Share This Item
Academic Affairs Minutes
September 3, 2010
ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COUNCIL Meeting of September 3, 2010 Present: Stones, Smith, Early, Johnson, Visser, L. Hopkins, Buchele, Jones, Munt, Tamagawa, Achacoso, Murphy, Gaffney, Hunt, P. Hopkins Guests: McCann, Sombito The meeting was called to order at 1:04 p.m. by Phil Hopkins, Chair. Minutes were approved as submitted with one abstention vote cast by Johnson. Introductions were made a special welcome extended to Achacoso. Buchele was elected by acclimation as Vice-Chair and representative to the University Council. As a follow-up to the conversation at Fall Faculty Conference, McCann asked the Council to consider its role in the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) selection process in anticipation of the University’s reaffirmation of accreditation. Smith asked the question: where are we falling short that the QEP will make it better? McCann replied that that’s what this process is meant to do and that it isn’t voluntary. Smith noted that this is what bothers him – who’s questioning SACS and calling the question? P. Hopkins expressed concern about the statement from Ron Swain at Fall Faculty Conference that the previous methodology used by SACS didn’t work, thus the QEP. Cowley suggested that we turn this process on its head and identify a QEP that is helpful and important to the University – and then try not to think of it as a mandated QEP. P. Hopkins offered that we should add a selection criteria of what costs and hurts the least. Several members encouraged the University to consider exploring the idea of seceding from SACS as we proceed by starting to have conversations with other schools who might share our frustration. Smith noted recent articles in the press that point to administrative bloat in higher education and a concern about the cost of student learning. The Council turned its attention back to the primary question at this point: what is the AAC’s role in the QEP selection process? McCann said that this is an 18-month process and this semester will focus on broad-based topic selection. The proposal is that we use the current governance structure for submitting topics. A QEP Topic Selection Committee has been named with faculty representatives from the divisions and the SFA. This committee will be charged with pairing down the submissions to 3 or 4 and requesting proposals from the authors who will be paid for their work. The current proposal is for the Budget Committee to approve the final QEP topic. AAC could provide a recommendation. Hunt added that he plans on recommending to Schrum that the Budget Advisory Committee be consulted as well. The question was raised as to why the AAC isn’t the central body to review proposals and then take the finalists to the University Council for review for budget impact. Hunt responded that the proposed QEP topic could be centered in Student Life so it may not always make sense for AAC to be the final authority. Following extensive discussion, the Council alternatively proposed that the University Council serve as the selecting body for the final QEP topic with the AAC full involved in reviewing and discussing all submissions. Furthermore, the AAC may even choose to make a recommendation on a particular topic or topics to the Topic Selection Committee, the faculty as a whole, and/or the University Council. McCann noted that after the QEP topic is selected, it will take about a year to write a 100-page document that will look much like a grant proposal with a timeline, budget, best practices, etc. The QEP will be implemented after accreditation. Hunt noted that we need to be happy with the topic for approximately five years because a five-year follow-up report will likely be requested by SACS. Hunt and McCann said that the previously distributed timetable that was distributed at Fall Faculty Conference and that is up on the web will need to be adjusted to reflect today’s conversation. It was decided that AAC representatives will go back to their respective divisions to talk about the QEP topics submitted to date and to encourage additional submissions. The next item of business was to determine the strategy for considering the backlog of five-year updates and ten-year reviews submitted over the past 12 months. Following extensive conversation, it was proposed that the Dean of the SSFA (Gaffney), the Associate Dean of the BCAS (Early), and the Provost (Hunt) work through these reports and bring important curricular points to the Council as needed for conversation with the chair. It was also proposed that Gaffney, Early and Hunt meet with the chairs about their reports and then write up a summary report to be submitted to AAC for the record. The Council unanimously approved this new approach. Additionally, effective immediately, the Council agreed that Hunt will report to AAC the final choice of the outside reviewer for ten-year reviews after receiving the information from the chair. Looking ahead, as Gaffney, Early, Hunt, McCann and Cowley look at the department review process, it was suggested that the report be submitted in three possible sections – curricular, resources and student learning outcomes/programmatic objectives. Stones shared information with the Council about the activities to-date of the Curriculum Transition Committee. Eight appeals for waiver of tuition charges on overloads have been considered; three were denied, one was approved for a 2-credit waiver and 4 were approved for 1-credit waivers. Stones also reported that 27 students are currently take 20 credits, five are taking 21 and, and one is taking 28. The meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Julie Cowley, Secretary Associate Vice President for Academic Administration
