Another Wednesday Executive Committee meeting at 9:00 a.m. on 25 October 2006, with a smaller than usual cast of characters.  To show you all that we can be as much fun as the next group, we started this meeting with a celebration:  a happy birthday to Mona, whose birthday is later this week.  (We do this a lot.  We like cake.  We like each other.  We like to share.)

Anyway, it was perhaps the shortest meeting on record.  Quick Quick Quick progress reports, a brief description of the latest version of the Principles for Accreditation (more to follow), closing down summer initiatives, and a quickie view of the NSSE and its relation to SACS principles.

There will be a newsletter soon for general distribution.  It’s a nice touch.  Serenity has been working on this as a side project - side in that it’s not the primary focus of her day - and project in that she still tackled it with the same gusto she does the other parts of her job(s).  Each “edition” will have a featurette about one of the folks who work on the reaffirmation project - and it could almost anyone.  It could be you.

As for the latest version of the principles, let’s just say that the folks in Atlanta shipped out a set of mod’s for comment.  They apparently got comments.  The latest version includes some updates to those updates - and they’ve added a new principle–well, it’s a logical extension of one that already existed - something about library staffing vs. library materials, or something like that.  Other areas had a similar breakout; this just made good sense.

As for NSSE, that’s the National Survey of Student Engagement - and it’s pretty cool stuff.  Annually we survey a cadre of students about their perceptions of the campus and their “engagement” with it (duh).  Someone, somewhere, decided to link the various NSSE questions with the various SACS principles.  Larry Redlinger is pulling the last three years of data to see how they all scan.

As for closing down summer initiatives…. Let’s just say we’ve spent enough time harassing everyone to give us this or that from last summer.  We’re done.  We’re moving on.   But don’t think we won’t be back to check up on the stuff still out for fall; we’ll be calling or emailing or stopping by soon enough.

So, look for the newsletter.  Enjoy the wet weather!  Enjoy the not-100-degrees-weather!

Executive Committee Meeting - 18 October 2006

Fourteen gathered in the SACS conference/work room and offered brief comments regarding progress from the past week.  As examples,

• Mona found more hidden syllabi from the summer (yikes!);
• Simon was finalizing updates for the assessment tool (beta v2) and those went into effect that evening;
• JoyLynn is still struggling under a mountain of assessment plans and reports for general ed courses;
• Justin, Diane and Abby appear to be making considerable headway on finalizing the fall listing for faculty credentialing;
• Diane has finished data input for paperwork to evaluate faculty transcripts from non-US institution;
• (you get the idea)

Robert indicated a need for the group to refine its priority list - at least for the short-term.  Given the recent explosion of data to be entered for other faculty and staff, we’re behind.  (For what it’s worth, we’re offering this support service this term because of the multiple versions of templates, etc., that have been distributed; for next term, that responsibility shifts back to the departments.)  He indicated that “cutting and pasting” needs to move to the head of the list, at least for the team’s immediate focus.  As much as possible, Ben, Metta, and others will work on “getting caught up” on the assessment plans and reports as well as on some of the basic data entry in WEAVEonlnie.

The group also decided that it would be very helpful to find outstanding examples of assessment plans and reports to share with the assessment tool users.  Everyone working with the plans will be seeking such examples to have them posted within the assessment tool.

John Sibert also indicated that he is feeling a real need to form a committee/team to begin reviewing QEP topic suggestions and ideas.  He and Robert will meet to review a list of “possibles.”

So, there you have it.  Another week of progress.  Given we’re nearing the autumnal equinox, I guess this is a good thing.  I only refer to the time in this manner because once the vernal equinox comes back around, we need to be wrapping up this first cycle/draft/process and moving on toward final drafts.

(It is autumnal and vernal, right?  Whatever.)

On Wednesday (11 Oct), the Steering Committee got together as a large group once again and heard an update on the progress in collect common core course assessment plans for both summer and fall terms - and also got word that UTD will be using, essentially, the new or proposed principles for accreditation.  Because the Team’s report (in all its incarnations) will rely on a database, the Team has proposed using an alternate numbering system for referencing all principles until the Commission actually votes on the principles’ changes.  President Daniel joined the group for lunch and took the opportunity to thank the members for thier hard work–and to encourage them to consider whether or not the right people have been involved in the work to date.

Simply, it seems the message just doesn’t always move through the entire communication channel.  Dr. Daniel encouraged the group to ensure that the right people are involved - and that they are the people who have the authority to get the job done and the dedication to participate fully.  President Daniel and Executive Vice President Hobson Wildenthal both indicated they will monitor closely the continued progress of the committee’s work and will assist in encouraging all faculty and staff to be more fully engaged in the reaffirmation process.

As the meeting neared its conclusion, the committee members received the style guide for the compliance documents.  The guide is simple and to the point:  Use active voice, keep it brief, and use tables and graphs in supporting docs, not in the compliance certification itself.  The rest was just as easy.

We’re on the way.

On the “regular” news front, all team members are pushing hard on a variety of projects, the toughest of which may well be the establishment of secure work spaces with all the right people having access to the right folders and sub-folders.  Add to that the desire to have only certain team members with access to other sub-folders, and it gets complicated.  Even so, we’re using the folders as a way to track where all the documents are and which documents are ready for review and for submission to the database.  (There’s a set of folders and sub-folders for every principle.  That’s why it’s so complex.)

Other than that, hey, it’s party time.  We’re celebrating that it’s only another 7 1/2 months until we submit the first draft for review.  (Okay, maybe celebrating isn’t exactly the right word.)

The agenda was simple enough (deceptively so):

1. Progress Reports
2. Deadlines
3. Priority List
4. Meeting with Steering Committee & President

Okay, we didn’t cover #4, but suffice it to say the Steering Committee is meeting with President Daniel next weekfor a lunch meeting.  It’s a chance for Dr. Daniel to inspire (or scare or encourage or dare or — pick a verb –) the troops.  It’s also a chance for us all to sit around and talk about the priorities facing us sooner rather than later.

 As for the rest of the meeting, the progress reports were fairly normal:  we’ve got this, we’re missing this, and we’re focusing on this.  Serenity is closing on the style guide, and Simon is gearing up to update the dox library tools.  John Sibert has altered his strategy a bit for working with groups on introducing the QEP with the development of a more interactive activity that could/should include a topic submission from a group or groups within the larger group of attendees.  (Way to go!)

On deadlines, hey, we have some.  We will start farming those out and seeking the feedback about what is and is not workable.  Deadlines are flexible, but only to a point.  We have a drop-dead date that has no flex in it at all.

As for the priority lists, Robert Nelsen asked for anyone to offer his/her own view of the project’s priorities, not just the team priority or the individual priority.  The discussion was interesting.  Essentially, we echoed what we voiced recently:  We need to focus on the bigger issues, do what we can with the smaller issues, and accept that occasionally some things just won’t happen the way we want. 

Oh, and by the way, Ramona Metcalf joined us today for her first day.  Her first day has included, thus far, two meetings already.  Not a normal first day, even for SACS.