UWC-Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
February 8, 2008

Members Present: Carl Hilgarth & Kitty Linde, Co-Chairs, Dave Todt, Elinda Boyles, Robert Mendris, Brooke Miller, Chuck Warner, Barb Kunkle, Jared Shoemaker, Brian Saul, Mark Mirabello, Joe VanDeusen, Cathy Mullins, and guest, Jeff Perez

Approval of Minutes: Kitty made a motion, second by Elinda, to accept the minutes of the December 17, 2007 meeting. They were unanimously approved.

AQIP Systems Portfolio: Cathy Mullins and Carl Hilgarth will be attending the AQIP Systems Portfolio Workshop in Lisle, Illinois, on Feb. 28-29 and asked if any other members would like to attend and serve as part of our portfolio writing team. They will be making that commitment for the rest of the year. Barb Kunkle volunteered. Our first Portfolio Review will be in November of 2008.

Dave explained the current accreditation process, which now leads up to our writing a Systems Portfolio every four years to track and measure the results of our efforts. It is now the key to our accreditation. Our first portfolio is due in November of 2008 and will be our biggest job in the AQIP process. We will need everyone's assistance.

Update on Chancellor's Master Plan: Although we are only hearing a little at a time, the issue that is bringing the most discussion is the Seniors to Sophomores idea that is being proposed. The final Plan should be going to the legislature by March 31st. There was a general discussion of how this may affect SSU and how it has put our own 20/20 plan on hold. Funding and housing will be major issues, as well as the effect on the high school students' sports and extra-curricular activities. The Chancellor should be coming to SSU in April to explain how it will affect our university.

One Card System Proposal: It was agreed that this is an exciting proposal and that making it an Action Project will help to finally make it happen. It should be activated as an AP knowing that is open-ended.

Motion to make the One Card System the #5 Action Project: Jared Shoemaker
Vote: Unanimous

Although many miscellaneous concerns were raised, Rita Morris will appoint a Process Owner for this AP from the Cabinet, then appoint the project team. They will be charged with evaluating the issues of timeframe, equipment, software, installation, funding, etc.

Action Project 2: Scheduling (and Resource 25): Carl has talked to Jeff Perez, and was told that the calendar system is being addressed now. There was a discussion of whether this should be a continuation of the previous Action Project #2 or become a brand new project. Although semester conversion has relieved some of the problems with classroom space, there are still scheduling issues to resolve. Carl would like to meet with all those involved in AP #2 before deciding whether to keep it active, completely modify it, or close it and develop a new project altogether.

Jeff Perez reported on the development of a new calendar that will better reflect our resources than the current system with Resource 25. He and Leigh Gerlach hope that it will better inform the campus and be more visually pleasing and useful. The discussion centered on the way that many of our systems were set up separately, so they are not integrated now and are unable to 'communicate.' It was decided to encourage Jeff to move ahead, but keep it an open issue.

Video: The Customer is Always Dwight

Committee Participation: Carl encouraged the committee members to be advocates for AQIP and think about the 'processes' involved. We can become mini process managers on our own.

(The March 7th meeting was canceled due to scheduling problems.)

Minutes submitted by Susan Montavon, Administrative Secretary, Office of the Provost.
 

UWC-Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
December 7, 2007

Members Present: Carl Hilgarth, Co-Chair, Dave Todt, Elinda Boyles, Robert Mendris, Brooke Miller, Steve O'Rourke, Chuck Warner, Barb Kunkle

Approval of Minutes: Elinda made a motion, second by Chuck, to accept the minutes of the November 16, 2007 meeting. They were unanimously approved.

Handout: Principles and Categories for Improving Academic Quality

Carl announced that there was no agenda and there would be no action items for this meeting, but the group would take a look at AQIP Category 7, Measuring Effectiveness, and Category 8, Planning Continuous Improvement. This will give us a chance to familiarize ourselves with how AQIP works. Dave distributed a handout of the AQIP Principles and Categories and explained the history, since this is now the alternate method of accreditation we're using for North Central Association.

Although this year's Presidential Charge to the committee referred to AQIP Category 7 as "Planning Continuous Improvement," it was noted that Category 7 is "Measuring Effectiveness." There was a lengthy discussion of the relevance of both categories and how both are critical to our mission.

Points of Discussion on AQIP Categories 7 & 8:
· Measuring is critical.
· Processes should be integrated.
· Coordinate and align the processes to find out how effective our planning is and be able to measure it.
· Need goals, with benchmarks to see if we've reached them.
· Communication!!
· Need a buy-in from staff.
· Need to instill confidence in the system by demonstrating it with measurements, as noted in AQIP Category 7.
· Committees are sometimes inefficient – they need an "owner" who is responsible, or a Process Owner.
· Discussed Resource 25, scheduling concerns, and what is considered the "Master Calendar" of Jeff Perez. Should invite him to a meeting in Jan. or Feb.
· Could make a mini AQIP project out of R25/calendar. Let's see a success.

The next meeting was planned for the first of February, 2008, since SSU will not be in session during the first Friday in January.
 

Strategic Planning Committee Notes
November 16, 2007

Members Present: Kitty Linde & Carl Hilgarth, Co-Chairs, Dave Todt, Elinda Boyles, Ed Kehres, Robert Mendris, Mark Mirabello, Brooke Miller, Brian Saul, Chuck Warner

Introduction of Members:
Kitty opened the first meeting of the year by asking the committee members to introduce themselves. She also pointed out that the new members should familiarize themselves with the AQIP Action Projects. Susan Montavon will provide the new members with notebooks that include copies of previous meeting minutes and handouts.

Approval of Minutes: Carl made a motion with a second by Chuck to approve the minutes of the last meeting, on June 1, 2007. They were unanimously approved.

SSU 20/20 Update/Chancellor's Master Plan:
Dave described how our SSU initiative was suspended by Chancellor Fingerhut as Ohio develops its own 10 year strategic plan for higher education. Three SSU 20/20 teams already had been meeting and we were about halfway through the process. We were at a good point to halt, however, as the teams had come up with a series of recommendations. We've delayed it for now, but when we receive Chancellor's plan and see how it impacts SSU, we can quickly make adjustments and be ready to implement them. Right now we're hoping for campus involvement in April by sharing our ideas, along with the state-wide plan, through a Campus Conversation.

Some ideas that came out of the 20/20 meetings were deemed important enough to move ahead with. For example, a master's degree in Teacher Education is ready to go forward. A bachelor of Health Sciences is not as far ahead, but they expect a preliminary proposal soon. An associate degree was put on hold because the Chancellor is considering the separation of associate degrees from 4-year programs. There has been discussion about the place of community colleges, although we still don't know how that will develop. We're not sitting idly by, however, and the President has been proactive, working with other universities.

They have been releasing one set of goals per week, but they are still generic, with little to (disagree with.) Still, we won't know until they get to the specifics how to react to the plan. We will need to respond then and this committee will be the focal point of that.

Carl has been getting calls from some interested organizations about the associate of technical studies that was submitted prior to these developments and a possible associate of health sciences. Dave pointed out that the process for approval of new degrees may be expedited now.

President's Charge to the Committee:
Kitty passed out copies of the president's memo and charge to the committee, and discussed some of the items individually. In particular, we should address "AQIP Category 7: Planning for Continuous Improvement." All the other charges listed would feed into that one. Carl offered examples of how others have developed continuous improvement programs. We should begin by taking a look at all the steps, identifying which ones are value added and which are shuffling paper. Where are we not following procedures? Then you must identify who is the "process owner" so you can work with that person to make it a value added process. So, we should look at the processes and identify some areas where can make improvements very quickly. We also need someone to work with us who is familiar with higher education to help us identify the process, undergo training, and work on ways of implementing and maintaining the goals. This is an integral part of AQIP and also fits with the way our accrediting agencies do it. The Process Owner is the one who makes sure that it is implemented.

Kitty said that Rita has given her approval to hire a consultant to work with the committee to come up with ideas. Carl suggested that there also has to be a buy in from all those involved. They need to understand that their contributions are valued and will not result in punitive action. However, any changes may affect positions and structure.

Dave pointed out that the wave of the future for accreditation is that they're becoming outcomes based. They want to see how we're making a difference, so AQIP is interwoven with continuous improvement. Rita wants us to look at this category.

Kitty pointed out that this was one of the difficulties with their Action Project to Improve Student Advising, while Elinda explained how much easier it was to accomplish this on the business side, by automating it through the system. It's all about how seamless we can make the whole process.

Action Project Reports

Action Project # 1 (Improve Student Advising):
Dave reported that we had hoped AP #1 would continue to move forward for a little longer, but Rhoni Maxwell-Rader is unable to take over as Action Team chair. There was a lengthy discussion about whether it should be declared complete and move on to a new project. The Team met the goal of creating and implementing a University College and also produced much data that can be passed on to the Retention Committee and to Student Affairs.

It was noted that advising is ongoing, so the Team's final report should explain how it has been passed on to other entities. Dave said that one thing we've learned, especially from this AP, is that an AP needs a clear charge and benchmarks to meet. We learned much from AP #1 and good things have come from it. Dave will work with Chris and the rest of the Team to close it out, acknowledging that while it accomplished much, it did not meet all of its goals. Carl suggested that we put it on our agenda for possible FA 07 retirement.

Action Project #2 (Scheduling Revisions for the Semester Calendar):
Michael Fiske is not interested in continuing to chair this project, so it's time to see if it also should be declared completed. Two of the goals that were completed were to establish a 5-day schedule for semester courses and choose the scheduling software.

Steve Midkiff has compared the FA 07 course distribution with FA 06 to evaluate the number of courses taught at various hours. Although there are still too many courses at 10:00 and 2:00, there is a smaller percentage of them in FA 07 than in FA 06. There are now many classes on Friday mornings, spreading the courses out better than before. It was noted that some issues have always caused problems for students, but now they're attributing them to semester conversion. Steve reports that one such issue, where all sections of a specific course are offered at the same time, is less of a problem now than in the past.

In answer to a question about how much control faculty members have over their class schedules, Michael replied that it's traditionally been the faculty's choice and only rarely do they have to ask a department to address a scheduling problem. Carl noted that his department took a practical point of view, using feedback from the Team. Engineering Technologies is reviewing the schedules of other classes first in order to set their schedules up to accommodate students.

Dave thinks there's still room for this Team to meet a few more times and will talk to Michael Fiske to get his opinion. Carl said we should find someone to continue to lead the Team and, as part of the process, look more at smaller scheduling issues that come up during the transition. He sees that this project could go on another year, to 2008-09.

Currently there are openings on this Team due to the retirements of Martha Rader and Steve Midkiff. Jonica Burke may be a potential chair and would add a fresh perspective. It was suggested that we might come up with a form for students to report semester conflicts so that we have concrete data, although it's too late for FA 07. Since those are the problems that chairs face, we should bring the chairs together to meet with the Team. Carl said that the main conflicts they find in his department are with the out-of-sequence student and the ½ hour course overlap.

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life):
The report has been submitted, but the project hasn't been officially retired yet.

Action Project #4 (Teaching and Learning Center):
Barb reported that since they are ending their first year of the TLC, she will attach a list of workshops, etc., to her final report.

New Action Project Proposals

Dave reported that last month's review of the new proposals narrowed them down to the three with the most merit. He has reworked them into a form closer to what AQIP has online, adding dates and how they will be monitored. All three of the new project proposals are still at the draft stage, however.

General Discussion: If these are the three Action Projects we want to approve, we need to get the Cabinet's take on them, especially about budgets and priorities. We need to begin at least two new projects, but we could start all three. Although their implementation would require considerable funding, we could also give the three Action Teams the charge to address the budget for their projects. Budget hearings are in November, and then the Cabinet addresses the budget in January/February. Carl asked if we could do enough work during the FA 07 term that there would be budget numbers by then. If we don't time them right for budget hearings the funding will have to wait.

There was also a discussion of what part UTAC (University Technology Advisory Committee) would play in the new proposals. The members of UTAC come from the entire campus, which has made it too large to meet regularly. Now may also be a good time to look at the role of UTAC on campus and how to make its constituency more representative.

Proposal A: Creation of a One-Card System on Shawnee's Campus
Carl suggested that the One-Card System may need to be implemented in steps. He recommended activating this proposal at first with a 6-month deadline to develop cost proposals to go to the Cabinet. He said that the proposal could begin in September with a short timeline at first and then possibly a 2-year process to implement it. This proposal could refocus UTAC's charge.

Proposal B: Campus Technology Upgrade and Assistance
This version is a combination of the proposals for a technology center and technology upgrade, and it made sense to add technical training as well. Barb suggested that we need to look at the short, medium, and long-term goals. The TLC could be a test bed and help train those who will introduce the technology to students. Budgeting will also be a major part of its implementation.

It was suggested that the technology upgrade could be incorporated into the Master Plan. Another suggestion was for us to digest the individual components a bit and then raise the proposal to a higher level by putting it together the way the Master Plan was done. There were also discussions of whether an Action Project like this could include some short term goals similar to the Quick Fixes. The team could identify goals that can be accomplished right away, in the near future, or 5 years away, for instance. Dave thought it was a good idea to focus on an IT Master Plan that includes short term goals, but would rather we begin to address them now.

Proposal C: Governance and Restructuring of University Committees
Since there has already been some reorganization of offices and duties along with the addition of new offices and areas such as the University College and Institutional Research, this is a good time to restructure committees. All of the reorganized areas need to fit into SSU's committee format.

Although this project should begin right away, it's not costly and we anticipate there are still more changes to come. By September we will have a better idea of the remaining structure. All agreed that in many cases people don't know the charge of the committee they're on or whom they answer to. Carl suggested that we go ahead with this project in the fall, possibly projecting a completion date of September, 2008.

New Proposal:
Jared offered another proposal suggestion, for a Wellness Program. He believes it could have a widespread impact from minimal investment and could really incorporate the students into the process. Barb said that this would go along with the plans of the TLC to set up workshops on yoga, nutrition, etc. Carl agreed that it would be low cost with high payback and benefit the university as a whole. He asked Dave if he could come up with a written proposal for fall.

SSU 20/20 Initiative:
Dave reported that the Futures Teams have been meeting regularly and are moving forward. In July Monica Manning will be here to craft their information into a draft strategic plan. A campus-wide conversation day is planned for October. Student Affairs wants to be involved in the event, which is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October 2nd.

AQIP Systems Portfolio:
Dave has been meeting with Jeff Perez to change the way the annual reports are done. Instead of the previous template, we will ask all academic programs for their student learning outcomes so that they'll be thinking ahead to the Systems Portfolio, which is due in October of 2008.

Master Plan:
Dave showed the Committee the plan that is going to the BOT. Since it shows the campus extending closer to the Portsmouth City Schools, Rita and Jan (Broughton, PCS Superintendent) have been calling the combined area "Portsmouth's Education District." He pointed out that the campus expansion/footprint will come first, and that much of the Master Plan can be expected to change, especially with the individual buildings.

Committee Name:
Dr. Morris has left the name decision up to the committee, but it should reflect what we do. There was a discussion of whether to go back to the original name, Strategic Planning, Budget, and Finance Committee and how much "planning" and "budget" have played a part in the committee's work in the past. It was noted that no matter what it's called, it's still the de facto Strategic Planning Committee. Carl will tell Dr. Morris that we would like to go by the title of the Strategic Planning Committee again rather than BAQIP.

Submitted by: Susan Montavon, Administrative Secretary, Office of the Provost
 

UWC-Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
June 1, 2007

Members Present: Kitty Linde & Carl Hilgarth, Co-Chairs, Dave Todt, Michael Field, Barbara Kunkle, Jared Shoemaker, Joe VanDeusen, Cathy Mullins

Approval of Minutes: Carl made a motion with a second by Kitty to declare a quorum in order to approve the minutes; unanimously approved. Jared made an omnibus motion, seconded by Joe, to approve all outstanding minutes. The vote was unanimous to approve the minutes of February 9, March 2, April 6, and May 4, 2007.

Action Project Reports

Action Project # 1 (Improve Student Advising):
Dave reported that we had hoped AP #1 would continue to move forward for a little longer, but Rhoni Maxwell-Rader is unable to take over as Action Team chair. There was a lengthy discussion about whether it should be declared complete and move on to a new project. The Team met the goal of creating and implementing a University College and also produced much data that can be passed on to the Retention Committee and to Student Affairs.

It was noted that advising is ongoing, so the Team's final report should explain how it has been passed on to other entities. Dave said that one thing we've learned, especially from this AP, is that an AP needs a clear charge and benchmarks to meet. We learned much from AP #1 and good things have come from it. Dave will work with Chris and the rest of the Team to close it out, acknowledging that while it accomplished much, it did not meet all of its goals. Carl suggested that we put it on our agenda for possible FA 07 retirement.

Action Project #2 (Scheduling Revisions for the Semester Calendar):
Michael Fiske is not interested in continuing to chair this project, so it's time to see if it also should be declared completed. Two of the goals that were completed were to establish a 5-day schedule for semester courses and choose the scheduling software.

Steve Midkiff has compared the FA 07 course distribution with FA 06 to evaluate the number of courses taught at various hours. Although there are still too many courses at 10:00 and 2:00, there is a smaller percentage of them in FA 07 than in FA 06. There are now many classes on Friday mornings, spreading the courses out better than before. It was noted that some issues have always caused problems for students, but now they're attributing them to semester conversion. Steve reports that one such issue, where all sections of a specific course are offered at the same time, is less of a problem now than in the past.

In answer to a question about how much control faculty members have over their class schedules, Michael replied that it's traditionally been the faculty's choice and only rarely do they have to ask a department to address a scheduling problem. Carl noted that his department took a practical point of view, using feedback from the Team. Engineering Technologies is reviewing the schedules of other classes first in order to set their schedules up to accommodate students.

Dave thinks there's still room for this Team to meet a few more times and will talk to Michael Fiske to get his opinion. Carl said we should find someone to continue to lead the Team and, as part of the process, look more at smaller scheduling issues that come up during the transition. He sees that this project could go on another year, to 2008-09.

Currently there are openings on this Team due to the retirements of Martha Rader and Steve Midkiff. Jonica Burke may be a potential chair and would add a fresh perspective. It was suggested that we might come up with a form for students to report semester conflicts so that we have concrete data, although it's too late for FA 07. Since those are the problems that chairs face, we should bring the chairs together to meet with the Team. Carl said that the main conflicts they find in his department are with the out-of-sequence student and the ½ hour course overlap.

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life):
The report has been submitted, but the project hasn't been officially retired yet.

Action Project #4 (Teaching and Learning Center):
Barb reported that since they are ending their first year of the TLC, she will attach a list of workshops, etc., to her final report.

New Action Project Proposals

Dave reported that last month's review of the new proposals narrowed them down to the three with the most merit. He has reworked them into a form closer to what AQIP has online, adding dates and how they will be monitored. All three of the new project proposals are still at the draft stage, however.

General Discussion: If these are the three Action Projects we want to approve, we need to get the Cabinet's take on them, especially about budgets and priorities. We need to begin at least two new projects, but we could start all three. Although their implementation would require considerable funding, we could also give the three Action Teams the charge to address the budget for their projects. Budget hearings are in November, and then the Cabinet addresses the budget in January/February. Carl asked if we could do enough work during the FA 07 term that there would be budget numbers by then. If we don't time them right for budget hearings the funding will have to wait.

There was also a discussion of what part UTAC (University Technology Advisory Committee) would play in the new proposals. The members of UTAC come from the entire campus, which has made it too large to meet regularly. Now may also be a good time to look at the role of UTAC on campus and how to make its constituency more representative.

Proposal A: Creation of a One-Card System on Shawnee's Campus
Carl suggested that the One-Card System may need to be implemented in steps. He recommended activating this proposal at first with a 6-month deadline to develop cost proposals to go to the Cabinet. He said that the proposal could begin in September with a short timeline at first and then possibly a 2-year process to implement it. This proposal could refocus UTAC's charge.

Proposal B: Campus Technology Upgrade and Assistance
This version is a combination of the proposals for a technology center and technology upgrade, and it made sense to add technical training as well. Barb suggested that we need to look at the short, medium, and long-term goals. The TLC could be a test bed and help train those who will introduce the technology to students. Budgeting will also be a major part of its implementation.

It was suggested that the technology upgrade could be incorporated into the Master Plan. Another suggestion was for us to digest the individual components a bit and then raise the proposal to a higher level by putting it together the way the Master Plan was done. There were also discussions of whether an Action Project like this could include some short term goals similar to the Quick Fixes. The team could identify goals that can be accomplished right away, in the near future, or 5 years away, for instance. Dave thought it was a good idea to focus on an IT Master Plan that includes short term goals, but would rather we begin to address them now.

Proposal C: Governance and Restructuring of University Committees
Since there has already been some reorganization of offices and duties along with the addition of new offices and areas such as the University College and Institutional Research, this is a good time to restructure committees. All of the reorganized areas need to fit into SSU's committee format.

Although this project should begin right away, it's not costly and we anticipate there are still more changes to come. By September we will have a better idea of the remaining structure. All agreed that in many cases people don't know the charge of the committee they're on or whom they answer to. Carl suggested that we go ahead with this project in the fall, possibly projecting a completion date of September, 2008.

New Proposal:
Jared offered another proposal suggestion, for a Wellness Program. He believes it could have a widespread impact from minimal investment and could really incorporate the students into the process. Barb said that this would go along with the plans of the TLC to set up workshops on yoga, nutrition, etc. Carl agreed that it would be low cost with high payback and benefit the university as a whole. He asked Dave if he could come up with a written proposal for fall.

SSU 20/20 Initiative:
Dave reported that the Futures Teams have been meeting regularly and are moving forward. In July Monica Manning will be here to craft their information into a draft strategic plan. A campus-wide conversation day is planned for October. Student Affairs wants to be involved in the event, which is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October 2nd.

AQIP Systems Portfolio:
Dave has been meeting with Jeff Perez to change the way the annual reports are done. Instead of the previous template, we will ask all academic programs for their student learning outcomes so that they'll be thinking ahead to the Systems Portfolio, which is due in October of 2008.

Master Plan:
Dave showed the Committee the plan that is going to the BOT. Since it shows the campus extending closer to the Portsmouth City Schools, Rita and Jan (Broughton, PCS Superintendent) have been calling the combined area "Portsmouth's Education District." He pointed out that the campus expansion/footprint will come first, and that much of the Master Plan can be expected to change, especially with the individual buildings.

Committee Name:
Dr. Morris has left the name decision up to the committee, but it should reflect what we do. There was a discussion of whether to go back to the original name, Strategic Planning, Budget, and Finance Committee and how much "planning" and "budget" have played a part in the committee's work in the past. It was noted that no matter what it's called, it's still the de facto Strategic Planning Committee. Carl will tell Dr. Morris that we would like to go by the title of the Strategic Planning Committee again rather than BAQIP.

Submitted by: Susan Montavon, Administrative Secretary, Office of the Provost
 

Members Present: Kitty Linde, Co-Chair, Dave Todt, Michael Field, Barbara Kunkle, Chuck Warner, Brian Saul, and Jared Shoemaker

Announcements: With no quorum, the meeting will only be an informational meeting and approval of the minutes will wait until our last meeting of the quarter on June 1^st.

Action Project Reports

Action Project # 1 (Improve Student Advising):

No report.

Chuck answered questions that had come up at last month's meeting. He reassured the committee that all quarter records will be converted to semesters. They will not be inaccessible and the course histories will remain intact when transferred over on the planned date of June 18^th. There is also a tape backup at OSU and we can decide how long it should be kept. The biggest challenge for semester conversion is the billing system through the Bursar's Office.

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life):

We're still waiting to retire this project.

Action Project #4 (Teaching and Learning Center):

Barb hopes to submit the final report by the end of the quarter. There was a discussion about ways to assist the center to move forward from the initial establishment of the TLC.

New Action Project Proposals:

Dave distributed copies of the Action Project Proposals that have been submitted so far:
1. Create a One-Card System

2. Graduate Education Programs in Math, Science and Intervention Specialist Education

3. Governance and Restructuring of University Committees

4. Focused Program Review

5. Establish a Technology Assistance Center for Students in the Library

6. Creating an Emphasis on Alumni-University Partnerships

7. Expansion of Recreational Facilities

8. Planning for an Effective Institutional Research Office

He noted that none are from faculty, although we would like to have more input from them. General Discussion: There was a suggestion that we should brainstorm ways to link together items that have been proposed and those that are already in place, such as the Library's proposal for a technology assistance center and programs offered through the Teaching & Learning Center. We could also combine them with a multi-media and technology training system for staff. Although we should address each proposal individually, we may need to put some ideas together and craft them into a viable project. The Cabinet will then choose which projects they are able to commit resources to.

Proposal Discussions:

One-Card: The main obstacle to the proposed One-Card System would be cost, estimated at around $200,000 - $300,000, while we haven't invested enough in equipping our classrooms with technology yet. It may be possible to package the card system with other technology initiatives. The One Card System is the one thing students always request when surveyed, and could provide us with student assessment data. We wouldn't have to implement all parts of the system at once, which may allow it to be added into the budget for a couple of years. Once the commitment is made, UIS and OIT are ready to go with it. The chief benefit would be service to the student for both on and off campus, printing, laundry, access to events, etc. and should help with recruitment and retention. It could also help with security, access control, and efficiency. This is a popular idea if all the details can be worked out.

Library Center: The consensus was that a center could benefit both students and staff, but could be combined with other proposals. The library has identified a location and could begin the Technology Assistance Center with additional staff, computer, and student employee resources. If proposals are combined into one project, it might be a good idea to divide it into phases, beginning with a planning phase to see how it could also be tied into an operational plan for technology in the classroom and the TLC as well as the Student Success Center. We could begin by prioritizing and then the university could provide input. There are concerns about whether combining proposals will lengthen the time for completion and also add to budget concerns. Adding a planning phase may help to address all the issues of accommodating students, faculty, and staff and also show us what technology will be needed in classrooms, the library, the TLC, and the SSC. Dave will draft something for the next meeting.

Governance and Restructuring: The idea of making committee structuring more coherent is an idea that is already being explored by Dr. Morris and others. Making it an Action Project may raise its importance campus-wide. The consensus was that it's a worthwhile proposal and that all Action Projects don't have to be huge and expensive.

Recreational Facilities and Programs: This proposal was discussed at length in a previous meeting. It might be a good idea to begin with sports that are already sanctioned by our conference and that have low start up costs.

Graduate Programs: Various master's degrees were discussed, but would not do well as an Action Project because state approval of master's degrees is really out of our hands.

Institutional Research: It's so far along now it shouldn't be the top choice. Much of establishment of the office is already done.

SSU 20/20 Initiative:

The BAQIP Committee will be very involved in this program. Dave reported that the committees have had good meetings so far. The three Futures Teams will identify strategic opportunities. It was mentioned that there is a potential overlap with Action Projects and 20/20 initiatives, but the scope of 20/20 is probably too broad to be considered as an Action Project on its own.

BAQIP Committee Name:

A change of the committee name will have to wait until there is a quorum.

Budget and Academic Quality Improvement Planning Committee
(formerly the Strategic Planning, Budget, and Finance Committee)
April 6, 2007

Members Present: Kitty Linde and Carl Hilgarth, Co-Chairs, Dave Todt, Kristi Jarrell, Steve O'Rourke, and Robert Mendris

Announcements: Carl announced that, with no quorum, this would only be an informational meeting.

Action Project # 1 (Improve Student Advising):

Rhoni Maxwell-Rader is the new chair, but the group hasn't met yet.

Action Project #2 (Scheduling Revisions for the Semester Calendar):

Kitty reported on a recent meeting of the Semester Conversion Committee, where there is a concern that all of the quarter records will be "wiped out" after the system changeover on August 17th. It's Dave's understanding that the quarter records will still exist in the system, but they won't be live. There should also be a tape backup at OSU. Robert also believes that these records can be saved and will talk to Barb Conn about it. He said it should be easy to set up one computer that could still access old records. Dave will check into this issue and feels it would be a mistake to wipe out the historical record. Other discussions centered on ways to ensure that student records are readily available for advising purposes, possibly by printing out audits of all students beforehand.

Another issue that should be addressed is finding a practical way to communicate with students, both traditional and non-traditional, even after they graduate or withdraw. Faculty should be included also. There should be an inexpensive way to provide a lifetime forwarding service, which is done at other universities.

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life):

Dave is unable to retire this project until he hears from Dr. Morris, but we have received new proposals to replace it.

Action Project #4 (Teaching and Learning Center):

We have not received the final report yet from Barb Kunkle, although the project is completed.

SSU 20/20 Initiative:

Dave updated the committee on this project. They have hired Monica Manning as a consultant and will bring her to campus for a three day kickoff event. They are currently working on the charges for the steering committee and futures teams. The BAQIP Committee will be involved by reviewing the results before they go to the Board of Trustees.

Master Plan:

Dave passed around the final Master Plan picture, which also ties in with the timeline chart. Points of Discussion: The plan is very dependent on the programs that are chosen and what will be most beneficial for them – what is the priority for students, etc. The infrastructure document that goes with it won't be ready until June. The documents will be put on our website once the plan is approved by the Board. Bonds will be issued for the buildings and will be available soon. Recognizing the need for a student center even predates the Master Plan. We're also limited in banquet and function space, as well as student office and recreation space. The architect is engaged and the plan is to break ground in FA 07 or WI 08. Dr. Morris wants to make sure students have input, but they aren't here in summer. In response to a request, Dave said he would try to get a line drawing version of the Master Plan for committee members.

AQIP Systems Portfolio:

Dave reported about his experiences as a reviewer. He found that some campuses do their Systems Portfolios like the old self-studies, but his inclination is to do ours differently. He'd like for it to be reviewed by campus groups after it's written by a smaller writing team.

New Business:

Process for soliciting new Action Projects: Dave will reissue the request for additional proposals to add to the three submitted so far. Kitty suggested that we add a note that proposals should address the budget issues or show that they've considered the financial impact.

1. Planning for an Effective Institutional Research Office. Discussion: This will happen whether or not it's an Action Project, but its potential is great.

2. Expansion of Recreational Facilities. Discussion: This is more about establishing a football program, which would need a major commitment of funds or an endowment. It would attract some new students, but there are other issues that would have to be addressed. Problems that have been discussed in the past were the potential loss of scholarships and whether football would monopolize resources.

3. Establish a Technology Assistance Center for Students in the Library. Discussion: The center would be set up in a very public place in the library and serve students during the extended library hours. The library is serving as a de facto center already. It was suggested that this should be a fast track item and would benefit everyone. It may be able to tie in to the University College, Staff/Faculty Development, or Recruitment & Retention. The issue of staffing would have to be addressed.

BAQIP Committee Name:

A change of the committee name will have to wait until there is a quorum.

Future Meetings: May 4th, June 1st

Members Present: Kitty Linde, Co-Chair, Dave Todt, Michael Field, Kristi Jarrell, Chris O’Connor, Barbara Kunkle, and Robert Mendris

Announcements: Kitty called the meeting to order and pointed out that there were not enough members in attendance to make a quorum. The minutes of the February 9th, 2007 meeting were accepted without changes on a motion by Barb and a second by Kristi, but the vote will be held until the April meeting. She also directed the committee members to Dr. Morris' State of the University address on the SSU website. Many of the initiatives in the speech affect this committee. Dave said there was also a summary in the Daily Times. The address shows the thrust of her initiatives, which committee members should be aware of. Things are happening so fast that we will have to be "flexible and agile" in order to keep up with them. Kitty reported that Dr. Morris has asked the committee to reevaluate the Mission Statement as well.

Action Project Notes: When asked if we can revamp the Action Projects, Dave said we have the opportunity to both initiate projects and also to modify them. He also said that, although all of the first Action Project leaders were from the Strategic Planning Committee, they don't have to be committee members. Leaders can choose whether or not to attend the meetings. The Action Project leaders could designate someone on BAQIP to report for their group.

Dave announced that Rhoni Maxwell-Rader will take the position of chair of Action Project #1. Both he and Rhoni believe that the scope may need to be reassessed and the project extended. President Morris will make the appointment soon. Kitty suggested that Rhoni should be invited to a BAQIP meeting as soon as the appointment is finalized.

Robert Mendris reported on some of the issues they faced in coming up with a scheduling system. The discussions centered on anticipating future conflicts during the implementation process. Chris said that some chairs have been using a hypothetical student model to work through an entire degree and identify problems. With only eight semesters, it would be a good idea for all departments to use this type of model to work through each degree beforehand. The consensus is that the project should be kept active through the beginning of semester conversion in the fall and even to spring of 2008.

Although Steve Midkiff reports that the schedule is working in regard to rooms and times, there are many other departmental conflicts that could come up, especially with student schedules.

Action Project #3 is complete and Dave handed out copies of the final report. Now we need to work on the selection process for new projects. He has been working on a process that would include soliciting ideas, which would be reviewed by BAQIP and forwarded to the President. It would also require the selection of a team leader and identifying resources.

The discussion centered on the details for soliciting ideas, maybe with a call for proposals. Although some may submit ideas without explaining how they fit into the mission, that would be BAQIP's role. The idea is to generate ideas that may create brainstorms that could then be sent back to campus until we come up with a complete project idea. The process should be open and not restrictive. A call for proposals will be a reminder to the campus that this is still an ongoing process. It was noted that we would like to get governance committees and students involved as well. We should also take another look at previous Quick Fix ideas that came out of the original gathering. Rather than restricting the proposals to specific categories, we should ask for big ideas and worry later about how they fit into AQIP categories. Dave will send the notice, asking for input and giving a deadline for submission.

Chair Barb Kunkle reported that we now have the center, but not the structure and people to operate it. There are still organizational issues and challenges to work out. It would help if they could find ways to get more people involved in running the center. There are wonderful facilities and several active Learning Communities, but it's difficult to keep asking those members to do more. She believes they need a mechanism to get more active people with special skills involved. The sustainability wasn't built in.

Kitty asked if Barb had a timeline for issuing the final report. Barb suggested that we provide a template for the reports. Dave said that she could take the annual report that was already turned in and add some reflection, assessing the successes and opportunities that have come up.

Dave distributed handouts of the new initiatives and gave a short summary of each. He will expand on the topic at the next meeting. Dr. Morris will appoint a steering committee and ask the departments for more input. Since the BAQIP Committee has representatives in all the constituency groups, we will play a central role. Dave also sees that the recommendations of the steering committee will come back to BAQIP before being presented to the BOT, to make sure the process is as transparent as possible. Dave and Kitty will also talk to the individual governance groups.

Dave reported that one of the requirements in AQIP is to submit a Systems Portfolio, which is due in October, 2008. Although a group met to work on it last summer, it will be a major effort to put together the final version. A team will then review us, but there are no penalties and it won't change our status. We'll receive good feedback from this process and there's less pressure than the previous way. The ratings are "strengths" and "opportunities" and oriented toward improvement rather than penalty. Dave has already been involved in a review of another university and asked that committee members consider becoming reviewers themselves. The reviews are done at your desk through conference calls. Reviewers are paid $500 per review.

Dave also gave a short review of the Master Plan. There have been no changes since the last meeting. Jim Butz is still working on it for presentation at the next BOT meeting.

Some have questioned whether it was a good idea to change the name of the Strategic Planning, Budget and Finance Committee to BAQIP and whether it is confusing to those who are interested in following our progress and reports. Without a quorum to make a decision, the discussion will be continued at the next meeting

Future Meetings: April 6th, May 4th, June 1st

Strategic Planning, Budget, and Finance Committee
(Budget and Academic Quality Improvement Planning Committee Notes)
February 9, 2007

Members Present:  Carl Hilgarth & Kitty Linde, Co-Chairs, Dave Todt, Kelly Hatas, Kristi Jarrell, Cathy Mullins, Chris O’Connor, Jared Shoemaker, Joe Van Deusen, Chuck Warner, Barbara Kunkle, Robert Mendris, Brian Saul, and guest, Dale Taylor.

Announcements:  Co-Chair Carl Hilgarth welcomed the committee to the first meeting of 2007, and the members introduced themselves.  New members are Robert Mendris, Math Department, Brian Saul, Office of Admissions, and Kristi Jarrell, student representative.  The minutes of the June 2, 2006 meeting were unanimously approved after a motion by Jared and a second by Kitty.  The first item on the agenda was the Action Project updates.  

Action Project # 1 (Improve Student Advising):

Chris O'Connor reported that the team has been unable to meet this academic year.  Chris also announced his resignation as chair due to other commitments.  Carl suggested that the committee entertain a resolution of thanks to Chris for his service as chair of the Action Project #1 Team, which was unanimously approved.   

Points of Discussion:  Dave offered to coordinate the transition to a new chair.  He pointed out that many of the team's ideas have already moved forward due to semester conversion, but there is still plenty of work to be done in the area of student advising.  The group focused on finding a replacement for Chris and whether there is a process in place for this.  Dave said the initial appointments were made by the President.  There is not a set process, but it is part of the role of this committee.  Carl then read the Charge to the Committee.  Barb noted that members of the new Teaching & Learning Community headed by Teresa Redoutey and the Semester Transition Committee provide potential sources for a new chair.  The Action Teams aren't governance committees, so Dave will communicate with everyone involved before any action is taken.

Action Project #2 (Scheduling Revisions for the Semester Calendar):

Michael Fiske was unable to attend to make a report, but he will continue to move the project forward. 

Points of Discussion:  The Registrar's Office set up a practice schedule last fall and it appears to work.  Chuck said that all the course histories have been converted and departments have been testing them with few problems.  The date of the actual conversion hasn't been set.  A parallel strand of this Action Project is the work that other groups are doing, such as the Office of Semester Transition, directed by Barb Conn.  Barb Kunkle reported that the Teaching & Learning Center is working to put together three workshops for course planning.  Other staff, such as the academic secretaries, should be included in training sessions and workshops. 

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life):

Dave distributed copies of the team's final report, which is ready to be approved.  The role of the BAQIP Committee is to review and discuss it before passing it on to the President.   

The chair, Jared Shoemaker, explained that it's more of a general summation since they decided not to give direct recommendations.  Student assessment is an institution-wide problem and should be made a priority.  This should be pointed out to the new Vice President of Student Affairs.   

Points of Discussion about Quick Fixes:  Student Government has been working on these projects in conjunction with the team.  Increased hours at the health clinic depend on scheduling with SOMC.  Health Club hours have only been increased by ½ hour, which should be footnoted in the report.  The team members are still working with area businesses to create discounts and/or coupon books for students.  They hope to finish a booklet by next fall that could be put in the orientation packet for incoming freshmen.   

Expansion of intramurals is limited due to lack of both facilities and staff.  It's also difficult to identify which activities the students want or the number of students living near enough to campus to participate.  Another issue is the lack of a multi-purpose practice facility.  The soccer field would be ruined if it were used for practice as well as games.   

Other Points of Discussion:  There was a discussion of whether to accept this as a final report with so much work to be done in the area of Student Life, but it was acknowledged that the team had fulfilled its original charge to identify areas of concern.  Carl proposed that the Committee receive the report of Action Team #3 as an official document and forward it to Dr. Morris. 

The next step will be following up on the recommendations, especially the need for assessment.  Dave said the governance structure is being revised.  There will be a new director of Institutional Research, and the role of the Assessment Committee may change.  It was suggested that the Action Team should not be disbanded at this time, but continue meeting to address Student Life issues.  This will keep our required three Action Projects intact while we identify a new Action Project #5 and allow time for open communication campus-wide. 

Dave reported that there's no set AQIP standard for completion of projects, although they do require an annual peer review, which was done in December.  The report of Action Team #3 was accepted by the Committee. 

Action Project #4 (Teaching and Learning Center):

Chair Barb Kunkle reported that the group has disbanded, but they've been too busy to submit the final report.  The Center is up and running and has invited a Woodrow Wilson Scholar for a campus visit who is the executive director of the Seeds of Peace.   

There are currently several active Teaching & Learning Communities.  Cathy plans to offer a grant writing workshop through the Center, which may also be of interest to students.  They're soliciting ideas that will address the real needs of the SSU community.  Barb pointed out that the TLC needs a substantive student voice.  They're still looking at ways to encourage student insights into Teaching & Learning.

Update on the University College:

Dale Taylor reported on the history of the UC idea and the large undertaking that began several years ago with Title III.  He explained that it would be a central advising area, with more academic advising and assistance than the Student Success Center and geared toward student retention.  Although all issues haven't been completely synchronized, some steps have been taken to make it a reality.  EPCC has approved three courses for the Student Success Center that didn't mesh well with the curriculum of other departments. 

Currently the SSC advises three groups of students:  Developmental, Pre-Health Sciences, and Undecided.  They're also talking to the Teacher Ed Department about making early Teacher Ed students a part of the University College, where they could help students pass the PRAXIS.  They are still working on a system so these students can be identified.  Dale has submitted a budget request to fund 1-½ advisor positions in order to handle the additional advising load.  He would also like to see a freshman experience course added to the schedule. 

Dave pointed out that the SSC is now under Academic Affairs to increase its academic role.  It was mentioned that students who place into developmental courses at some universities are placed into the University College because they're the ones who are most at risk.  Carl stated that there is a lot of potential in the UC format.  It could possibly be a place to house Individualized Studies students or non-traditional students such as those who are making a career change or coming back for refresher courses.   

New Action Project Ideas:

Dave passed out a handout with an example for a future Action Project, however, we would still like to solicit ideas that could be reviewed in an open hearing before making a decision.  The discussion centered on developing a written process to identify new Action Projects.  Barb suggested a call for proposals that could include a template for submission.  Dave, Kitty, and Carl will draft a process and present it to the Committee. 

Master Plan Update:

Dave gave a short overview of the Master Plan and showed where the APs had affected its development.  The Board of Trustees is also floating an $18 million bond.  Our enrollment is moving toward 5,300 students, so it will be up to us to prioritize for the master planner. 

Future Meetings:  The BAQIP Committee plans to meet on the first Friday of the month:  March 2nd, April 6th, May 4th, June 1st

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.

Present: Michael Field, Kitty Linde, Roger Murphy, Kelly Hatas, Jared Shoemaker, Dave Todt, Joe Van Deusen, Chuck Warner, Ann Wiard

Announcements: Committee Chair Michael Fiske was unable to attend due to a competition in the Math Department. In his absence, Dave Todt led the meeting.

AQIP Action Project Review: The committee members discussed two different Action Project #3 drafts related to improving student life at SSU. After about 15 minutes of discussion, it was agreed to use the second draft with some modifications to incorporate Jared's concerns and assure that this project will move to a second Action Project when the first phase is completed.

Quick Fix update: The coffee unit has been ordered and renovations are planned to have the coffee shop open by early January. Dave mentioned the desire to share with campus the status of the Quick Fix ideas. He will work with Jeff Perez to accomplish this.

Terms of Committee membership: Option II (the 2-3-4 year rotation) was selected as the cycle for membership on the Strategic Planning Committee.

Chip Poirot has decided to resign from the Committee.

New Business
A. Communications discussion.
B. What data is necessary to establish benchmarks and comparisons of progress on planning and quality improvement initiatives?
C. How can we communicate the work of the Committee to the entire campus?
D. How do we provide the link among planning, quality improvement, and accreditation so these processes are complimentary and coordinated?

Communications Discussion: Jeffrey Perez, new Director of Communications, was introduced as a guest. Jeff was called away from the meeting, so we did not get a chance to address to any extent. We assured Jeff that we would invite him back to our first meeting in the winter.

There was a lengthy discussion about the agenda items listed under New Business: measurement of our progress, establishing benchmarks, communicating the work of the Committee to the campus, and linking the processes together.

Points of discussion: These items will be specific to the Action Teams. Each team will report back to the Committee, which will provide only oversight. The minutes have been posted online, with easily accessible links. In the future, the Board packets may be posted before the meetings also. Jared can then send an announcement with the link. Communication will be part of the charge to each Action Team.

Coordinating all of these processes is AQIP. There should be enough attention to planning to avoid any duplication of efforts. That's where communication is so important.

Present: Pat Carson, Michael Field, Michael Fiske, Ed Kehres, Barb Kunkle, Kitty Linde, Cathy Mullins, Roger Murphy, Kelly Hatas, Chip Poirot, Jared Shoemaker, Dave Todt, Chuck Warner, Ann Wiard

Minutes from the September 30, 2005 meeting were accepted.