Faculty Senate Minutes (11/14/12)

Tri-County Technical College
Faculty Senate Minutes 

Date:  November 14, 2012

Location:  Fulp 400

Time:  1:30 p.m.

Members Present: Amoena Norcross, Todd Crisp-Simons, Cheryln Brown, Penny Edwards, Jason Poole, Chris McFarlin, Lisa Walton, Marilyn Vickery, Marla Roberson

Members Absent:  Tony Logan, Corey Evans, Steven Mathena, Tony Young, Ashley Brady, Tom Lawrence

Presider:  Amoena Norcross

Approval of Minutes:  With several editing corrections, it was motioned that the October minutes be approved. The motion was seconded.  The minutes, with changes, were approved unanimously.

Old Business:

 

1. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

A survey was sent to all faculty members asking if they wanted Professional Development Day left on Election Day every two years or if they wanted it changed to the week before fall semester each year.  Following are the results:

            111 people responded

              28 wanted the day to stay every two years

              83 wanted once a year before the fall semester starts

This represents approximately 25% for the same day and 75% for the change.

Todd mentioned that many wanted to do away with it all together because they didn’t feel a lot of what was offered was pertinent to them professionally.  That was not an option though.  There were questions about other dates also and a question of why just one set day instead of opportunities throughout the year.  Also, the idea of doing this divisionally was deemed a problem because the goal of the college is to bring people together.

Marla said SACS accreditation drives the need for Professional Development requiring a certain number of hours per year.  Should there be a particular number of hours required per person?

Attendance by faculty this year was 81.  Seventy- six (76) went to at least one session, and 5 attended no sessions but did attend lunch.

 

Full-time permanent faculty total 135. Full-time, permanent staff total 183.  Faculty do not outnumber staff unless adjuncts are included.  About 60% of faculty attended and 62% of staff attended Professional Development Day.

Division breakdown:

Arts and Sciences                   59%     (41 of 69 total)

Public Services                        15%     (3 of 20 total)

Engineering and Technology  59%     (10 of 17 total)

Health Education                    72%     (18 of 25 total)

Library                                              100%     (4 of 4 total)

Marla mentioned that adjuncts and temporary staff were not invited because of the cost of providing lunch.  There was a consensus among the members of the Senate that adjunct faculty and temporary staff should be invited.

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

Amoena will try to set up a meeting with Deborah Brock and Sharon Colcolough to discuss the results of the survey and how inclusion of adjuncts and temporary employees could impact student success.  She will also mention it in the next Provost meeting.

2. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Amoena, at the Provost meeting, addressed the course restrictions memo and asked why faculty is required to give out the self-pay form.  Scott Harvey is monitoring how many students are actually signing up for classes that fall into this category.  The e-mail may be changed.  Amoena suggested the student be sent to the advising center for the form.

 It was brought up that the self-pay form could be on-line and when the student is told they would have to pay for certain classes they could print off the form and turn it in.

There could even be a check box agreeing to pay for the class.  This should be automated; there is no reason why the student has to go see another person.

The Registration Project Charter Team has no faculty member so this issue had never been brought to faculty attention before it became an issue.

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

Amoena will mention other possibilities in the next Provost meeting.

3. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Faculty Senate was asked whether we think attendance is a major factor in student success. 

No one feels an attendance policy should be up to the individual divisions because it would be too confusing for the student. It was mentioned that we need to have a policy dictated to faculty and then we need to follow it so we have something in writing to back us up.  The argument was that some faculty do not want an attendance policy dictated to them.  The attendance policy has been an ongoing for many years and there is a college wide policy.  The confusion centers around the use of the word “may” in the policy.

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

This has been addressed many times by the faculty senate and it was decided we will not address it again.  We have given our input.  The final decision should be made at a higher level.

 

New Business:

 

4. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Marla presented the Library Liaison Program.  Divisions have not been responding to requests for their input as to what they need from the library, so she has asked the Dean’s to appoint a liaison from each division to attend meetings so each division will know what products are available in the library.  All divisions need to start using their resources, not just the English department.  The job of the liaison will be to take the information back to department meetings and the departments will then create a list of what they can use or what they need from the library. 

Scheduled liaisons are the following:

Tony Logan	Engineering Tech
Robert Ellenburg	Industrial Tech
Jennifer Beattie	Comp Studies
Cathy Ford	HE
Brian Swords	Easley
Lakishia Dinkins	Easley
Art Scheck	Anderson
Kathy Sparks	Social Sciences
Phil Gilmore	Science
Tom Hiebel	Humanities
Lane Hudson	Speech
Matt Simon	English
Angela Ward	Mathematics
Scott Moser	Computer and Info Tech
Tom Lawrence	CRJ
Ann Bryant	Staff

On another note, Marla is weeding out 1,000 to 2,000 books.  They are available to anyone who wants them.

 The library also offers professional development.

 

5. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Harriette Dudley could not attend the Senate meeting to explain progress on the weekend scheduling option.  A feasibility study has been completed to schedule a weekend scheduling option pilot for Fall 2013 at the Anderson Campus.  The courses offered will primarily be Business and Public Services courses and Allied Health courses.

The question was asked, “What about counselors, financial aid, library access and other resources? “  Members on the Weekend Project charter to contact with questions are Robert Newton, Criminal Justice; Keri Catalfomo, Math Department;  Meg Allen, Business Technology;  Tim Bowen, Anderson Campus Director; or Harriette Dudley, Early Childhood. 

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

No details yet.  Harriette will come to speak to us at a later date.  

 

6. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Nepotism in the classroom was discussed.  There have been some recent cases of students being related to or having some sort of relationship with their instructor. As a result accusations of favoritism occurred, esp. regarding grades and their importance for entrance into the clinical portion of programs like Nursing.  State Policy (8-5-103) was distributed, and this non-fraternization policy clearly states the consequences of fraternization between employees/faculty and students (as well as among employees).

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

 

Senators will remind their constituents of this policy.  This policy and other policies/procedures are located in eTC under the Employee tab.

 

7. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Amoena brought up the Employee Assistance Program by REACH which is available to college employees for counseling including financial counseling.  This service will be extended to students beginning in January 2013.  Croslena Johnson, Student Life, and Bethany Wiley, Human Resources, want to attend a meeting to explain the procedure.  January 2013 meeting will probably be the best time for this. 

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

There will probably be Divisional or Departmental meetings where student access to the EAP will be presented.

 

Comments/Concerns: 

Marla mentioned Norman Hoyle is retiring as of February 2013 and his job will be posted.  The committee will consist of Michelle Gregg, Todd Crisp-Simons, Matt Simon, and Harriette Dudley.  The job description is being revised so it covers more electronic resources and the Web page, will share reference desk duties with all librarians, and will also be a campus liaison so Michelle is not the only person.

The Provost search is still underway.  There may be a new Vice President position under the new Provost.

 

Next meeting: No pending issues, so we will not meet in December.  Amoena will let us know about January meeting date and time.

Adjournment at 3:02 p.m.

 

Name of Recorder: Marilyn Vickery

 

 

Faculty Senate Minutes (10/25/12)

Tri-County Technical College

Faculty Senate Minutes

Date:  October 25, 2012

Location:  Fulp 400

Time:  2:30 p.m.

Members Present: Amoena Norcross, Todd Crisp-Simons, Ashley Brady, Cheryln Brown, Penny Edwards, Jason Poole, Tom Lawrence

Members Absent:  Lisa Walton, Tony Logan, Chris McFarlin, Marilyn Vickery, Corey Evans, Steven Mathena, Tony Young, Marla Roberson

Guests:  Tracy Ethridge, Curriculum Committee Representative

Presider:  Amoena Norcross

Approval of Minutes:  No corrections. Cherlyn motioned that the September minutes be approved.  Ashley seconded the motion.  The minutes were approved unanimously.

1. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Tracy Ethridge, the current Curriculum Committee Chair, explained there is a new streamlined version of the WIDS system being instituted.  The change option already existed on the WIDS system, so there will be no cost involved.  She gave everyone a handout which is still in draft form, but it outlines the move to a web-based system instead of a client-based system.  The approval order will be developer, program coordinator, department head, dean.  It will then, if approved, go to Student Records and on to the Curriculum Committee.  Documents and comments will travel with the change for everyone to view.  The Curriculum Committee has adopted this change but wanted to run it by the Faculty Senate because the Curriculum Committee was originally formed by the Faculty Senate.  It will probably not be implemented until after the first of the year (2013).  There was some discussion about the order of approval, but it occurs that way because of Financial Aid and SACs when using state models.  This process only includes changes at the course level such as pre-reqs, out-of-date courses, repetitive courses, etc.  The committee makes recommendations to the Provost, and even if the committee does not recommend a proposed change, the Provost makes the final decision.  Previous data will not be incorporated into the new system.

Tracy also mentioned the Provost Council was working on a committee charter for the Curriculum Committee because there has never been one. 

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

Amoena will keep the Senate informed of the Curriculum Committee Charter as it is being developed through the Provost’s Council. 

Old Business:

2. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

The revised Faculty Senate Constitution and By Laws were distributed via email.  The revised section pertaining to Article III, Section 5 (Clarification of Officers’ Duties) was adopted since 86% of Senate voted and unanimously approved the revision.  Two-thirds (2/3) of the Senate must agree on proposed changes to the Faculty Senate Constitution and By Laws. 

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

None

New Business:

3. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Regarding Professional Development Day, there have been many complaints about being “encouraged” to attend on a day when the college is officially closed, even to the point that faculty are being told that they need to pick a particular number of events to attend. It was proposed the Professional Development Day might be more acceptable to faculty and well attended if we did this at the beginning of the semester.  An additional issue with the present scheduling on election day was that public schools are also out causing a child care problem.  What we’re hearing is that people aren’t planning on coming.

Amoena had a conversation with Sharon Colcolough who schedules the event and let her know we are looking at rescheduling to a scheduled work day. Her response was it then might create a problem for staff. The majority of employees on the campus are faculty.  Perhaps some things could be repeated so staff could attend at least some of what’s offered. It was mentioned it may require a faculty development day and a separate staff development day as they have different needs.

Amoena proposed that a representative from each division send out an e-mail to all of the faculty and ask if they would rather have Professional Development Day every two years during the general election time when the college is closed, or the week before classes start in the Fall every year.  Jumpstart will be eliminated in the Fall, so there would not be a conflict.

Someone asked if the Department Heads and Deans should receive a copy of the e-mail.  Hopefully there would be no punitive actions based on asking the faculty this question. Penny suggested having a survey created that could be sent out electronically to faculty.  After further discussion, the Senate decided to send out a survey electronically to faculty for anonymous input on the scheduling of Professional Development Day.  We would want survey results by December 1, 2012.  It was noted that Dr. Booth plans on being at Professional Development day all day.

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

Penny will speak with Chris Marino about getting a survey created using Survey Monkey.    Amoena will send a sample email to Senators once the survey has been created, encouraging faculty to complete the survey. 

4. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Course Restrictions & Self-Pay Forms was the next item on the agenda.  Some of the issues that have developed are courses were not on the list that went to Student Records in Arts and Sciences.  Also, Early Childhood had classes needed for university transfer that were not approved.  Both problems have been resolved.  

The self-pay form is supposed to be given to students by faculty during advising if a student decides to take a course outside of the required major.  The student has to fill out the form and take it to Student Records so s/he can register.  Faculty do not need to sign the form, so the question was posed as to why faculty are involved at all.  The student should go directly to Student Records to get the form, fill out the form, and turn in the form.  It was proposed that the student be allowed to register without the form because there is an e-mail generated anyway that says Financial Aid will not pay for the class because it is not in their program.  If the student received the e-mail, s/he could then go back and check with the advisor.  That direction seems better.

There was a problem with the e-mail not being generated until students had been in class for two weeks, but this is not an issue any longer.  According to Scott Harvey, drop/adds are run every night, and the e-mail is going out much more quickly now.   

The system now blocks you from registering for classes outside your major curriculum.  This system is also preventing students from taking appropriate higher level classes and they have to make an appointment with appropriate faculty to get an override.  So it is creating more work for the advisors.  Student Records is actually going to the divisions and asking which courses should be allowed outside the major curriculum.  It seems to have made the process more frustrating for the students also.

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

Amoena will find out what the e-mail actually says, when it is sent, and why faculty need to be involved since we don’t sign it.

5. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

Tom offered to address the multi-campus scheduling issue.  Representatives got together from the different programs and had meetings for the Anderson and Easley campuses.  They charted out all the course offerings at each campus to see whether it was possible for a student to matriculate through the entire degree by taking all their classes at one campus. 

What was revealed was a lot of the courses were scheduled at the same time.  They tried to move courses around to offer a full two year schedule but ran into the additional problem of low enrollment numbers.  Some courses under the current policy would not be offered due to low enrollment.

Also some courses are offered only one night a week for 3 hours, and others follow the traditional schedule. Having no Friday classes at Anderson became a problem because without Friday as a teaching day, there is not have enough time to make everyone’s schedule fit.  Easley’s problem was that the classes weren’t making.  Nothing was resolved at this meeting.

Penny asked why hybrid courses weren’t being offered. Tom said the idea was not well received. The real question seemed to be who we are trying to serve with our satellite campuses.  If we are expecting them to be full service, we are not there yet.

Friday was to be a meeting day at Anderson, but not sure that is what is happening.  Also at Anderson classrooms are shared with non-credit classes on Friday.  The no Friday classes plan at Anderson was a pilot to see if we wanted it at the main campus.  The question was asked as to why this schedule at the Anderson campus is still in effect since Easley, the newest campus, did not adopt the Anderson campus schedule and neither did the Pendleton campus. 

Sharing classes between the satellite schools and the main campus was discussed.  Someone was to check where and how that was already being done, but the idea has not gone further.

There was a schedule created.  Tom will try to bring a copy of it.  It worked well for some programs but not for others.  General education classes were the biggest problem including developmental classes.

Amoena brought up the Summer 2013 calendar which has come before Provost Council.  There was a major problem in the Summer 2012 calendar when Session B and Session C had a difference of 3 instructional days.  Session B and C have the same number of instructional days for Summer 2013.  However, there is quite a bit of disparity in Session A between the different meeting patterns.  These discrepancies occur between classes that meet M-F; MW, with some Fridays; and MW and TR.  The discrepancy between some of these meeting patterns equals almost an entire credit hour of instruction. 

Amoena reported that the Provost’s Council is aware of the Session A discrepancies.  The Scheduling Charter Committee will address the discrepancy for Session A in the Summer 2013 calendar.  It was asked if there had been discussion about the type of course offerings in the Summer 2013.  Amoena replied that there had not been.

The point of view of why we don’t offer more hybrid and online courses in the summer so students could still travel and not be stuck on campus was introduced.  Classroom space being an issue was also discussed.  Criminal Justice does have a lot of online classes, so it was stated that it may be a division problem.   In Criminal Justice, you can do the entire program on line.  They actually have students attending from out of state. 

Different types of classes are conducive to hybrid mode and some are not. For example, lower level English classes with a high demand for writing are difficult on line.  These classes tend to have high attrition rates.  Maybe hybrids would be an option in this case, but online has a very high failure rate.

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

None.

6. Issue discussed and major points of discussion:

The next point of discussion was the attendance policy. Amoena distributed the attendance policy and procedure (3-2-1053 and 3-2-1053.1)   The policy and procedure are also available in the  Committee Structure link under the Employee tab in eTC.  Galen Dehay, the Interim Provost, ask that the Senate consider what the relationship is between attendance and student success.  For some programs, it is a close relationship and for other programs not so important. 

Amoena asked Senators to consider whether the current policy works for your students or does the policy need to be stricter or more lenient. It may be possible to have an attendance policy set by division or program. However, it must be specified in the department syllabus and presented to the students.  

Nursing doesn’t really have a problem because they can use other measures such as probation to handle excessive absences. 

Would federal financial aid support division or department determination of an attendance policy?  Federal financial aid doesn’t actually dictate our attendance policy.  The current policy already has many loopholes in it.  The use of the word “may” for example.

Several questions were posed: What is an absence?  Does this include excused absences?  What is late?

If we went with division control of an attendance policy, it would be confusing for students to take 6 different classes and have 6 different policies.  Shouldn’t there be consistency?

Also, not all faculty follow the policy because of the “may”.  But Scott wants us to withdraw students this semester because of the financial aid issue. 

Faculty Senate has already discussed this issue and wanted the flexibility because faculty members could not agree to an inflexible plan.

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

The discussion will be continued at the next meeting.  In the meantime, members need to think about the question posed by Galen, not the other issues.

Nepotism in the classroom will be addressed at the next meeting.

Next meeting: Nov 14^th at 1:30 pm

Comments/Concerns:  none

Name of Recorder: Marilyn Vickery

Provost's Council Minutes (10/9/12)

Provost’s Council

October 9, 2012

8:00 a.m.

Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 245

(Revised 10/23/12)

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:   1.5 hours

Topics Discussed:

The minutes of the September 11, 2012 meeting were approved. 

In following up on the minutes, Galen noted that he researched matrix management in community colleges and found that Valencia College uses it very well, in key processes.  In the near future he would like to send a team to Valencia College to meet with our two contacts, and to gather information on how they successfully implemented culture change. 

Scott Harvey discussed the Summer 2013 and Fall 2013 academic calendars. He noted that the admission deadline and the registration deadline would be updated once those dates are finalized.  There are no significant changes in either calendar.  Scott mentioned the discrepancy in the number of meeting minutes in Summer Session A.  Each meeting pattern had a different number of minutes, and in some cases, there was a significant difference. This will be reviewed and addressed by the Scheduling Charter Committee.  It may be that we need to change the class end times.  Scott commended the Faculty Senate for catching this discrepancy.  He also noted that the number of days in the semester and the calendar constraints are under review.

Amanda noted that our consultant, Jim Black, recommended that the admission deadline be as late as possible but still allow ample time for students to be advised and oriented.  Mr. Black suggested working backward from the first day of class. 

Galen noted that two key factors that impact deadlines are financial aid requirements and our current inability to predict enrollment.  Sarah Dowd is on top of the financial aid issues, and KC Bryson is working on a predictive model for enrollment.  This model will use and apply historical data and will be able to provide, by program, enrollment predictions.  This will help greatly with scheduling and will help in developing the calendar. 

Without a late registration, Amanda noted that we need to be aware of and be prepared for a spike in registrations after the admission deadline.  She mentioned that for Spring 2013, we have two different admissions deadlines, one for current students, and one for transient/transfer students.  Incentives for registering on time have been approved by Executive Staff.   Sarah mentioned an incentive at another college at which students earned points for different positive behaviors and were entered into a big drawing in the spring.  This was a very successful initiative and that college experienced a 5% increase in retention.  Scott will research the trend for the appropriate number of students to be included in the drawing and suggest a cap.  The group also discussed setting a date by which registration must be completed to be eligible for any drawings. 

There was a brief discussion about the use/duties of the advisors in the Advising Center.  Galen will follow up with Rob Massey on this topic.

Professional Development Day is listed on the Fall 2013 calendar.  Typically, this day is only held during an election year. The group agreed. Scott will remove this date from the Fall 2013 calendar and will send it forward for approval by Executive Staff.   The group discussed alternate times for Professional Development day, and Galen will discuss this with Sharon Colcolough. 

Next, the group discussed the strategic plan.  While this year’s report-out will be modified to focus on the priorities, all activities will be reported on a template.  The strategies will be organized by color, so that we have a strategy by strategy visual of our progress.  The group of color coded templates will be briefly discussed at the report-out meeting.

The report-out’s focus will be on the plan priorities.  Prior to the report-out, small teams will meet to discuss what they want to report. Certain points, the importance of the priority, what has been done, a timeline for completion, etc., should be addressed by the team.  All templates should be sent to Lisa Saxon by October 24.  Lisa will organize them and prepare them for the meeting.

Galen explained the revised planning process.  Sarah will facilitate an Executive Staff session to come up with a new way to create/develop a plan.  In the future, the goal is to have directions which will be objectified with key strategic objectives and key performance indicators. 

The identification of priorities for the Provost Council was discussed.  For this academic year, Galen asked the group to consider on what the Provost’s Council should focus its time and energy.  The following were suggested.

·         Program Review – programs under review will present their findings to the Provost’s Council

·         Retention – Provost’s Council would be the quality review group for the retention plan

·         Integrating and assimilating advising

·         Assimilate strategic enrollment priorities (goals, deadlines)

·         Curriculum Committee - address various topics

                                                Philosophy

                                                Roll out WIDs to web in the spring and review electronically

                                                Lack of committee charter

                                                Review of committee membership (needs a CCE representative)

                                                How to align our cycle with CHE and Financial Aid cycles

After discussion, it was agreed that these five items would be this year’s priorities for the Provost’s Council. 

At the next meeting, the group will discuss the Curriculum Committee and may invite Tracy Ethridge, Curriculum Committee Chair, to the meeting.  During the discussion, it was noted that the College has so many committees that we tend to have duplication of effort.  It would be helpful to find a way to better manage committees.

Dan reported on a recent CSSO meeting. 

·         Horry-Georgetown is considering a policy to not admit a registered sex offender.  Discussions about this are taking place throughout the System. 

·         The Student Code will be revised to make it ADA and civil rights compliant.  The revised Code will be discussed at the President’s Council meeting in late October.

·         A Title IX coordinator must be identified.  The individual’s contact information must be placed on the website and in the catalog.  Sharon Colcolough and Dan are Tri-County’s Title IX coordinators.

·         Positions that were waiting to be funded by Perkins have been funded.  Perkins appears to be “safe” for the next several years.

·         An interim suspension for students is being considered under the Student Code.  This would allow the student to remain in class until due process is complete.  Process rights for faculty need to be considered, as well. 

·         Conversations are taking place about the development of an incentive plan to encourage students to submit the FAFSA in a timely manner.

·         The Lottery Tuition Assistance rally is January 22.  Dan noted that some of our students may attend the rally, as they have in the past.

                       

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 

Recorded by:             Anne Bryan

Next Meeting:            Tuesday, October 23, at 2:15 p.m., in RH 248A

Academic Delivery Group (9/11/12)

Academic Delivery Group Meeting

September 11, 2012

2:00 p.m.

Personnel Conference Room, RH 102

Members Present:     Doug Allen, Jackie Blakley, Tim Bowen, Scott Britten, Lynn Lewis, Amoena Norcross, Sarah Shumpert,

Members Absent:      Scott Harvey, Brian Swords

Others Present:         

           

Length of Meeting:   1.5 hours

Topics Discussed:

The minutes of August 28, 2012 meeting were approved. 

In following up on the minutes, Galen noted that he had gotten a response from Hope Rivers at the System Office about the wording in the state procedure, Grading System and Standards of Student Progress.  The last sentence in the second paragraph on page four stated that each college could create a scale to show satisfactory progress.  Hope referred Galen’s question to Dr. Russ Bumba.  Dr. Bumba reported that the scale was to allow colleges to develop intervention strategies, and the 2.0 was referenced for financial aid purposes.  Since Tri-County would be in compliance using a 2.0 GPA, Galen asked the group to review the Tri-County procedure once more and be prepared to discuss any other changes at the next meeting.  After the final review, Galen will take the procedure to Executive Staff for review and approval.  He reminded the group that the revised GPA may have an impact on a large number of students.  To try to minimize this impact, students will be allowed a grace year.  Once approved, the revised procedure will be implemented next year.

Galen distributed a proposed committee charter, and noted that he named it Provost’s Council, as suggested at an earlier meeting.  The proposed committee charter was prepared based on the findings of the consensus workshop.  The group discussed the charter and made changes to several sections, including Committee Purpose, Committee Composition by Unit, Scope and Initial Objectives.  Galen will re-draft the charter and send to the group for review.  After approval by ADG, Galen will take it to Executive Staff for review/approval. 

The group briefly discussed matrix management.  Galen asked the group to consider what it looks like and how it works.  Galen will research to try to find a role model community college for the group to review and analyze.

Under Announcements, Scott B. noted that JumpStart Math was very successful.  Approximately 360 students participated, and around half of them were able to move to the higher course.

In the Health Education Division, Lynn noted that they have had some discussions on texting with students, and cautioned instructors to be aware of possible issues.  She noted that unless texts are routed to e-mail, they are not recoverable. 

Doug announced that enrollment in the EIT Division was up for the fall.  He attributes this to the efforts to reach out to middle school and high school students over the past years by way of camps, competitions, and other activities.  The division is seeing the benefit of those contacts with an increased enrollment.  Galen also noted that everyone’s efforts in scheduling efficiency had a huge impact on the sustainability of the college and provided great results. 

Amoena announced that the Faculty Senate is finalized and the first meeting will take place during the week of September 24.  She asked for clarification on how to make curriculum changes.  At this point, faculty should follow the current process and send requests through the Curriculum Committee. 

Tim reported that he will attend the Career Showcase at Littlejohn this week.  This is a great event in which 8^th and 9^th graders in all seven school districts will participate.  They will be exposed to a wealth of information on education and employment opportunities.  Tim also announced that the culinary arts fund raiser will take place at the Anderson Campus on October 18.  All proceeds from this wine tasting event will support the culinary arts program.

On behalf of Lisa Saxon, Anne asked the group for its preference on the fall student survey dates.  The group decided to use the October 29 and 30 dates.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 

Recorded by:             Anne Bryan

Next Meeting:            Tuesday, September 25, at 2:00 p.m., in RH 102

Academic Delivery Group (8/28/12)

Academic Delivery Group Meeting

August 28, 2012

2:00 p.m.

Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 248

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

Members Absent:      Doug Allen

Others Present:          Amanda Blanton, Robert Ellenberg, Dan Holland, Richard Parker

           

Length of Meeting:   2.5 hours

Topics Discussed:

The minutes of August 14, 2012 meeting were approved with revisions.

Galen discussed the state procedure, Grading System and Standards of Student Progress.  He referenced the first paragraph, under Standards of Progress, on page four of the procedure, and asked the members of the group if they thought we were out of compliance by having less than a 2.0 GPA in the tiers of our standards of progress procedure.  The group noted the last sentence in the second paragraph which stated that each college could create a scale that shows satisfactory progress and questioned the need for a scale, if the requirement is a 2.0 GPA.  Galen will ask for clarification from the staff at the System Office, and report back to the group at a later meeting. 

The alignment of the Financial Aid SAP and the AA SAP was mentioned briefly.  The group will wait to review the data from the Research Office, once it is available. 

At this point in the meeting Sarah Shumpert began the consensus workshop.  The group focused on the question “What are the issues on which the Academic Affairs Division committee should provide research, analysis, guidance and other input that would ensure continuous improvement of academic programs and academic support in a multi-campus environment?  Sarah facilitated the remainder of the afternoon.  She will transcript the group’s findings and will e-mail them to everyone.  From these findings, Galen will re-draft the committee charter and bring it to the group for discussion at a later meeting.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 

Recorded by:             Anne Bryan

Next Meeting:            Tuesday, September 11, at 2:00 p.m., in RH 102

Academic Delivery Group Meeting (8/14/12)

Academic Delivery Group

August 14, 2012

2:00 p.m.

Personnel Conference Room

(Revised August 28, 2012)

Members Present:     Doug Allen, Jackie Blakley, Tim Bowen, Scott Britten, Scott Harvey, Lynn Lewis, Sarah Shumpert,

Members Absent:      Amoena Norcross, Brian Swords

Others Present:         

           

Length of Meeting:   1.5 hours

Topics Discussed:

The minutes of July 26, 2012 meeting were approved with revisions.

Scott Harvey discussed the Graduation Application procedure.  Galen noted that an earlier version was discussed at length in a recent Executive Staff meeting.  Based on that discussion, Scott slightly revised the procedure, and noted the graduation initiative, which focuses on the ability to participate in the ceremony.  Beginning in the spring, the college will purchase honor cords for students, but regalia, including AZB regalia, will be purchased by the student.  The group agreed with the changes to the procedure.  Galen will take it back to Executive Staff for final approval. 

Galen discussed the Recognition of Academic Achievement policy and procedure.  The policy was revised to include the Academic Distinction recognition.  The procedure was revised to include all recognitions, including the requirements for the newly created Academic Distinction recognition, into one procedure.  Scott H. noted one change needed for the Dean’s List requirements.  The group agreed to the changes.  Galen will take these forward to Executive Staff for approval. 

Scott H. discussed the Standards of Academic Progress procedure and noted that he had met with Sarah Dowd to discuss the possibility of aligning the SAP procedure with the Financial Aid satisfactory progress procedure.  Sarah agreed that aligning the two could be helpful, but cautioned that some of the Financial Aid requirements may be lower than the SAP would require.  The group agreed that a review of the data that Chris Marino is collecting will be very helpful and will wait for this review before making a decision.  It was noted that if we decide to align the two procedures, to avoid a detrimental impact on students, we may want to consider placing all students on good standing the semester before it is implemented. 

Galen discussed the constitution and focus of the Academic Delivery Group, and asked the group to consider and give input on what a highly functioning Academic Delivery Group does.  Much discussion provided the following.

·         A highly functioning ADG would set the direction of instruction, and address/consider strategic issues that deal with delivery of instruction.  It could decide what to address and request needed resources.

·         The Academic Affairs and Student Affairs divisions merged several months ago, but Student Affairs is not represented on the ADG.   Student Affairs needs to be included as part of the delivery.  It was noted that the deans work in an oversight capacity. We may want to consider adding a department head representative to the group.  Corporate and Community Education may need to be included, as well.

·         A monthly meeting of direct reports would be beneficial.  This group may be able to handle some of the tasks/duties of the current ADG. 

·         After review of the committee charter, the group agreed that the committee purpose is reactive.  We may need to figure out what the group wants to do and repurpose the membership.  It was noted that the charter for ADG was most likely created after being in existence for years, as a directive from Executive Staff.  Based on the current charter, the group is fulfilling its purpose.

·         Changes and initiatives are taking place so quickly, that it would be easy for things to become disjointed.  We need a group to pull things together and to unify efforts. 

To accomplish this review of the ADG, Galen suggested that Sarah facilitate a consensus workshop, with a refined focus question.  Galen and Sarah will work together to create the question.  This exercise would generate a list of elements and components to be considered by the group.  Prior to the workshop, Sarah will review information on the definition of a committee, its make-up, purpose, etc.  We will use the next ADG meeting for this workshop. 

Sarah briefly discussed the Online Teaching Credential process.  She reported that she had asked for input from Margaret Burdette and Sharon Cololough, and has been working with Courtney Tillett to create a mechanism to handle the approvals/sign offs electronically.  It will take a while to create this mechanism, so Sarah will begin the process with paper.  Sarah noted that she will take care of most of the approvals/sign offs, but will need the supervisor to sign off on e-learning tools that faculty are already using.  Sarah confirmed that the first cohort will be limited to full-time faculty, and will be on a first-come, first-served basis.  Each cohort will have 40 spaces, and Sarah will close the cohort once it reaches that number.  She will contact any faculty on the wait list with information about the start date for the next cohort.  The group agreed that a “coming attractions” type e-mail would be beneficial as we begin this process.  Sarah will prepare and distribute this e-mail.

Galen noted that he has been working with Rebecca Eidson to develop a student success communications strategy.  This strategy will be rolled out at Convocation.  The Student Success Plan will include the following.

·         Activities and events that focus on student success

·         Informational e-newsletter will be distributed twice a month

·         Website with plans and directions

·         The focus of Connection will be to integrate activities and information into a consistent monthly message that shows how everything is working together

·         Executive Staff Talking Points – will be delivered out.  The Provost will discuss with his direct reports, who will disseminate appropriately.  The mechanism can be used to funnel information back up the chain, as well. 

Galen noted the following Executive Staff talking points.

1.      A SACS team will visit in the spring.  Its focus is on the high schools that we service, and whether or not we have the same outcomes for high school students that we have for our traditional students.  Arts & Sciences will undergo program review to be sure we are in compliance. 

2.      The EIT dean declined the position, and Doug has agreed to continue as interim EIT dean. 

3.      The group was asked to encourage employees to attend Convocation.  This year’s message will have a different tone. 

4.      Work on the entrance to the campus will be disruptive for a few weeks, but the goal is to provide safer conditions for employees and students.  It was noted that it would be nice for faculty and staff to be aware of the schematic for the traffic flow.  Galen will ask for maps to be available at Convocation.  It was noted that there is very little employee parking on the front drive.  We have not added any parking spaces, but we continue to take spaces away. 

5.      Enrollment – It was noted that with the recent enrollment push, the registration deadline was the only deadline that was changed.  During that registration extension, we did not admit any new students, but worked only with students already in the pipeline.  This strategy helped to even out the enrollment numbers.

6.      The plan for recording educational goals was approved.  This plan allows us to capture a student’s goals, the student’s commitment to those goals, and the factors that may have influenced attaining those goals.  Galen noted that we are using the CCSSE standard goals, and allow students to record a primary and secondary goal.  This is a short term plan, and we want to automate this process later.  Lou Ann Martin and Rob Massey plan to use this information for intensive advising. 

Galen reported that Gregg is organizing a repository for cross-functional project charters.  These will have public access via a portal.

Under Announcements, Scott noted the following:

·         On August 16, student RANS will be deleted.

·         He will address the fact that faculty are required to take attendance in his Fall semester instructional e-mail to faculty.

·         He reminded the group that class rosters will not be printed.  Faculty are responsible for their rosters.  Rosters will be printed for classes that do not have a faculty member assigned to them.  The division secretaries can pick these up from Student Records.

·         He stressed the importance of administrative drops, and the assigning of 0s and 1s.

·         He reminded the group about the initiatives the were implemented this Summer:

                        The new FA grade

                        LDAs are required for a student withdrawal as well as a faculty withdrawal

                        The continuous enrollment deadlines (B/A/C).

Jackie reported that Janis Cox had some recommendations for the adjunct faculty observation form.  The deans will address these recommendations at their next meeting.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 

Recorded by:             Anne Bryan

Next Meeting:            Tuesday, August 28, at 2:00 p.m., in RH 248