Exploring Digital & Global Education Discovering Work and Learning Strategies for the New Millennium
Steering Committee Meeting Minutes

DATE: February 5, 1998

LOCATION: Clearwater Campus Library, Multi-Purpose Room

ATTENDING:
Dr. Ann Chard, Associate Executive Director, SACS
Joe Smiley
Linda Gaier
Danny Clark
Susan Anderson
Iris Yetter
Mary Smith
Linda Nielson
Ernie Ross
Bonnie Carlson
Susan Demers
David Hartman, Co-Chair
Dr. Esther Oliver, Administrator
Guy Hancock, Co-Chair
Sean McCormick, Administrative Assistant

RE: An informal meeting with Dr. Ann Chard to give a general review of the Alternate Self-Study process and to answer any questions that anybody may have.

2.01
Ann Chard opened the meeting by reviewing the Alternate Self-Study process by the use of overheads.

2.02
Ernie Ross questioned what the reaffirmation was based on.

Ann Chard responded that the reaffirmation is based on the Compliance Study. The Focus Study is not considered for reaffirmation, but it must be complete "satisfactorily".

2.03
Ann Chard suggested that for the site visits by the Visiting Teams to have information readily available. Ann Chard even suggested sending information to the Visiting Team four to six weeks prior to their visit. This makes the process more simplistic. A good line of communication between the Steering Committee and the Visiting Team removes much of the confusion.

Ann Chard stated that one institution even made video tapes for their Visiting Team to view prior to their visit to familiarize them with the campus.

2.04
Dr. Esther Oliver commented on the yearly SACS meeting and how institutions that had finished their self-study had their reports on display. Ann Chard stated that she would send a list of all the institutions that have completed the self-study.

2.05
Joe Smiley requested Ann Chard share some "difficulties" that past institutions have had with their self-study process.

Ann Chard gave examples of institutions losing focus, losing site of their goals. She explained that sometimes too much effort goes towards the Focus Study and the Compliance Study suffers.

Ann Chard shared a list of "Lessons Learned: Advise from Self-Study Directors" on the overhead:

#1 Institutional culture and climate will influence the study.
#2 The difficulty of writing and editing the report is directly related to the care and effort in planning and guiding the self-study.
#3 Highly capable chairs and editors, along with effective communication, minimize anxiety for the self-study.
#4 The Time Table: "Enough lead time" never is.
#5 Produce an information-based analysis that integrates research planning rather than a descriptive narrative.
#6 Make the report "user friendly" in form and content.
#7 Never assume anything.
#8 A Steering Committee which meets regularly and frequently will more than likely experience fewer crisis.

2.06
Ann Chard commented that the idea of the Compliance Visiting Team and Consultants Visiting Team coming at the same time is a good decision. She stated that the two teams can help each other and share information.

"Having both committees come at the same time is like having one nightmare instead of two", Dr. Ann Chard.

2.07
Ann Chard described the characteristics of the self-study. Compliance: The compliance section is made up of the must statements (approximately 400). These all must be covered. Need to provide evidence of compliance, need to pinpoint where information can be found, and need to provide a narrative for the criteria. Not all narratives have to be large, some will be small. Rule of thumb; Any documentation that can be placed right with the criteria, do it. The easier the report is to read the happier the committee members will be and the quicker they can finish their work.

2.08
Ann Chard discussed the matter of non-compliance situations. Some non-compliance items may a rise during the self-study. If the non-compliance is amended prior to the release of the final report, the college has no reason to mention it in its report. The committee is only interested if the item is in compliance or in non-compliance.

2.09
Ann Chard explained that the expectation of the criteria is that the institution keeps its integrity by staying within compliance. There is always ebb and flow. One of the main factors of the self-study is to critically examine all aspects of the compliance issues.

2.10
New legislation effective in June. After the Visiting Teams released its report, the institution has five months to respond. After the response is given to the C&R Committee, the institution has two years to come into compliance, or it may face the loss of its accreditation.

2.11
The Focus aspect of the study. This involves broad-based participation. The focus describes the study, describes the importance of the study to the institution, analyzes the effect of the study (both current and long-term), and it describes changes at the institution as a result of the study. Any person who reads the Focus Study should be able to relive the study. Although a final report is due in two years, this does not mean that is where the study must end. The institution may indicate in the report how far along the institution plans on carrying out the study.

2.12
Ann Chard described the make-up of the Compliance Visiting Team. Chair, Institutional Effectiveness, Finance/Physical Resources, Student Services, Learning Resources, Faculty, and Curriculum. Chair is considered approximately two years before the site visit. The rest of the committee is put together eight to ten months before the visit. The make-up of the committee may be altered in respect to the institution.

2.13
Copies of Ann Chard's overheads were requested.

2.14
Ann Chard discussed the Consultant Visiting Team. Many teams were made up of professionals who do consulting as a career. Nobody has yet to turn down a consulting offer yet. Most business professional wan to learn of the accrediting process and the consulting route is the best opportunity they have to get an up-close view.

2.15
Ann Chard discussed the responsibilities of the Steering Committee: Plan, Organize, Coordinate, Monitor, Advise, and Facilitate the Self-Study. Communication through media to keep college community aware of important dates and status of study.

2.16
Ann Chard discussed the "In House" Manual and its structure. It should include a statement of purpose. Should also include: committee organization, membership, committee charges and assignments, calendar and schedule, methodologies for data collection and analysis, editorial/writing and operational guidelines, project resources, bibliography of references, and other appropriate materials.

2.17
Discussion of timeline. The C&R Committee meets twice a year, June and December. If the site visit for the study is in the Fall of 1999, report is due to the C&R Committee in June of 2000. If the visit is Spring of 2000, report is due December of 2000. Once the dates are established for the Visiting Teams, can start to plan a timeline. The Chair of the Compliance Visiting Committee will visit approximately eight weeks before the rest of the committee. Mail all pertinent documents to member of the Visiting Committee four to six weeks before site visit.

2.18
Discussion of Visiting Committee timeline. The Visiting Committees will have a four day visit. On the first day a social gathering at night is recommended. The second and third days will consist of site visits and interviews. The fourth day the members will need to finish their exit reports and should be out of the area by lunch.

2.19
Dr. Ann Chard's E-Mail address: achard@sacscoc.org

DATE: February 27, 1998

LOCATION: Caruth Health Education Building, Conference Room

ATTENDING:
Dr. Esther E. Oliver, Administrator
Guy Hancock, Co-Chair
David Hartman, Co-Chair
Sean McCormick, Administrative Assistant
Joseph Smiley, Steering Committee Member
Iris Yetter, Steering Committee Member
Susan Anderson, Steering Committee Member
Michael O'Berry, Steering Committee Member
Angel Rosado, Steering Committee Member
Robert Meyer, Steering Committee Member
Mary Smith, Steering Committee Member
Linda Nielsen, Steering Committee Member
Stella Perez, Steering Committee Member
Mary Jo Harvey, Committee Member

RE: Monthly EDGE Steering Committee meeting.

3.01
David Hartman presented the summary of the abstract on the distance learning technology, giving a general review on the many topics that the EDGE study will face. He suggested that many topics covered in the abstract could be pulled into another survey. Also, the abstract in its entirety will be posted on the web page for EDGE.

3.02
David Hartman addressed steering committee list in regards to liaisons. Guy Hancock summarized liaison process and asked for voluntaries to sign up on committees. Administrative committees may not all be included and some may be added. Open Campus will form one committee with sub-committees off of that. At Provost meeting there will be discussion about committees along with work that they may entail.

3.03
It was suggested that multi-campus committees (ie, humanities) be included into one committee rather than per campus basis. Guy Hancock suggested that campuses could be split into subÑcampuses and then one committee would cover all aspects. David Hartman believed that some contact between campuses should be practiced to keep in touch and compare ideas.

3.04
The role of the Steering Committee liaison was addressed. Once reports from committees begin to come in, the steering committee liaison will ÒsiftÓ through ideas. A report from the steering committee will be the colleges report for EDGE. Once again, Guy Hancock explained the committee liaisons to take three or so committees to help.

3.05
It was stated that many staff do not feel comfortable using the web browsers to view the Internet. The problem is getting higher powered computers to make it easier to use these options. This problem is in resolution with new computers on there way.

3.06
In reference to committee meetings, it was recommended that some sort of calendar be established. If such calendar existed, liaisons would know what time and place certain committees would be meeting. Also, a rough outline of key points, times, dates, that committees should roughly follow. All of these techniques would add uniformity to committees. It was also suggested that committees keep general meeting minutes to catalog the process and which in turn could be posted on the web site to keep college community up to date.

3.07
The first process of committee liaisons will be to establish committees and guiding them on to the right process. Steering Committee liaisons were established by passing around a ÒmasterÓ list. Once again it was explained that committees would be subject to their own decisions on combining and sub-committees. Each department must think about this and each situation will be different.

3.08
The idea of college success stories on the web was shared with the Steering Committee. Start by highlighting things we do very well and apply such techniques as to other areas that are not as well off. Profiles of college personal who have success stories. Ask committees to suggest somebody in their department that has a success story. To get them out in the Blue and White or a periodic insert into mailboxes. Find ways to recognize, some kind of award of recognition. Who? What? When?... This matter was left open waiting from feedback from the Steering Committee.

3.09
Stella Perez shared the agenda of Jan Boltzer, Director of Technology and Planning Services, Maricapo Community College. She explained that the agenda is "tight", but there is time for a one-on-one session with the EDGE Steering Committee to address specific questions on the EDGE topic.

3.10
It was proposed to form a list server for EDGE Committees for sharing of information and discussions and communications. All of such information could be dumped onto web site to record information for EDGE.

3.11
Other speakers were addressed: Dale Parnel, March 31 to take place of Michael Hooker. Letter addressing issues for him. Innovations and best practices he has seen.

3.12
It was suggested that small audio bites could be located on web to introduce people to videos of futurist speakers the college has available.

3.13
It was decided that committee liaisons would be source of information for committees and be official presence. The idea is for committees to know that steering committee is there to help and support process. Liaisons are also to summarize and collate reports received from committees.

3.14
Timeline was discussed. Original timeline is to be followed. No changes have been made as of yet. Timeline will be posted on web page.