Docstoc
EXCLUSIVE OFFER FOR DOCSTOC USERS
Try the all-new QuickBooks Online for FREE.  No credit card required.

uploads_resources_1129_AAC-MIN-JUNE-2008

Document Sample
uploads_resources_1129_AAC-MIN-JUNE-2008 Powered By Docstoc
					                          Academic Affairs Council Minutes
                                      June 2 & 3, 2008
                                   Bismarck State College

Members present: D Olson (WSC), D Darling (LRSC), W Boekes, L Brooks (MiSU-B), C
Schnell (NDSU), K Stenehjem (MaSU), G Rabe (MiSU), B Bang (NDSCS), G Weisenstein
(UND), J Bessie (VCSU), R Brauhn (DSU), H Hatterman-Valenti (CCF) and M Hillman
(NDUS).
Guests: Drake Carter, Harvey Link, Julie Schepp, Philip Parnell, Randall Thursby and Rosi
Kloberdanz (by phone).

June 2:
Interim Higher Education Committee and other current issues.
Dennis Jones facilitated the Interim Higher Education Committee meeting. The committee has
preliminarily established the following five goals:
    1) ND education attainment will equal the top 5 countries in the nation.
    2) ND will increase completion and retention rates - specifically the under
       represented/minorities.
    3) ND students will come to college prepared to succeed.
    4) Students will have access no matter where they live.
    5) Graduates will be educated to meet the needs of the state/economy.
    6) Education must be affordable.

Other discussion included:
    • 45 mile access
    • more emphasis on preparation for college (looking at what level of math and English
        skills are needed)
    • incentives for improved completion rates
    • 2 year programs in Grand Forks and Fargo
    • trust issue between legislators and the board
    The committee also talked about roles. Dennis Jones has prepared a chart that shows NDUS
    efficiency. Legislators voiced their concern with the length of time it takes students to
    graduate. AAC members said a good incentive would be good paying jobs.
    There is no accountability measure to assess faculty workload and ConnectND does not
    have the ability to report faculty workload information in a form usable by institutions or
    policy makers. Mike Hillman responded to a legislator’s request for faculty workload
    information but was told that the information provided did not answer his question. Hillman
    also expressed the need to track student goals and transfers as a part of graduation and
    completion rate reporting.
    Hillman asked for input from council members on performance funding. All members feel
    performance funding erodes standards and that it is not good idea when we are already
    under-funded.
    Hillman reported there would be a special Board meeting in Fargo June 12 regarding the
    budget; the Joint Boards meet on June 18, the SBHE meets on June 19 and the Interim HE
    Committee meets June 24.

AAC, June 2 & 3, 2008                                                              Page 1 of 10
I. Business Meeting
   1.0 Approval of May 6, 2008 minutes
       Motion was approved by consensus with discussed edits.
   2.0 Operation Issues
       A. Academic Requests
        1. Stage I requests
           a. BSC: New Academic Program, Policy 403.1
                  • Energy Research Analysis Technology
                  • Petroleum Land Management Technology
           b. NDSU: New Academic Program, Policy 403.1
                • Anthropology
                • Manufacturing Engineering
                • Natural Resource Management
                • Animal Health Management
          Motion to approve by Schnell/Bang. Discussion on BSC articulation to the BAS. Motion carried
          unanimously.


          2. Stage II requests
             a. NDUS: Institutional Organizational Notice and Approval, Policy 307.1
                         Center for Disaster Studies and Emergency Management (approved)
             b. UND: Institutional Organizational Notice and Approval, Policy 307.1
                  • Department of Entrepreneurship (approved)
                  • FROM Department of Art TO Department of Art and Design (approved)
                UND: New Academic Program, Policy 403.1
                 • Ethics, minor (approved)
                 • Leadership, minor (approved)
                 • Writing and Editing, Cert
               UND: Program Termination, Policy 403.1.1
                • Vocational Marketing Education (approved)
                     Darling and Bessie opposed this termination.
            UND: Distance Learning Credit Activities, Policy 404.1
              • General Studies
              • Social Science
            Motion to approve all Stage II requests by Schnell/Darling (except Writing and Editing (UND).
            Motion was unanimous.
            Following discussion Rabe/Bessie made the motion to approve the Writing and Editing certificate.
    Schnell stated that NDSU objects to the Writing and Editing request because NDSU
    submitted a PhD program in Practical Writing and, after much discussion with the UND
    English Department where the comments were insulting and UND English department
    stated they did not see value of the NDSU request, they were unable to obtain UND’s
    support for their request. NDSU then changed the title of the request to be consistent with
AAC, June 2 & 3, 2008                                                                          Page 2 of 10
    the exact title identified in Procedure 403.1 Stage I, 10. B. AAC unanimously
    recommended approval of the Stage II request. Now UND sees a need for this program
    and have submitted their request for a writing program. Approving this request before the
    issues related to the NDSU request are resolved will not make it easy for NDSU to get its
    request approved. NDSU has future plan to offer a master’s degree and a bachelor’s degree
    in the same area. Schnell/Bessie moved to table until NDSU has resolution on their
    doctoral program. Motion to table fails with a 6/6 vote. Rabe/Besie withdrew their
    motion.
    Rather than table, Weisenstein offered to defer this request to next month. The request was
    deferred at UND’s request.

      B. Prefixes
         UND: LEAD - Leadership
          Schnell/Darling made the motion to approve. Motion was unanimous.
   3.0 Additions/corrections to draft agenda
       none
   4.0 Articulation and Transfer
       A. Reauthorization of articulation agreements for Accounting (no changes to last year’s
          agreement)
          The motion was made by Darling/Schnell to approve. Motion was unanimous.
       B. Articulation Signatures
          Philip Parnell said the agreements are ready to be signed and he will send them
          around for council members to sign.
   5.0 CIO Search Update
        Wayne Boekes reported there were four finalists, however, three have dropped out.
        The remaining candidate will be interviewed later this month. If this one does not work
        out, the search will be reopened. System staff has negotiated with Randall Thursby to
        stay through August.
   6.0 CIO Update – Randall Thursby and Rosi Kloberdanz provided updates to the following
        items:
       Upgrade to 9.0 is to begin on June 13 and be completed by June 19. CND staff is
        currently conducting security assessments. The pilot with LRSC is complete and they
        are ready to begin assessments of the other institutions.
      Microsoft licensing; 10 of the 11 institutions are participating; Pat Seaworth is
        completing a contract. Because they want this in place by July 1, a bid will be awarded
        very soon. With this license agreement, Office software will be free to campuses.
        UND is not participating, however, they are working with CND staff to piggyback on
        agreement.
      Student email: Live@edu , which is Microsoft email package, was selected for student
        email. Each campus will need to sign off on this. It is a free service and all institutions
        will pilot this product which can be phased in or implemented all at once.
      RUKUS: They are on track to offer this service.
      IVN: They recently held their annual conference and provided demonstrations of many
        new products - two of which are WIMBA (desktop product) and MOODLE (learning
        management).

AAC, June 2 & 3, 2008                                                                 Page 3 of 10
        WIMBA: This is a university system service with a 3 year agreement so campuses will
          have unlimited usage.
        MOODLE is a learning management system. Portions of this will be outsourced. WSC
        had an immediate need so they piloted the product and converted all courses in a very
        short time. IVN provided a course designer to help. MOODLE provides some
        conversion software.
        Library services: Staff are working on the upgrade from the original version 16 to the current
        version 18 of the Aleph system. This upgrade will provide a number of enhanced features,
        including a significant change of the Interlibrary Loan module. Based on feedback from both
        academic and public libraries, the upgrade is planned for mid-July. As a result of requests from
        various libraries to supplement the Aleph offerings, numerous custom library management reports
        are being added to the system. In addition, a dedicated trainer was hired this past fall, resulting in
        more frequent, focused, and extensive training, both via travel to libraries, also via remote access
        using Wimba.
        Security: In addition to security assessments, more training is being provided in anti-
        virus software. McAfee provided training and covered best practices. This was so
        successful that security officers asked that McAfee return for professional development.
  7.0   Common Admission Application & Procedure
        Julie will work with Randall and the CAC on a common look for the application. There
        are two issues that need to be addressed, 1) the application itself, and 2) the online
        application. Because institutions are using more than one application (and in one case 3
        different applications) representatives from distance education, continuing education,
        undergraduate and the graduate school should be included in the discussion. Institutions
        should be using the common application so the same data is being collected across the
        system. If institutions require more data, a follow-up application form could be
        customized to fit their needs.
  8.0   ACT Student Class Profile
        The system office has requested a copy of the ACT Student Class Profile Report from
        each institution. ACT said they would provide us with a report from each campus, plus a
        composite report at no cost, if the system office will collect the data and submit it in the
        same format. The Council had no objections to this effort so it will move ahead.
 9.0    Dual Credit Task Force update – Larry Brooks met with the group and discussed what
        each institution is currently doing with dual credit. Brooks presented the committee’s
        report to AAC. He said the group has also met a second time to discuss geographic area.
        He reported nine of the eleven institutional representatives said there was nothing that
        needed to be done but they do need to work together. They also discussed student tuition
        incentives feeling there needs to be flexibility on this so individual campus can follow
        their procedures. They agreed there is a need to get legislators involved in order to
        receive some assistance. On the one tuition rate issue, the majority felt there should not
        be one tuition rate. Brooks stated that we need to work with legislators on tuition
        assistance.
        Under Board policy, institutions must charge the Board/Chancellor approved tuition rate,
        however, offering institutional financial aid to students can offset this cost.
        Stenehjem/Bang made the motion to accept the report with thanks to the committee
        members. Motion was unanimous.
 10.0   Standards Committee update


AAC, June 2 & 3, 2008                                                                          Page 4 of 10
     Wayne Boekes updated members on the work of the Standards Committee. He stated
     that years ago they were dealing merely with private trade schools and it was thought this
     was the role of CTE. This has increased a lot since then from technical to masters degree
     programs with the most recent being Phoenix and Capella expressing an interest in
     operating in ND. The committee made changes to the rules and law that would have all
     those who apply meet the same standards as NDUS institutions do. It is felt that the
     current CTE board is not interested in having to deal with these approvals so a change in
     governance is being recommended. The committee felt legislators would not accept
     another board so the recommendation was to create a commission of representatives from
     public and private schools, K-12, and the public sector. Although independent, this
     commission would ultimately report to the SBHE. Wayne Kutzer, Director of CTE, is
     willing to let go of ½ FTE for this move. If AAC approves this recommendation it will
     go back to the Chancellor to come up with the funding. The grantor’s, Bank of North
     Dakota’s name was erroneously omitted from the proposed list of commission members
     and will be added.
     Schnell/Weisenstein moved to accept the report as amended. Members questioned why
     private propriety has the same representation as the 4 year or 2 year NDUS institutions?
     Weisenstein suggested a graduate representative be added along with a representative
     from ESPB. The motion was amended to accept additions to the commission.
     Motion carried.
11.0 CCSSE Workshop – Julie Schepp reported there would be a CCSSE workshop on Aug 7,
     in Bismarck. The purpose of this workshop is to help key institutional people from each
     institution better understand survey results, how to use the data to target improvements in
     programs and services for students and how to communicate the result both internally and
     externally. This ultimately will help community colleges understand the results to
     improve practices, programs and policies related to student engagement and success. Each
       community college is encouraged to send a team to this workshop.
12.0 Degree Audit Committee – Doug Darling and Craig Schnell co-chair
     Membership to the committee – Randall Thursby would like campus solutions staff on
     committee (Deb Ott). Others on the committee are the registrars from NDSU, UND,
     MiSU, MaSU and NDSCS; a SAC representative; Philip Parnell and Julie Schepp.
     Charge to the Committee: The committee will make recommendations on moving forward
     with degree audit in CND. Questions to be answered include: Does the cost justify the
     need for a degree audit system? What are the costs, how should they be paid and what is
     the timetable for implementing a degree audit system?
     We will need to look at PS or a third party to see if it is feasible, although Randall
     indicated that the degree audit function in PS would probably not meet institutional needs
     very well. “Block transfer of credit is not compatible with degree audit which requires
     information on individual courses.
13.0 Committee & other reports
    A. Executive Oversight Committee & CAC – Bessie/ Schepp
    A joint meeting of the Oversight Committee and the Campus Advisorary Committee was
    held this past week. Two items were discussed: 1) How is the process going? Some issues
    implied policy issues and there hasn’t been discussion within AAC on these issues.
    CumGPA vs IGPA and also want ‘w’ available. 2) Why are MaSU and DSU doing this
    differently? Members suggested that athletic eligibility requirements are being interpreted
    differently. There is no system or council representation in many areas.
AAC, June 2 & 3, 2008                                                              Page 5 of 10
     B. NDSA – Tara Mertz
     Hailey Kriep will be SBHE representative. The NDSA request for a Fall term class holiday
     will be heard at Cabinet.
     C. CCF – Harlene Hatterman-Valenti
     Valenti was unable to attend last meeting. Three items discussed include: 1) fall break -
     some opposed, some in favor. One concern is that faculty who teach on a Monday really
     get hit. 2) statewide professor – it was felt that this is a way to bring a positive perception
     to the role of faculty. 3) Result of election of officers - Shirley Wilson, president, Harlene
     Hattermin-Valenti, Vice President..
     D. Accountability Measures – Julie Schepp
        No report.
14.0 Collaborative Procedure Review
     Julie Schepp reviewed proposed changes to the collaborative procedure identifying an
     earlier change recommended and approved by AAC. Collaborative students will now be
     required to be registered on the home campus in order to take a course from a provider
     institution unless the home institution allows an exemption.
     Boekes/Bessie made motion to accept recommendations as presented by collaborative
     committee. The procedure will be moved forward to SBHE procedure.
15.0 Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA) Greg Weisenstein & Craig Schnell
     NDSU & MiSU are early adopter of VSA, UND is not (they were not part of the process
     when this was determined). Several thing concern them, one being standardized tests for
     value added. VCSU also signed up. MiSU had representatives come to campus and
     administer the test to faculty – this made them real believers. How about motivational
     issues for seniors? How do you get them to do it?
     Council members were encouraged to be early adopters and AAC should consider having a
     VSA presentation to the Board.

II. Planning/discussion
    Rose Stoller facilitated a discussion on duplication on June 3rd.

                                North Dakota University System
                               Academic Affairs Council Meeting
                                To Address Issues of Duplication
                                    Tuesday, June 3, 2008
                                      Meeting Summary

Proposed Meeting Goals:
   • To receive information and affirm the definition of duplication as it relates to Higher
      Education course offerings;
   • To receive information and affirm the use of the approval process for distance learning;
   • To discuss problematic issues regarding online/anytime/anyplace learning and its impact
      on the University System and students;
   • To discuss problematic issues regarding graduate and doctoral programs and the impacts
      on the University system and students;
   • To reach agreements on elimination of duplication and strategies for development of
      incentives for collaboration; and

AAC, June 2 & 3, 2008                                                                  Page 6 of 10
   •   To identify next steps in the process.

Participants: Michel Hillman, Julie Schepp, Wayne Boekes, Doug Darling, Barb Bang, Keith
Stenehjem, Gary Rabe, Drake Carter, Harvey Link, Rich Brauhn, Larry Brooks, Craig Schnell,
Greg Weisenstein, Joe Bessie, and Dawn Olson

Facilitated by: The Consensus Council, Inc.

Welcome and Introductions: The participants were welcomed and a round of self-introductions
was completed.

Review of Consensus-based Decision-making: The consensus-based decision-making process
was discussed and the participants agreed to use it for purposes of this meeting. A guide to the
consensus-based decision-making process was supplied for participants.

Review of the Proposed Ground Rules: The proposed ground rules were presented and
explained to the participants. They were affirmed as follows:
       • It's your show.
       • Everyone is equal.
       • No relevant topic is excluded.
       • No discussion is ended.
       • Respect opinions.
       • Respect the time.
       • Silence is agreement.
       • Keep the facilitator accurate.
       • Non-attribution.
       • Have fun!

Review of Proposed Agenda: The proposed agenda was reviewed and accepted as written.

Duplication Presentation: The participants received a presentation regarding the definition of
duplication as it relates to Higher Education course offerings. This evolved into a discussion of
the distinction between course duplication and program duplication. It was agreed that, while
duplication may sometimes be warranted due to demand, it is preferable to reduce duplication in
order to enhance efficiency. It was also stated that the North Dakota University system should
allow some duplication where necessary to sustain different target groups.

Additionally, present policies were mentioned that govern duplication, 403.1 and 404.1. It was
asserted that, instead of duplication, institutions should be concerned about expansion. Also a
concern for the participants was marketing and “turf wars.” A long discussion about marketing
ensued. Participants deviated from the agenda, but a consensus was reached regarding the need
for a discussion of these issues.

Following lunch, participants agreed to compile an inventory of “given” statements and “agreed”
statements, as follows:

Given:
   - Access is critical

AAC, June 2 & 3, 2008                                                                Page 7 of 10
   -   We must respond to labor force needs
   -   We must promote system competitiveness beyond North Dakota borders
   -   NDUS continues to be under-resourced
   -   Each institution, and the system, cannot be all things to all people
   -   It’s not always possible to offer and sustain programs to North Dakotans with only North
       Dakota students
   -   Lack of affordability limits access
   -   North Dakota graduates perform at high levels
   -   All institutions have a role, mission, and place in the system
   -   There is an expectation of rapid response by the community/legislature/business
   -   Academic levels/products are high and efficient

Agreed:
   - A significant market demand is a necessary but not sufficient condition for adding new
      online programs
   - Online program duplication from non-NDUS providers is difficult to control
   - Online course duplication is not, and shouldn’t, be controlled
   - Online program duplication is regulated
   - Approved programs can be delivered only as proposed/approved
   - All are expected to respond to our constituencies, to support our institution and the
      system, and to maintain programs and viability
   - Collaboration is secondary to institutional interests
   - Collaboration can be good when it is properly resourced, incentivized, and mutually
      beneficial
   - Maintaining eleven viable institutions takes a focused effort
   - To satisfy North Dakota workforce needs, students need to be brought into North Dakota
   - The Roundtable process/principles remain relevant and visionary but may need
      reactivation to stay in touch with changing state needs

The participants also agreed that historically verbal agreements now need to be formalized in
writing through the development of a “procedures” model for the AAC. Also, advertising and
marketing need to be refined, recruitment agreements must be established, collaboration
parameters and processes need to be formalized, credit/non-credit workforce training agreements
must be established, and geographic regions, boundaries, and affinity areas must be established
and adhered to.

With regard to online programs, the participants agreed that online delivery is more beneficial to
all institutions when several offer the same courses or programs. A mixed delivery mode was
discussed, versus a wholly online mode. It was asserted that, at present, some students attain
“online degrees” “stealthily,” or by taking all online courses to complete certain programs. Also
proposed was to increase online opportunities for students already residing on campus.

There was discussion relative to establishment of clear process for common programs vs. unique
programs and it was agreed that this idea needs additional thought and discussion.

The notion of a review panel was discussed. On this panel, it was proposed, would be regional
representatives, representatives from all levels of higher learning (2yr, 4yr), representatives from
both inside and outside AAC, and marketing staff of AAC institutions. A second committee, a
policy committee, was discussed. This committee would have balanced representation from
AAC, June 2 & 3, 2008                                                                  Page 8 of 10
institutions and would draft policies in both print and electronic form. Finally, communication
and relationships among the AAC members was briefly discussed.

With regard to resolving conflict among institutions, participants agreed that the first step would
be to discuss the matter among colleagues. The next step would be to call the appropriate NDUS
Vice-Chancellor. The third step would likely be a meeting between the University President(s)
involved and the Chancellor. If no resolution could be reached, the final step would be to
approach the SBHE. It was agreed that the latter options provide incentives to resolve any
disagreements at the lowest possible level.

Next Steps
Participants agreed to the following immediate next steps in the discussion and planning process:
    • The Consensus Council will provide NDUS with a draft summary of the meeting
    • After July 1, UND and NDSU should form a committee assigned to propose a path for
        future doctoral program development.
    • Graduate program discussion will be tabled until the next face-to-face meeting scheduled
        for August 5, 2008, 8am-5pm.
    • NDUS staff will work on marketing and recruitment agreements
    • Consensus Council will provide on-site follow-up assistance as requested
    • Develop an AAC plan to move verbal agreements into procedures

Summary Comments
Participants were asked to provide a summary comment relative to the meeting and
accomplishments of the group. The comments are as follows:
    - I wanted to talk more about the mission/ a mission statement that can guide this.
    - We need to pick up the phone instead of e-mailing when we have an issue.
    - Those in this room are not the enemy.
    - Higher education and North Dakota are in an exciting time of transition and
        transformation. The “givens” and other ideas are laying the groundwork for more
        agreements in the future.
    - Procedure/practice = understanding.
    - Distance delivery redefines the playing field and we need to identify our role in it.
    - This was an important discussion to have among our group. We have a high degree of
        professionalism and respect for each other.
    - This is an exciting time; there has been visionary budgeting by the Chancellor for our
        future.
    - I’m glad that all participants have spoken today.
    - Good discussion; all participants play a role.
    - This was enjoyable and different from our usual meetings. It was helpful for me as a new
        person in the group.
    - The discussion was helpful in clarifying and helpful in improving definitions. All of us
        are dedicated and have a role to play.
    - It was a good meeting and created an environment for productive discussion. We don’t
        want to lose sight of the fact that there is one university system. We need to use more
        common sense.
    - I’m somewhat disappointed that we didn’t get to all of the discussion, but the potential
        for further discussion has been opened.
    - Ditto!

AAC, June 2 & 3, 2008                                                                  Page 9 of 10
   -   Communication, collaboration, cooperation and common sense are the keys.
   -   This meeting was a learning experience. I like/welcome the idea of more written
       guidelines that will allow us to have what we need to follow-up on difficult issues.
   -   I learned a new word today: “coopetition”, that is, a mix of cooperation and competition.
       Better-defined policies and procedures will help the faculty to understand the work of the
       AAC. It can be helpful in finding ways to overcoming the inevitable “politics” that face
       the system.
   -   Procedures are fairly sound; we need to follow them.
   -   This meeting is a solid basis upon which to begin.
   -   Student retention is a big problem and goes hand-in-hand with enrollment.

Adjourn
The participants were thanked for their involvement and hard work. The meeting was adjourned
by consensus of the group.




AAC, June 2 & 3, 2008                                                              Page 10 of 10

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:5
posted:4/27/2011
language:English
pages:10