down arrowMenu

Higher Learning Commission Accreditation Review

October 8, 2009

HLC Steering Committee Meeting

Thursday, October 8, 2009

3:15 p.m. - 4:30 p.m.

Presidential Room, Maucker Union


  1. Welcome - Bev
  2. Discussion of the self-study report - Bev
    (Five Big Questions)
  3. Distribution of comments regarding individual chapters
  4. For the good of the order
HLC Steering Committee

Meeting Notes

October 8, 2009 - 3:15 p.m.

Presidential Room-Maucker Union


Present:  Agee, Arthur, Chatham-Carpenter, Cutter, Hanish, Hays, Kopper, Licari, Morgan, Martin, Murtha, Neibauer, O’Connor, Uehle, Upah, Vinton, Wilson

Absent:  Buse, Kaparthi, Patton, Pease

  1. Welcome - Bev
    The Governor has announced a 10% across the board mid-year reversion.  The Cabinet will meet to discuss all the possible scenarios of how the University will deal with the budget cuts.
  2. Discussion of the self-study report - Bev
    (Five Big Questions)
    1. Could Criterion Two be condensed and more selective about the initiatives and programs that are included in the chapter?  Could the summary recommendation sections be condensed as well?
      After much discussion, most members agreed that Criterion Two should not be cut although the strengths and challenges could be edited.
    2. Do we need to be more reflective and evaluative in our writing?
      See comments in #3.
    3. Are our strengths and challenges linked to specific evidence in the chapter?  Is there a lack of reference to data in the chapters?
      Some sections may have been cut during the editing process that referred to a certain strength or challenge; therefore, Bev encouraged writers to make sure all strengths and challenges are addressed in the text.

      Even though data is used throughout the report, members decided that how the report was written is indicative of how we use data on campus.  Many times we collect data but we don’t use it or make the results available.  An example would be the FSSE survey which was given to faculty in 2007 - the results have not been made public.  Bev will ask Shashi to find sections of the report that could be strengthened from inserting FSSE data.  She will also ask Donna if there are any other sections where NSSE data could be used.

    4. Should Chapter One be shorter?  And, this raises the question of our audience – are we writing for just HLC or also our campus?  Does this history enhance HLC’s or the UNI community’s understanding of the University? 
      The consensus was to leave Chapter One as is.
    5. There are several chapters that reference the LAC and the need for revision.  Where is the evidence for this and how does this claim fit with all of the information in Chapter Two about the changes made regarding the LAC?
      Siobahn acknowledged that she and Karen did not write a summary for Chapter Two which would be beneficial.  Bev feels this chapter is critical since it details what we have been doing regarding the LAC since the last evaluation visit.
  3. Distribution of comments regarding individual chapters
    All comments from committee members were compiled by chapter and distributed to the respective writers for consideration. 
  4. For the good of the order
    Bev received a message from the HLC asking her to confirm the dates we had suggested for the team evaluation visit as well as comments about areas of expertise for members of the team.  Bev discussed possible team members with John Gardner and Betsy Griffin from the FoE Policy Center. 
    President Allen, Provost Gibson and Bev had a conference call and discussed possible team evaluators with our HLC liaison, Bob Appleson.

The next scheduled meeting is Thursday, October 22 at 3:15 p.m., which will conflict with the Strategic Plan Town Hall. Bev recommended we all attend the Town Hall instead of having a steering committee meeting.