The Self-Study Process

Minutes: 4-27-99

Present: B. Foote, B. Kaempfer, T. Lyons, C. Marsh, L. McClelland,D. Pinkow, M. Swadener

The task for this committee meeting was to get updates from all committee chairs.

BF Need to decide where the 10-yr snapshot will fit best in the report. It was tagged for omission for Chapter 1 (Lou) but perhaps should be included in an introductory chapter.

Chapter 1: Lou McClelland

LM Chapter 1 – does the university have a mission and do we communicate it? Chapter is out for review. The tables (basic institutional data forms) from last time have been modified. Has received permission from Athletics, Libraries, etc. to post their information.

Chapter 2: David Pinkow

DP Is in process and should have more updates in two weeks

Chapter 3: Susan Avery (not present)

BK (recalling Deans Council Mtg) Chancellor reviewed comments from Susan to deans and impression is that the general discussion is not positive enough. Bill himself has some organizational issues, i.e. that the chapter sort of constitutes a list of problems

BF Guesses that the chapter will not be organized that way

LM Need to make sure that certain issues do not come up for the first time in discussions between faculty / deans and evaluation team

BK perhaps ASP and IRMS should not be addressed in Chapter 3. Perhaps they are better discussed in Planning chapter. E.g. ASP has something to do with how the campus has to answer to central and therefore has lost autonomy in certain respects

LM Susan wanted deans to voice opinions about major issues: e.g. decline in workload (staff) and decline in benefits (faculty)

BF Can put in the report that these issues are seen as threats – i.e. external to our control. Want the NCA team to think to themselves that this is a campus that knows and understands its problems

BK Concerned that people at the Deans Council Mtg see accreditation as a resource bait (i.e. a way to ask for money). Need to make sure that people understand that the NCA accreditation process is not that

BF Should we deal with subcommittee issues before they reach the full committee or should we wait until the subcommittee is finished before we start looking at it

BK Good to allow cross-access of subcommittee information before it is finished because it allows people to incorporate material into their own work

BF Noted that Bill suggested that John Stevenson and Ann Colgan (on writing team for Chapter 3) be added to campus self study committee. Had asked Susan about that but has not yet heard back. Committee thought it a good idea if Susan concurs.

Chapter 4: Bill Kaempfer

BK In process

Next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 11^th from 1-3 pm in Regent 302.