Present: Michael Fiske, Chair, Michael Field, Dave Todt, Kelly Hatas, Kitty Linde, Cathy Mullins, Roger Murphy, Chris O’Connor, Jared Shoemaker, Joe Van Deusen

Approval of Minutes: The minutes for the 5-19-06 meeting were approved.

Old Business: AQIP Action Projects update

Dave reported on the recent meeting of the Action Project team leaders. Their discussion was about what's working and where the snags are, completing these projects and moving on. It's time to discuss future Action Projects. The Teaching & Learning Center is almost done and scheduling is about halfway completed, although there are still a few concerns.

Dave explained that AQIP requires three active projects at once. We will need a new one by next fall. The Teaching & Learning Center will still be an active project until December, so we have about six months to decide on a replacement for it.

Points of Discussion on Present and Future Action Projects: We may have enough information from the student survey without doing a needs assessment. Communication was the one issue that came up consistently and could be refined as an Action Project. We could work on developing procedures and ways to organize communication outside our e-mail, open hearing system. There should be some thought put into any restructuring before we establish bad patterns. Michael Field summed up the committee's task as an exploration of possible designs for a communication paradigm to maximize the potential of our electronic media.

Roger suggested that we move in a deliberate way to establish feedback from our graduates – both the areas where we excel and the reasons that students have left. Michael Field said that what's missing is a set of systematic procedures that are consistent with AQIP. The challenge is that our previous efforts are decentralized. Some departments do more than others, and the Office of Alumni Relations has been especially active recently.

The Health Sciences use graduate surveys and other assessments from clinical sites during the students' time at SSU, but they are done for each individual program. The data from the accredited programs and sciences never seem to get put together.

A couple of years ago there was a national report of graduating seniors who said that they hadn't had a serious conversation with faculty members outside the classroom. Not all students are engaged. Now some universities realize that part of the education process is student/faculty communication. They have set up meetings or 'conversational panels' to facilitate the process. SSU has the luxury of being relatively small and should be able to incorporate this into another project.

It was pointed out that some of this sounds like marketing or market research and that we should engage other knowledgeable staff members in any discussions. Some things should happen whether they're Action Projects or not.

Members of the Department of Engineering Technologies have gone to schools to spark interest, producing positive results. The ability level of students has risen in the last five years; they are coming to SSU better prepared.

EPCC has approved about 99% of semester conversion documents, with only minor issues left to iron out. The basic semester schedule sample has been sent to chairs to block out for fall, and then a mockup fall schedule will be prepared. The main concern is how effective it will be when students begin to schedule their classes.

Quick Fixes: Dave noted that the Quick Fixes have been buried on the web, so he will propose a one page summary on the first page. Some Quick Fixes are completed, some were incorporated into other projects, and some weren't quick fixes after all. He also questions whether the committee's activities are being communicated well to the campus.

Budget: Roger distributed an updated budget handout with very few changes from the previous one. The committee thanked Roger for his years of service.

AQIP Systems Portfolio: Dave will do a draft of the Systems Portfolio this summer. He will work with Cathy, Michael and Barb to have it ready for the committee by fall.

New Business: Dave thanked Michael Fiske for his excellent leadership of the BAQIP Committee. He noted that this has been one of the university's most effective committees. The committee also expressed their appreciation for the other members who will be leaving: Kitty Linde, Pat Carson, and Ann Wiard.

Present: Michael Fiske, Chair, Michael Field, Dave Todt, Kelly Hatas, Barb Kunkle, Roger Murphy, Chris O’Connor, Steve O’Rourke, Jared Shoemaker, Ann Wiard, Joe Van Deusen, Kitty Linde

Approval of Minutes: The minutes for the 4-7-06 meeting were approved with a minor revision suggested by Chris O'Connor.

Old Business: There is one more meeting scheduled before the end of the quarter, on Friday, June 2nd.

Action Project # 1 (Improve Student Advising): Chris O'Connor reported that busy schedules have made them a little behind where they wanted to be at this point, but still within the initial timeline. They're still collecting information from successful peer institutions. They'd like to find out how some campuses hold advising events, freshman seminars, how they handle advising when faculty aren't on campus, etc.

Points of Discussion: There was a discussion about what SSU is doing in anticipation of semester conversion and whether advisors are being trained. Michael Field said there's a semester conversion document posted on the web and continually updated. It was developed by the Student Affairs Committee and allows room on the site for student questions.

Michael Field also outlined the procedure for transferring courses and approving students for graduation. Many transfers are dictated by OBR, while others are decided on an individual basis by chairs, by Rob for GEP, with problems referred to Steve Midkiff or sometimes to the Provost.

It was pointed out that losing a quarter will affect a significant number of students and we should plan the transitional summer session so that problems will be avoided.

Action Project #2 (Scheduling Revisions for the Semester Calendar): Michael Fiske reported that the scheduling model has been sent to the chairs and there were no complaints so far. Their next move will be to work on a mock schedule.

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life): Jared reported that they are in a holding pattern while waiting to participate in a teleconference on student activities and assessment on June 7th in the library. The assessment portion pertains to how we're measuring student life, activities, and functions.

Action Project #4 (Teaching and Learning Center): Barb said her team has met and toured the space designated to house the center and they plan to be ready by fall. They need to do more needs assessment and will post online before the end of the quarter. The team members are concerned with ongoing training and how the center can assist with that aspect. They will solicit input from departments about what types of training they need for staff, such as more training on CARS. They are also working with the Faculty Learning Communities to collect data about those groups. They would like to host a Woodrow Wilson scholar for a week, but need to choose which discipline to address.

Michael Fiske said the four team leaders plan to meet soon. Dave commended them for moving along and said they are talking about doing a draft of the Systems Portfolio this summer. He wants a team of four or five people to share with the Action Project teams as a good planning exercise.

Quick Fixes: Dave is in the process of getting them on the website.

Budget: Roger distributed the most recent draft of the general fund budget for 2006-2007 and explained the areas with projected increases. The new Health Sciences building, will require funds to furnish it. One of the concerns is inflation in health care costs and the inability to predict the amount accurately. As long as we're healthy financially, our self insurance program gives us more flexibility. He recommended that we avoid going too far into the reserve in the future. He hopes to produce one more budget update before he leaves.

Points of Discussion: Investing in a "wellness program" seldom reduces health care costs overall. Most insurance companies want you to fit into one of their packages, instead of allowing you to address your own population's health care needs.

Michael Field pointed out that this is only a budget prediction. Traditionally, the actual expenditures fall below estimates, while revenues come in above them. He pointed out that the President is leading us to make some investments in Shawnee State's future.

AQIP: Dave reported on the next big step of the AQIP process – the Systems Portfolio. Every year we report on our Action Projects, and every four years we do a Systems Portfolio, the report that assures our accreditation. He distributed a handout and pointed out the differences from our old institutional reports. This outline is more structured. When submitted, it will be reviewed by other groups that are trained to analyze them and provide feedback. The feedback process has been revised to be more non-threatening than traditional rating systems, using the categories of "strengths" vs. "opportunities."

This committee can provide oversight, much like it did for the original Action Projects, possibly by forming a subgroup of the committee. Dave wants the members to keep the portfolio in mind, although it's not due until November 2008 or 2009. There was an extensive discussion about the production and use of more data and graphs in place of narrative in this project.

Committee Name Change: The committee members discussed the names submitted and settled on BAQIP, which stands for the Budget and Academic Quality Improvement Planning Committee; motion by Jared, second by Chris, passed unanimously.

Peer Institutions: Dave distributed a draft handout about our use of peer institutions for comparison. He suggested that the members look over the federal government's website. The feedback from the committee members will help him edit it into a final version, which the President would like to have posted on the website.

Present: Michael Fiske, Chair, Michael Field, Kelly Hatas, Barb Kunkle, Roger Murphy, Chris O’Connor, Steve O’Rourke, Jared Shoemaker, Ann Wiard, Joe Van Deusen, Ed Kehres, Carl Hilgarth, Kitty Linde, Chuck Warner, Dave Todt, Cathy Mullins, Pat Carson

Approval of Minutes: The minutes for the 3-10-06 meeting were approved with a minor revision suggested by Barb Kunkle.

Action Project # 1 (Improve Student Advising): Chris O'Connor reported on some of the concerns that were expressed on the faculty survey. The students felt that faculty members are knowledgeable, but not as caring, accessible and interested in their success as they could be. However, they consider faculty as one of the biggest strengths of the campus. The team is still collecting good information.

Action Project #2 (Scheduling Revisions for the Semester Calendar): Michael Fiske reported that the team has identified a model and made their recommendation.

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life): Jared reported that his group will be participating in a teleconference.

Action Project #4 (Teaching and Learning Center): Barb Kunkle suggested that it would be a good investment to hire consultants to assist with institutional research to ensure that data will be available as needed. It was noted that there may be a position for an institutional research person in the future. A formal proposal has been made for the new center.

Budget - Still under discussion.

AQIP: Dave reported on the next big step of the AQIP process – the Systems Portfolio. Every year we report on our Action Projects, and every four years we do a Systems Portfolio, the report that assures our accreditation. He distributed a handout and pointed out the differences from our old institutional reports. This outline is more structured. When submitted, it will be reviewed by other groups that are trained to analyze and provide feedback. The feedback has been revised to be more non-threatening than traditional rating systems, using the categories of "strengths" vs. "opportunities."

This committee can provide oversight, much like it did for the original Action Projects, possibly by forming a subgroup of the committee. Dave wants the members to keep the portfolio in mind, although it's due in November 2008 or 2009. There was an extensive discussion about the production and use of more data and graphs rather than narrative for this project.

Committee Name Change: Discussion began on a name change for the committee to better reflect its role. The members will forward their suggestions to Michael to review at the next meeting.

Recruitment/Retention: There was a short discussion about where the committee falls. There were questions about whether this would be a working group or an advisory group, university-wide or informal. It was decided to wait for more information once the structure is known.

Discussions continue on the last three agenda items, which have been listed for quite awhile.

Communication: Points of discussion: We should provide frequent communication of our activities to make others feel they're in the loop. SSUOnline has given us a way to present the information, but people are sometimes too busy to read it. They need to feel they have a stake in the future of the university.

With students, you need to find a way to get their attention. Though they sometimes seem apathetic, they're also overworked. Posting messages to them on their favorite sites outside the campus system would bring other problems. SSUOnline is a great tool, with endless and underutilized capabilities. There will be a whole new platform on it this summer.

We shouldn't be overly concerned about spreading AQIP news to students at this time, although they have a great interest in semester conversion news. Journalism students have covered a lot of topics in the Chronicle. Another suggestion is to ask SGA how we can communicate better with students.

The issue of comparison data ties in with the Systems Portfolio as well. Although it's a major part of the document, it is usually the weakest section of most portfolios. The early draft will show us the direction we need to go for data.

Present: Michael Fiske, Chair, Kelly Hatas, Barb Kunkle, Roger Murphy, Chris O’Connor, Steve O’Rourke, Jared Shoemaker, Ann Wiard

Announcements: Dr. Morris recently testified before the Higher Education Funding Study Council. It was printed in the latest issue of the Chronicle and also available online at: http://www.shawnee.edu/off/com/nr/03.03.06%203.html. Michael Fiske noted that she made a strong case for Shawnee State and told the Committee that it is well worth reading.

Michael suggested that members' schedule conflicts with meeting times should be brought up as early as possible in order to reschedule when more members can attend.

Approval of Minutes: The minutes for the 2-17-06 meeting were approved with minor changes to the Budget section.

Action Project # 1 (Improve Student Advising): Chris O'Connor noted that the faculty survey is done and received a 50% response. The team had scheduling problems and hope the SP06 schedules will make it easier to meet regularly.

Action Project #2 (Scheduling Revisions for the Semester Calendar): Michael Fiske reported that they have reviewed software scheduling programs. Both major software companies are in development stages. Edastra's rollout time is scheduled for a year from now, which may be too late for SSU's semester development, although it may be the better program.

Schedule 25 has a Resource 25 base, which is our current system. It already has all the room information used by the Facilities Department. He has recommended that Resource 25 be funded to provide either an individual or an office with the responsibility of coordinating its use campus wide. The team will make a formal recommendation in the future.

Points of Discussion: It was also noted that the old server is wearing out and we're using an old version of Resource 25. These are issues that must be addressed soon. R 25 is sophisticated enough to handle the needs of all campus constituencies, but the current scheduling setup isn't coordinated well. It should be more centralized.

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life): Jared said his team has met with student groups and student personnel. They were surprised to learn that the recommendations were simple rather than complex – simple changes that would make an immediate difference to students. Suggestions included making building or office hours more convenient to student schedules. Students would like for the library to be open until midnight on Sunday and want better hours at the cafeteria. The two hours that the health clinic is open could be moved to later in the day. Jared was expecting more ambitious ideas, but instead may have more Quick Fix ideas to submit in spring or fall. Improving recreational facilities will be part of the bigger proposals.

Action Project #4 (Teaching and Learning Center): Barb Kunkle reported that the Teaching and Learning Center is going forward and the new grant will provide the technology. They've found that students have a lot to say. The TLC will serve a valuable function to help students learn more and feel good about it.

Points of Discussion: It was suggested that student focus groups such as SGA could provide valuable insight. Roger asked if there was a way to measure objectives by course and identify those that are most successful in achieving those objectives. It may help to quantify which approaches are most successful and share those ideas. Barb has talked with Gene Burns about doing a research study of Natural Sciences. A large percentage of their students go on to study medicine. Although teaching is an art, Math may be a more quantifiable subject that some others, as each course builds on the previous courses. One of the areas where SSU is lacking is in the ability to access data.

Old Business: Official Role of the Committee: Dr. Morris has accepted our proposal, but suggested we should change the committee's name to reflect its role with AQIP and its focus on quality improvement. She would also welcome suggestions for the new Recruitment/Retention committee, where it fits in, and who should be represented on it. The discussion will be at the next meeting on April 7th.

Present: Michael Fiske, Chair, Michael Field, Kelly Hatas, Carl Hilgarth, Ed Kehres, Kitty Linde, Cathy Mullins, Roger Murphy, Chris O’Connor, Steve O’Rourke, Jared Shoemaker, Dave Todt, Joe Van Deusen, Chuck Warner, Ann Wiard, Guest: Jeffrey Perez

Announcements: Michael Fiske introduced Chris O’Connor as the newest member of the Committee, who has been appointed to fill Chip Poirot’s position. He will serve for the next 18 months. Jeff Perez was introduced as today's guest.

Action Project # 1 (Improve Student Advising): Chris O'Connor reported they are in the process of collecting information at this point. Dale is working on a narrative of what students go through during the advising process. A "satisfaction inventory" shows that students consider their advisors as both good and knowledgeable but also not very caring. The team intends to make the same type of evaluation for staff members. They would also like to add a web link to find out what students think about advising on campus. Their opinion of the out-of-date Student Advising Handbook is that the information is repetitive of the catalog and is not part of the charge of the team.

Action Project #2 (Scheduling Revisions for the Semester Calendar): Semester scheduling is too wide in scope right now, although the scheduling and facilities committees will interact in the future to maximize room usage. Their investigation so far has found that Resource 25 is underutilized. They hope to come up with a recommendation by June.

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life): The team has found that the student satisfaction survey gives them very limited data. They will meet with SGA, RAs and others to determine other ways to collect useful information.

Action Project #4 (Teaching and Learning Center): The group has moved very quickly and already submitted a report to the Provost and governance groups. Dave distributed a copy of their proposal to the Committee. They would like to continue their work to help with the implementation process, since the major activity of the center will take place after the proposal goes to the Board.

Quick Fixes: Some have been done, while others are not "quick" fixes. Dave will have quick fix updates posted on the web. It was suggested that an "electronic suggestion box" link would work well to solicit new quick fix ideas. Protecting anonymity may become an issue.

Guest: Jeff Perez
The Committee was glad to have the opportunity to become more acquainted with Jeff Perez, SSU's new Executive Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs. He addressed several questions and concerns expressed by the members.

Campus communication issues were the genesis for the new SSUOnline page that offers news and events whenever we log on to the system. It will also serve as a bulletin board and can be used to provide links to any news item. This became a goal of his office once it was clear to them that the SSU staff had little experience using the SSU website.

He's also been working with the legislature in Columbus. Although they say that higher education reform is a priority, K-12 issues are mandated, Medicare has grown, while higher education has become the only discretionary slice. He wants those in Columbus to keep in mind our unique mission here at SSU.

Our home page is a billboard for student recruitment to show that SSU is a great college. The entire university should be focused on our image and offer a consistent message. Every piece of information that goes out should reflect that. SSU was able to increase its profile through a televised ad during the Super Bowl coinciding with the mailing of letters from the Office of Admissions.

When asked if there are issues that we promote better than others, he said that we don't give ourselves enough credit. We offer a quality, affordable education on a safe campus. Students get a lot for their money here and we should be proud of that.

We're placing a higher priority on recruitment, retention, and graduation rates, especially targeting transfer students. It's been found that students who transfer later are more likely to make it to graduation, while 1 in 4 first year students don't last. He believes that semester conversion may give them more opportunities to succeed.

He has also has spoken with the legislature about the remediation issue. They recognize that we have a unique role here in southern Ohio. Michael Fiske pointed out that one of our roles is as a community college with a thriving associate program. Jeff reported that the legislature is more aware of it now that we have delivered that message to them.

Miscellaneous Issues: Another item of concern is that the SSU campus doesn't have a central face to show the community, which gives us somewhat of an identity crisis. The campus needs better signage as well as some sort of welcome center. One of the problems is that we don't have a "front door," an issue which may have to wait until the bridge is finished.

It was noted that we need a single source of information – possibly with a search option on the web that could be printed out for visitors or touchscreen kiosks around campus. Weekends are especially problematic for campus visitors.

Resource 25 is a powerful package that is underutilized. It doesn't integrate well across campus. Room names aren't standardized to be entered into the system correctly and departments use different scheduling methods. The system is both complex and confusing, without a centralized scheduling system. Steve and Joe will work on a list of issues and ideas that Michael can take to the President.

Budget: Roger Murphy distributed a draft copy of the General Fund Budget for fiscal year 2006-07 and gave a short overview. The major funding changes will surface in FY 2008. The sheet also includes the future assumptions for revenue and expenditures.

Official Role of the Committee: At the request of Dr. Morris, the Committee approved a statement formally outlining the role of the Strategic Planning, Budget, and Finance Committee.

Academic Major Enrollment Goals Process: Dave reported on a draft of the institution-wide set of goals that outlines what SSU will do to encourage growth. He asked for input from the members before it goes to the university community. He also explained the problems we face in developing future master's degree programs at SSU.

Present: Michael Fiske, Chair, Pat Carson, Kitty Linde, Roger Murphy, Kelly Hatas, Barb Kunkle, Steve O'Rourke, Jared Shoemaker, Dave Todt, Chuck Warner

Action Project #2 (Scheduling Revisions for the Semester Calendar): The team is putting together all the variations they found in semester scheduling during their research. There are substantial differences. The committee is looking into hiring a consulting firm that uses conflict resolution software to do an ongoing trend analysis of student demand. It then makes projections from the usual needs of our quarter schedule to a semester schedule. The consensus of the action team is that the approximate fee of $30,000 would be money well spent.

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life): Jared Shoemaker's team members are in the process of addressing staff issues by contacting other comparable institutions to see what it takes to run a successful program. The discussions focused on several areas.

Communication Issues: Student data are available but no one knows about them; students fill out surveys and no one uses the results. We also need a better grasp on the use of facilities, and by which student populations – those living on campus or at home. Student participation could be tracked by the use of a "swipe card." Michael Fiske mentioned that facilities management is also part of the package of the consulting firm.

There was considerable discussion about the SSU website and making better use of it. Web leaders around campus who are responsible for updating their area web pages could use more training. Chuck pointed out that there is a committee that's always looking for input.

Money Issues: A new “swipe” system could take a substantial amount of the budget. The amount of money raised through student fees is not enough. There hasn't been enough money to go to conferences either.

Athletics vs. Student Life: It's difficult to strike a balance between athletics vs. student life in general. Athletics are more a subset of student life. Although athletic programs generate little income at SSU, they could be used as a recruiting tool. We could have fewer teams, but do them well.

Student Services: Carl Daehler would like to program what students want to see if that could be identified. A suggestion was made to add a student member to the area Arts Council. It's not well-known, but there are free and also half-price tickets available to students for VRCFA events.

With so many complex issues, it's hoped that the team can sort through them to make recommendations.

Action Project #4 (Faculty/Staff Teaching and Learning Center): Barb Kunkle reported that they have done a draft of the proposal for the Teaching and Learning Center. The plan is to accept friendly amendments, have them approved by the committees affected, and then send the proposal to the BOT in April. The team is compiling comparative baseline data and may have future grant opportunities.

Due to the large size of the team, it has been divided into subcommittees. They plan to attend department meetings to go one on one and find out what the real needs are.

This committee is also working on an Ohio Learning Network grant, with the assistance of Cathy Mullins. SSU is placed where it could be the southwestern Ohio center. We’ve been left out of the tech money in the past. There was a brief discussion of our online classes and the distance learning classroom, which is currently heavily booked.

Miscellaneous discussions: Dave will help coordinate the info posted on the web. He may be able to expand it by adding the Project Team minutes. Dave will work with Leigh to set it up, and then team leaders could send their updates directly to Leigh.

Our web leaders need more training. It was suggested that a template would make the pages more uniform and easier to keep up-to-date, rather than each department doing their own thing. The search function could be made more comprehensive, possibly by adding feedback. It would be a tremendous help once people got accustomed to using it. The SSU website is the only single source avenue for information that everyone has access to. Providing information for visitors on weekends is especially problematic. The campus has plenty of terminals that could be made more accessible to everyone. The Teaching and Learning Center could assist with web training.

Website development is being addressed by a Web Standards Committee, which was given a charge by the President. The Department of Communications will soon roll out a site for faculty and staff.

A Committee for Restructuring to Enhance Recruitment and Retention has been formed in response to the Noel/Levitz report. They were able to use the list of peer institutions we had developed to address recruitment and retention, although there are variations on what each of our peer institutions aspires to be.

Budget Issues: We are addressing inequities in funding of departments for faculty development. Also, the number of support staff is sometimes inadequate to assist faculty. It was suggested that there should be an analysis of each department and the workload of the secretarial personnel. The needs are department specific, but the analysis could aid the department chairs in their budget requests for more student employees.

Quick Fix update: The coffee is good at the new coffee shop in the library.

Terms of Committee membership: Due to the small number of voting members attending the November 18^th meeting, another vote was taken. Option II (the 2-3-4 year rotation) was selected as the cycle for membership on the Strategic Planning Committee. Reappointments will be left in the hands of the governance committees.

Motion to approve: Barb Kunkle

Second: Kitty Linde

Option II was approved by a unanimous vote.

We are still waiting for Ken Warfield to appoint a faculty member to replace Chip Poirot on the Committee.

Next meeting will be on Friday, February 17th.

Present:
Committee Members: Chair Michael Fiske, Pat Carson, Michael Field, Kelly Hatas, Carl Hilgarth, Barb Kunkle, Kitty Linde, Cathy Mullins, Steve O'Rourke, Dave Todt, Joe Van Deusen, Chuck Warner, Ann Wiard

Guest: Rita Rice Morris

Other AQIP Action Project Members: Chris O'Connor, Paul Madden, Debra Knutson, Dale Taylor, Rhoni Rader, Mary Ann Malone, Bob Trusz, John Kelley, Ginnie Moore, Martha Rader, Steve Midkiff, Lindsey Liles, Phil Blau, Bill Rockwell, Kristi Jarrell, Richard Montague, Sam Coppoletti, Steve Rader, Pete Duncan, Carol Sexton, Chris Nourse, Xiaodan Huang, Jeff Bauer, Teresa Redoutey, George Trampe, Gayle Massie

The January 6th committee meeting was held as a kickoff event for the AQIP Action Project Teams. Each team member was provided a notebook with the charge for their project and expected timelines.

President Morris thanked the Action Team members for taking on this important task and reminded them they are members of teams rather than committees. They are pioneers in progress, all here because they care. As of today, we move from the process to the meat of the task, an inclusive process to address our future.

She promised assistance with data for decision-making. Each team also was given a book that offers insight about how students learn, and how this has changed through many generations of students. All Action Teams will interact with the entire university community and the constituency groups involved to produce future recommendations. The Strategic Planning Committee, the Cabinet, and all campus offices will have input. The Cabinet will work with Dave to enhance institutional research. As the projects are put into place, these groups will monitor what is and isn't working.

Dave Todt pointed out that AQIP is a different approach to accreditation than the previous North Central process. It's about finding ways to make a difference. The AQIP Cycles of Improvement chart depicts the ongoing process and the various timeframes for assessment. It's a guide to AQIP's evaluation of the Action Projects in one, four, and seven year cycles as the Action Teams put the projects into action.

Team leaders will be responsible for the required yearly reports. The next Strategy Forum will occur in 4 years. The 7 year review is a Reaffirmation of Accreditation, although it's not the sole basis for our accreditation. The newest change has been the additional requirement of a campus visit, but one not as extensive as before.

Dave stressed that the timelines aren't set in stone, but leave the opportunity for modification and adjustment of any unrealistic goals. It's critical to keep open communication between teams, committee members, and governance groups. This is not a 'top down' process.

Action Project 4 has already been modified, with additional members added. It's important for each Team to gather data, record it, and make sure it's widely shared. The Teams need to think about how to measure outcomes.

Dave then introduced the members of the Action Teams in attendance, with a quick overview of each of the 4 projects. In the future, the work of the 4 Teams may intersect, with regular combined meetings.

Michael Fiske noted that the Strategic Planning Committee, as the key group that moved the AQIP process along from its original inception two years ago, will continue its oversight of the Action Teams. He described it as an oversight and clearing house to monitor the process. Although the Committee has been rather anonymous in the past, communication will be faced head on with as much openness as possible.

The teams then divided into their separate groups to plan future meetings.