasovic expressed that once the compliance report is submitted in July the process will essentially be completed in February or March. Dr. Tomasovic indicated that as a result of the site visit there may be some changes to the compliance report to strengthen or alter, based on the experience. Dr. Ahearn shared information he received from the December SACS meeting regarding the SACS team visits. The SACS team visits will double this coming year due to the increase in trained representatives. Dr. Tomasovic estimates a timeframe for completion between December 2004 and June 2005. Dr. Greer indicated that Cindy Dutsche of Texas A&M received SACS evaluator training after the SACS meeting and arrangements have been made for her to review the report prior to submittal.

5. SACS is also requesting transcripts and job experience documentation for all student support staff positions. Kathy Hoffman indicated that in the Library's section on staffing she included links to all of the CV's, position descriptions and organization chart. Dr. Greer confirmed that SACS would need to review the documentation for all support staff and additional documentation would be required. Dr. Greer indicated that the additional informational requirement is a letter from the staff member's last employer indicating how well they performed. Ms. Hoffman inquired if the letter applies to all staff or senior staff. Dr. Tomasovic suggested providing documentation on just senior staff.

Dr. Greer indicated that another meeting would need to be scheduled for January due to the need for more information. Dr. Greer indicated that she had spoken with Donna Hemphill and will be meeting with her to obtain all the financial documentation for 03 which has been completed.

Dr. Tomasovic inquired about the extent of updates that will be necessary to have the website available for internal viewing in January or early February for university comment. Dr. Greer indicated that SACS requests fall documentation and only the faculty and finance documentation would require updating. Dr. Tomasovic expects that the final clean up of the compliance report would occur in May, June or July. Dr. Stancel suggested a deadline for final clean up of June 1. Dr. Weiner stated that he would rather the documentation be completed within the first two months of the year.

Dr. Stancel inquired about documentation needed for Core Requirements 6 and 7. Dr. Greer indicated that Core Requirement 6 needed updated rosters of the students which could be obtained from Cheryl Spitzenberger and verification of the documentation for Core Requirement 7.

Dr. Weiner inquired about documentation for addressing student complaints. Dr. Ahearn attended a session where student complaints were discussed and found that his office was deficient. Dr. Ahearn read aloud the terminology that states the institution demonstrates that it follows the procedures for addressing written student complaints. Dr. Tomasovic indicated that if there were no written complaints there would be no way to document the complaint.

Dr. Greer indicated that on page 213 of the Compliance Report under Federal Mandates responses are needed from both SHS and GSBS on materials and presentation for improvement. She has spoken with Robert Jenkins and he is putting together a response. Dr. Stancel recalled forwarding a response for the section and asked that Dr. Greer review her documentation to ensure that she has not received his response. Dr. Greer agreed. Dr. Stancel offered to re-send documentation.

None.

Dr. Tomasovic indicated that additional meetings would be scheduled for January, February and March to access progress. Dr. Tomasovic reiterated that the goal for having the compliance report ready is June. Dr. Greer indicated that if the institution is notified in January of a visit in March; the meetings would need to be more frequent to ensure preparation.

The meeting adjourned at at 9:40 a.m.

The next meeting is scheduled for: January 2004 in HMB10.103 to review final documentation booklet. An e-mail will be sent out to all members as to date and time.

Submitted for review by Maxine Stredic, Education Research and Assessment

Back to Table of Contents