Provost's Council Minutes (2/26/13)

Provost’s Council

February 26, 2013

2:00 p.m.

Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 245

(Revised March 26, 2013)

Members Present:     Doug Allen, Jackie Blakley, Amanda Blanton, Tim Bowen, Scott Harvey, Dan Holland, Lynn Lewis, Robin McFall, Amoena Norcross, Sarah Shumpert, Brian Swords

Members Absent:     
Others Present:          Kevin Steele, Rob Massey
Length of Meeting:   2.5 hours
Topics Discussed:

The Minutes of the February 7, 2013 meeting were approved, as presented.

Rob Massey discussed advising and noted that the revised advising model is still a work in progress.  In the future, we may use developmental advising that will emphasize more frequent connections to students and will help establish relationships with the students.  The advising model will be a hybrid involving both success coaches and faculty advisors.  Success coaches will address aspects of developmental advising. 

Kevin Steele and Brian Swords discussed the fall enrollment plan.  Kevin distributed several handouts and explained how the target figures were determined.  Kevin will send the regression model to Anne to distribute to the group.  A funnel report will be prepared every month until May, and in May, it will be prepared weekly.  ISIS report 258 will show the number of sections needed.  Department heads need to vet out what is scheduled and look at the enrollment projections to see how it pans out.  Report 258 is as accurate as it can be, and starts over each year.  This will be messy, at first, but it is a great start, and we will continue to refine it with input. 

Action items from the Fall Enrollment discussion:

 

1.      All members of Provost’s Council will get a copy of the auto regression model to the program level.

 

2.      Vet the current schedule to compare courses to Report 258.

 

3.      Funnel report will be provided monthly until May, then weekly.

 

4.      Continue to study retention and persistence, and continue to refine reports and models.

 

Scott Harvey noted that the new combined academic calendar has been posted on the website.  It shows priority dates for financial aid, residency, and admissions.

Galen discussed the Strategic Plan and distributed the 2013-2014 Quarterly Calendar of Accomplishments, with the project owners listed.  Galen reviewed the project owners and asked for additional input.  The following project owners were revised.

 

Driving Organizational Success Through Our People – July – Sept. 2013, A faculty/staff competency model is established – Sharon – the group wanted to include a dean in this project.

 

Embracing Personal Accountability for Students’ Learning – July - September 2013, Transformative student experience is defined – Dr. Booth - the group wanted to add the Provost and the credit deans to this project.

The project owner will convene the group and document the deliverables.  Once deliverables are vetted out the owners begin with whatever is needed, a feasibility study, a project charter, or some other action.  By the March budget discussions, we should have a good estimate of the cost of the project.  Galen needs to know the general costs and the general idea in order to fold it into the budget, and he will be the repository for project documents.  New projects and deliverables will be reviewed by the Institutional Effectiveness staff to be certain there is no duplication. Then they will be forwarded to Executive Staff for review and approval.

 

The roll out strategy for the strategic plan will include Connection messages and group discussions.  The intent is for consistent, quality communication with chances for engagement at all campuses. 

 

Galen noted the upcoming budget sessions.  A separate session is planned for project owners.  The intent is for the budget process to be as clear and concise as possible, with access to resources.

 

Galen discussed employee performance management and distributed a handout.  The handout was an overview of the definitions and examples of the three ratings.  The document is meant to clarify the overall ratings and to address inconsistencies in the application of the EPMS rating system. The group made simple revisions to the document, but noted concern about how student success fits into the EPMS.  The group also noted the concern that the EPMS rating is tied to performance pay.  Galen assured the group that this is not the case, but the perception is still prevalent.  Galen also noted the new focus on how activities from one unit of the college can impact another.  The members of the group will review the handout and e-mail any feedback to Galen. 

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

 

Recorded by:             Anne Bryan

 

Next Meeting:            Tuesday, March 26, at 2:00 p.m., in CD 142

Provost's Council Minutes (2/7/13)

Provost’s Council
February 7, 2013
2:00 p.m.
Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 245

Members Present:     Doug Allen, Jackie Blakley, Amanda Blanton, Tim Bowen, Scott Harvey, Lynn Lewis, Amoena Norcross, Brian Swords

Members Absent:      Dan Holland, Sarah Shumpert

Others Present:          Renae Frazier

Length of Meeting:   2.5 hours

Topics Discussed:

 

The Minutes of the January22, 2013 meeting were approved, as presented.

 

Renae Frazier attended the meeting to discuss admission policies and procedures.  She distributed an open admissions overview, a revised Open Admissions policy and procedure, and a proposed new Application Fee procedure.  The overview provided recommendations for high school/GED credential and recommendations for admissions critiera.  These recommendations were proposed by a Provost Council sub-group, with input from the deans.  Renae noted that revisions to the policy are needed to align it with the state policy, which does not require a high school diploma or GED for admission to a college. Concerns included: 

·         A high school transcript may be required to be eligible for financial aid.

·         Some occupations require a high school transcript to graduate and for employment.

·         The college will not deny a student admission if he/she does not have a high school transcript.  If the student self –admits, he will be placed into a certificate program. 

·         No regulations to require a high school diploma.

·         Are we doing a disservice to our students to not require it?

·         Where in the matriculation process will the transcript be obtained?

 

Renae noted that the application will ask if the student has a high school diploma.  If the student notes that he does, it would be listed as a missing requirement, with the expectation that the college would like to have a copy of it.  The diploma is required for the LIFE scholarship and for most financial aid. 

Renae noted that changes in the Open Admissions Policy and Procedure and reviewed the proposed new Admissions Application Fee Procedure.  Suggested changes to the procedure include:

 

·         # 4, Change the wording “Special program students” to “Student enrolled in these programs” 

·         Add a  #7 to include veterans. 

 

Renae will send Galen the documents with the markups for review.

 

Scott discussed the Retention of Student Records and the Standards of Academic Progress procedures.  He noted that for the most part he took the wording for the Retention procedure from the Retention Manual.  The group made a few suggestions:

 

·         Page 4, 3.12-809-7 – Change Grade “Sheets” to Grade “Records”

·         Page 5, 6.12-809.12, B (1) Research the terminology “Inactive File”

·         Page 5, 7.12-809.13, B, Change “termination of enrollment” to “date of last attendance”

·         Page 7, Under Security of Student Records, is that correct information?  Are those offices the only offices that are supposed to maintain student records?

 

Scott will research any questions, make changes and send the procedure to Galen for review and presentation to the Executive Staff.

 Scott discussed the Standards of Academic Progress procedure.  Significant changes include:

 

·         The use of the 2.0 institutional GPA
·         Removal of the ranges
·         Removal of the second round of the process
·         Allow only one suspension appeal.

 

Before implementation of the procedure, the college would have a one semester grace period in which all students would be in good standing.  The revised procedure would be implemented after that grace period. 

The group’s biggest concern is the impact this revision will have on students who want to change their majors.  They may be caught in the cycle, and never be able to overcome a low GPA, regardless of success in a new major.  It may impossible to recover, and they may lose their financial aid.  It was noted that the state policy uses the 2.0 GPA, and that we may need to consider the 80/20 rule.

 

Galen will ask Chris Marino to expand an earlier research project to try to determine how many unrecoverable students were able to continue with other funds.

Scott will send this procedure to Galen for review prior to presentation to the Executive Staff. 

 

Galen announced that the Strategic Plan was approved by the Commission at the February 6 meeting.  He mentioned that budget development will begin in March, and developers should try to align budgets based on initiatives in the plan.

Galen noted that he needs input on whom the project owners should be.  Once the project owners are identified, they can begin work on the deliverables to be ready by April.  Ann Hall will have a specific budget meeting for project owners with information on how the plan fits into the college budget.  Galen mentioned that the adjunct budget is the biggest part of our budget.  Other than equipment needs and project needs, it is assumed that the remainder of the budget items will be the same for next year.  The enrollment projections should help with preparing the adjunct budget. 

 

Under Announcements, Amoena noted the need to review the attendance notification process.  Faculty are receiving so many notifications, that there is not enough time to do anything with them.  She has received a lot of feedback from faculty that it is out of control.  It was noted that, based on the college’s growing enrollment and the number of advisees assigned to faculty, are we setting students up for failure because advisors have too many advisees?   As we work on the matriculation process, should this issue be considered on the front end?  Currently, we do not have the infrastructure in place to handle this.  To help address this, Galen will invite Rob Massey to the next meeting.

 

It was questioned whether the advisor needs to receive the initial attendance memo that is sent to the student.  It was suggested that we turn off the copy to advisors to help with the influx of e-mail.  It was noted that we will continue to make changes to the process to try to better it.

 

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

 

 

Recorded by:             Anne Bryan

 

Next Meeting:            Tuesday, February 26, at 2:00 p.m., in RH 24

Provost's Council Minutes (1/22/13)

Provost’s Council
January 22, 2013
2:00 p.m.
Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 245

Members Present:     Doug Allen, Jackie Blakley, Amanda Blanton, Tim Bowen, Scott Britten, Scott Harvey, Lynn Lewis, Amoena Norcross, Sarah Shumpert, Brian Swords

Members Absent:      Dan Holland
Others Present:         
Length of Meeting:   2.5 hours
Topics Discussed:

The Minutes of the January 8, 2013 meeting were approved, as presented.

 

Reporting for the matriculation group, Brian Swords briefly discussed Program Fit.  He mentioned that having criteria for programs in place on the front end would help counselors identify in which programs students may be the most successful.  Brian alerted the deans that they would be receiving forms for input on identifying the program criteria.  The program fit criteria would be another component of a more realistic assessment model being developed.  The group has contacted Stephanie Winkler to be certain that we are ADA compliant. 

A revised admissions process would assign a generalist counselor to a student for the entire admissions process, which could include registration.  The student would have only one contact throughout the process.  The student will choose a major on the application, and the generalist will investigate the student’s fit for the program as part of a meeting with the student.  Brian noted that this is still a work in progress, and needs input from the program level.  The request for input will be sent to the deans in the next few weeks.

 

The Curriculum Committee Charter was discussed.  Issues included the following.

·         To what purpose is the Curriculum Committee reviewing a change?

·         The Committee must be aware of how a proposal may impact other areas. 

·         What do we want the Curriculum Committee to do? For SACS, all we need is a process to review curriculum.  It does not have to be this process. 

·         WIDS to Web can take care of many issues associated with communication and process flow.

·         The originator of the proposal needs to be able to attend the meeting.

·         Accrediting review should be done by the deans.

 

After the discussion, it was agreed that a subgroup would be formed to redress the charter and bring it back to Provost’s Council.  Lynn, Scott H. and Sarah are the group’s members.

 

Tim Bowen led the discussion on Weekend College proposal, and distributed a handout to the group.  He is bringing the work of the Project Charter Team and Project Board to the Provost’s Council for discussion before moving forward.  After review and research, the Team saw the need for expanded weekend scheduling, but not a stand-alone program.  CRJ and ECD were suggested as pilot programs because of the courses that are common to both programs.  The proposal suggests offering all courses in a hybrid format to reduce seat time and to build a Saturday schedule.  Points from the discussion include:

·         ENG 155, PSY 120 and SOC 101 are in online format, but not hybrid format.

·         Is this too aggressive for fall?
·         General education courses could be offered as a block.
·         Is it better to identify student who express a need or desire to attend in the proposed format and restrict it to a cohort?
·         We can hold seats based on major, and then allow to fill with other students. 
·         Start smaller and end the day by 2:30.

 

It was noted that weekend college would be beneficial for students who work full time and do not have access to current formats.  Few services would be available for weekend students, and we may need to address that issue later.  Hopefully a cohort would develop, but, as proposed, weekend college is not cohort specific.  Being open to all students creates fewer SACS issues. 

Other considerations include:

·         How should the courses be offered – 14 or 7 weeks? Hybrid?

·         What populations are we targeting and what are their characteristics?
·         Seven week courses may be more attractive to faculty. 

Tim will take these questions back to the Project Team and Project Board for review and consideration.

Galen led the group in a strategic plan activity. The group discussed the definition of “institutionalized” and agreed that the focus should be on activities; not institutionalizing plans.  The group discussed most activities and suggested revised completion dates for the 2013 – 2014 plan.  Galen will present the plan at the February 4 Commission meeting.

 

1.       Retention Plan Institutionalized

 

Noting that a plan cannot be institutionalized, the group decided to import year 1 activities from the Retention Plan the PAC vetted late last year.

 

2.       Matriculation Plan Institutionalized

 

Noting the intent to implement particular activities/initiatives, the group recommended to add the initiatives to be completed by the end of FY 14.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

 

 

Recorded by:             Anne Bryan

 

Next Meeting:            Thursday, February 7, at 2:00 p.m., in RH 245

Provost's Council Minutes (1/18/13)

Provost’s Council
January 8, 2013
2:00 p.m.
Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 245

Members Present:     Doug Allen, Jackie Blakley, Amanda Blanton, Tim Bowen, Scott Britten, Scott Harvey, Dan Holland, Lynn Lewis, Amoena Norcross, Sarah Shumpert, Brian Swords

Members Absent:     
Others Present:         
Length of Meeting:   2.5 hours
Topics Discussed:

The Minutes of the December 17, 2012 meeting were approved, as presented.

 

Attendance was discussed.  Galen distributed a handout with an overview of the issues.  Amoena reported that Faculty Senate believes that attendance is important, but the inconsistent policy and procedure cause confusion.  Faculty Senate recommends that the decision about attendance be made at a higher level.  Galen reviewed the overview document.  A lengthy discussion ensued and included the following points.

 

A modified attendance policy would:

 

·         Reinforce the relationship between student learning and attendance

·         Respond to the recommendation by Faculty Senate

·         Keep us in financial aid compliance

·         Help with various other issues

·         Create a benchmark to better measure and understand student success.

 

Lynn Lewis called the question, “Should we maintain an institutional attendance policy?”  The group unanimously voted yes.

 

At this point, Galen distributed a proposed revised Policy 3-2-1053, Attendance for Credit Students, and a proposed revised Procedure 3-2-1053.1, Attendance for Credit Students.  After much discussion and with a few revisions, the group agreed to both the revised policy and procedure.  Galen noted that the attendance policy/procedure must make a case for learning, and reminded the group that an institutional policy may not be a best practice.  Galen also noted that the procedure allows the divisions/departments/faculty to set a more stringent attendance policy based on learning, if they desire.  The policy and procedure send the message that attendance is important, and that it has a direct correlation to learning.

Sarah distributed a proposed Online Class Attendance Policy.  After discussion, the group agreed with the proposed policy.  Rather than have a separate document, Galen will include the online policy in Policy 3-2-1053, Attendance for Credit Students.

 

After making the suggested changes, Galen will present the attendance policy to the Executive Staff on January 9, in order to be in compliance with financial aid regulations on the first day of class. 

 

Communication about the revised policy and procedure must be communicated to faculty and students as soon as possible. 

 

Scott H. demonstrated the new ISIS report, Attendance Tracker.  The group briefly discussed the report, and Scott answered questions.  Scott will send information and instructions about Attendance Tracker to faculty immediately.

 

Announcements included the following.

·         Tracy Ethridge will serve as Curriculum Committee chair until the charter is approved.  She is working on critical issues now.

·         Scott H. reminded the group that Acalog training will take place the week of January 14.

 

·         The search continues for the new Provost.  There is nothing new to report.

With agenda items remaining, the meeting was adjourned.

 

Recorded by:             Anne Bryan

Next Meeting:            Tuesday, January 22, at 2:00 p.m., in RH 245

Faculty Senate Minutes (2/21/13)

Tri-County Technical College

Faculty Senate Minutes

 

Date:  February 21, 2013

Location:  Fulp 400
Time:  2:30 p.m.

Members Present: Amoena Norcross, Corey Evans, Cheryln Brown, Steven Mathena, Penny Edwards, Jason Poole, Chris McFarlin, Marla Roberson, MarilynVickery, Tom Lawrence

Members Absent:  Todd Crisp-Simons, Tony Logan, Tony Young, Lisa Walton, Ashley Brady

Guests:   Lisa Anderson, Chris Marino

Presider:  Amoena Norcross

Approval of Minutes:  With one requested correction, it was motioned that the January 2013 minutes be approved. The motion was seconded.  The minutes, with the change, were approved unanimously.

1. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Wellness Center

Lisa Anderson spoke to the Faculty Senate about the Wellness Center located in the basement of the Ruby Hicks building and gave an overview of the wellness initiative.   The Wellness Center will have an exercise room, an equipment room, and a lunch and learn room. There is a boot camp which is between 12:30 and 1:30 every day, and a Zumba class will be starting.  Leanna Garrison with Fitness Addict in Clemson is coordinating the wellness and fitness classes.  A survey was done at the Wellness Center’s open house regarding days and times people want classes held.  The goal is to accommodate as many employees as possible.  In addition, there will be a monthly theme.  March is National Nutrition Month.  A liability waiver must be signed for the use of the facility; users will then have access by swiping their TCTC ID card at the door.  Showers are also available.  The Wellness Committee is also open to suggestions and ideas for the Wellness Center’s use.  Any individual or business can contribute to the Wellness Initiative by making a donation.  Wellness Center hours are 6:30 a.m.-10:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 6:30 a.m.-2:00 p.m. on Friday.    Right now employees can get the liability form from Lisa, but in the future, it will be under the Employee Tab in eTC.

Dr. Booth has committed the College to a $5000.00 pledge to the American Heart Association.  The College is holding a walk on the Pendleton Campus on Friday, April 12, 12:30 p.m.  There are already seven team leaders, and the teams will be forming in March, so those interested should contact Lisa Anderson.   Pledges will be taken for the walk.  The walk will be one mile, and there will be three different courses with different intensity levels.   An additional 5K race will be held in May at the Anderson Campus.

The College has also applied for a grant and hopes to do a health risk assessment of all employees.  The assessment would be a voluntary online questionnaire.  Individuals would get a personal summary, but the College would also get a cumulative summary.  The College will be informed of the grant award in a week or two. 

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:

None

2. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Employee Survey on Organizational Culture

Chris Marino and Penny Edwards are part of a team that created a survey that will capture employees’ perceptions about the culture of the College.  Faculty Senate is being asked to comment on the current draft of the survey.  Staff Advisory Council had already commented on the survey draft.  The survey will focus on employees’ understanding of what makes an ideal workplace.  This input will be incorporated into the College’s value statement.  The questions on the survey are purposely open-ended in order not to create expectations.  It was mentioned that Dr. Booth will be sending a letter out encouraging employees to complete the survey.  An announcement about the survey will be made at the faculty/staff meeting on March 28^th.

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:

Senators should share with constituents that the survey will be sent out soon.  Penny should be notified if any glaring errors are discovered in the survey draft.  

Old Business:

3. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

 

Faculty Choice Scholarship

An announcement about the Faculty Choice Scholarship has been placed under the Message Center Tab in eTC.  If you have a student in mind, Amoena iterated the requirements and where to access the rubric.  Amoena informed Debbie Nelms that applicants should still provide two letters of recommendation from faculty members.

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:

None.

4. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Professional Development Day Input

Senators reported from constituents that the majority of faculty wants a separate fall break in October during general election years if Professional Development Day is scheduled on Election Day.  However, many faculty are still confused about why Professional Development Day is on Election Day.  The College is closed so staff and all offices are able to participate.  There is still a question about when or why we even have Professional Development Day.  There is still an issue about content, and discretionary or mandatory attendance was also addressed.  Other issues discussed concerned the branding of Professional Development Day—is it actually professional development, personal development, or both?  The Senate would like clarification regarding the purpose for Professional Development Day—is the purpose for professional development or for team building (increasing cohesion across areas of the College)?

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:

Amoena will communicate to Sharon Colcolough, who serves on the Calendar Committee and coordinates Professional Development Day, that the faculty want a fall break in October in general election years.  Marla will provide the Senate with information regarding any SACS requirements pertaining to professional development.   

 

5. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Last Day of Exams and Grade Submission Input

Senators reported that the majority of constituents want an additional day for grading after the last day of exams, rather than grades being due at noon the day immediately following the last day of exams.  The Calendar Committee is also considering adding a reading/study day for students after classes have ended but prior to the first exam day.  The library needs to know of any of these changes so that its hours can be adjusted accordingly.

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:

Amoena will notify the Calendar Committee that the majority of faculty is in favor of inserting an additional grading day between the last day of exams and the day grades are due.

6. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Attendance Policy

Amoena reported on a discussion during the last Provost meeting which pertained to advisors receiving email notifications.  After some discussion, the Provost’s Council determined that notifications to advisors should be halted.  The Senate then discussed other emails generated by the Attendance Tracker, namely those going to the instructor who reported the attendance.   Some emails are also going to division secretaries, and some are being forwarded to department heads.  Instructors do need a copy of the 14 day email, but do those need to go to secretaries?  Faculty need to know the flow for all of these emails (i.e., when are they generated, who receives them, etc.).  There seem to be too many emails sent to too many different recipients.  One possibility might be to have an option for some of the notifications.

The other issue brought up by some faculty is the Financial Aid Regulations stating that if the College does not have any business going on for 5 or more days, then attendance should not be taken—Spring Break is an example.  Scott Harvey is aware of this issue, and he is following up with Financial Aid on this point.

Amoena has also been trying to get a copy of the letter that is sent to students when they are put on financial aid warning.  Rob Massey had asked faculty to contact advisees who have been placed on financial aid warning; however, the Senate believes it would be helpful to know the content of the letter to determine if meeting with an advisor first is indeed what the student should do.  Rob has been informed that faculty advisors do not feel they have enough background in financial aid to advise the students, and consequently faculty advisors should not be the first contact.  Faculty advisors should be contacted after a student meets with Financial Aid so that class loads/schedules can be adjusted based on the requirements of the particular financial aid package.

 

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:

 

Amoena will request a flow chart be created that indicates the timelines and recipients for attendance email notifications.  She will continue to work on obtaining a copy of the financial aid warning letter sent to students.   

7. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Nominations for Faculty Senate President 2013-2014

Amoena will not accept the nomination to continue as President.  Full-time faculty currently on the Senate need to consider being nominated.  It is desirable to have more than one nominee so that a vote among faculty can take place. Before the next meeting, there will be a message put on eTC for faculty to nominate a current Senator.

Action to be taken as a result of discussion, person(s) responsible, and timeline:

Senators should encourage fellow faculty to nominate present full-time faculty Senators.

Comments/Concerns: 

Croslena Johnson asked that the Faculty Senate encourage any students they think would be interested in attending the Leadership Workshop for Males of Color, February 27^th, 1:20 p.m., in the Marshall Parker Auditorium.

Amoena forwarded to Rebecca Eidson comments compiled by the Senate regarding the ban on smoking on campus.

Next meeting: Wednesday, March 27, 2013, 1:30-3:00 p.m., Fulp 400.

Adjournment at 4:07 p.m.

Name of Recorder:  Marilyn Vickery