down arrowMenu

Higher Learning Commission Accreditation Review

April 1, 2009

HLC Steering Committee Meeting

Wednesday, April 1, 2009
3:15 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.

Presidential Room, Maucker Union
  1. Welcome - Bev
  2. March 4, 2009 meeting notes – Ginny
  3. Discussion of draft of Chapter 1 – Barbara
  4. Discussion of draft of Chapter 2 – Karen & Siobahn
  5. Committee Updates - all
  6. For the good of the order
HLC Steering Committee

Meeting Notes
April 1, 2009 – 3:15 p.m.
Presidential Room-Maucker Union

Present: Agee, Cutter, Hanish, Hays, Kopper, Martin, Morgan, Murtha, Neibauer, O’Connor, Uehle, Upah, Vinton, Wilson

Absent: Buse, Chatham-Carpenter, Kaparthi, Licari, Patton, Pease

  1. Welcome – Bev
  2. FoE- Faculty Dimension Report – David Schmid
    • David summarized the findings and recommendations in the draft report. The committee will be meeting next week to discuss the feedback provided by Betsy Griffin, Policy Center Advisor and any provided by the Steering Committee.
    • Steering committee members posed several questions and offered input. A general discussion of issues surrounding a First Year Experience ensued.
    • Bev thanked David and his committee for their hard work.
  3. Discussion of draft of Chapter 1 – Barbara Barbara indicated the chapter is still a rough draft. She is unsure about what should be included in this chapter versus chapter 2.
    • The committee provided the following comments/suggestions:
      • Liked the drama of the story.
      • Include an overview and introduction first?
      • Barbara envisioned a welcome letter from President Allen would be first.
      • Maybe context the information by breaking the history into epochs – areas where there was major growth.
      • It needs to be more explicit as to why a section is included.
      • Why are we talking about the civil rights movement – because this is a premiere example of the administration working with students when other administrations did not.
      • Mention Dr. Curris’s initiative to improve the physical appearance of campus-he made UNI a pedestrian campus by eliminating some streets. Jim has a synopsis of all these points in time.
      • Dr. Koob’s work with the Cedar Valley Alliance and work with the community – this demonstrates living our mission of delivering to the people of Iowa. Dr. Curris’s task force in experiential learning gave students options for internships.
      • President Allen’s work with the College Portrait and VSA – this indicates transparency.
      • Disaster Recovery Center was for people displaced by the tornado and flooding. Melissa Wright in Public Safety kept a log of all this information.
      • Include UNI’s role in Camp Adventure and Global Health Core?
      • Jim indicated that the American Humanics program was just recognized as the top program in the nation.
      • Include UNI-CUE and Educational Opportunity Program as service to community? Al will include UNI-CUE in his chapter.
      • Educational Trust – UNI was honored for graduation rates.
      • Page 9 – the Art Department is no longer accredited.
      • In what section will distance education programs be included? Al will include in Criterion 5.
      • Price Lab School – history and evolution – where will this go? Jan is discussing the research and development program in her section but not PLS history or role within the institution.
      • Bev added P&S Council, S&C Council and the NISG Freshmen Council to the constituency groups that she has talked with (p. 16)
      • Barbara asked for committee input on which programs to include – go with your instinct. There will be overlap between chapters and we can always cut later.
  4. Discussion of draft of Chapter 2 – Karen & Siobahn
    • Siobahn mentioned she has not included any references or photos yet.
    • Siobahn asked if she should include all courses added/dropped. Jan will include this in her chapter.

    The committee provided the following comments/suggestions:

    • Stress that as buildings are renovated, we have done an excellent job of maintaining the original spirit of the building in addition to making them functional. Maybe include pre- and post-photos.
    • Should we include title changes and new offices (p. 2)? A reader might ask if there is reason behind the change and what does it say about the evolution of the institution.
    • In the web version, could we have job titles and facial photos change using flash animation? Could this be a class project or maybe hire a student? If this was done in one section it would have to be carried out in other sections, also.
    • Would tables be easier to read instead of bulleted points? Yes.
    • Should additional information be included regarding the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching?
    • Question regarding the Dean of Students office being new – someone was doing the tasks of this position before the current Dean was selected. Karen emailed Jon Buse (Dean of Students) and he said the position was new. Maybe we need to expand by referring to our mission – we felt the need to have a Dean of Students office.
    • Maybe have entire list of restructured offices but highlight a couple of changes-we don’t have to speak to every single title or office change.
    • Bev thinks the Office of Sponsored Programs and the Office of Academic Assessment need to be highlighted. Karen asked for specific information to be emailed to her and Siobahn.
    • Bev would expand the Curriculum Changes on page 6 to include the interdisciplinary model used in capstone courses. Also, include core competencies – what do we feel students should receive in their first year.
    • When our HLC liaison was on campus, he had an extended conversation with Dr. Lubker regarding the Academic Program Assessment and ongoing review of programs. Donna will include some information on this topic in Criterion 3.
    • When discussing diversity on page 13, include Campus of Difference. This six-year project was an initiative between Academic Affairs and Student Affairs and several staff on campus were trained facilitators. We are no longer under contract to deliver the program due to the cost but there has been some movement to deliver an in-house program. Jan included a little about this project in Criterion 5.
    • Challenge 5 is about equipment-not buildings. Maybe look at ITS 3-5 year plan for equipment repair and upgrade for additional items.
    • Regarding Sabin Hall renovation on p. 10 – highlight the environmental aspect of restoring natural light to the interior of the building. Plans for Sabin Hall are not on the internet.
  5. Committee Updates – all
    A co-chair from each committee provided an update on their progress.
  6. For the good of the order
    • Jan asked if May 1 is still the deadline for all drafts to be completed. Deadline was changed to noon on May 6. Shirley will send the entire report to the Steering Committee that afternoon. Report will be discussed at the May 13 meeting.
    • To be consistent in the report, use titles of individuals such as President or Provost but do not use Dr. in the title.
    • Criterion 1 and 2 will be discussed at the next meeting as well as the FoE Diversity Dimension report.

The next meeting is scheduled for April 8, 3:15 p.m. in the College Eye Room.