Department heads March 17, 2004

Department Heads Meeting
March 17, 2004 - 10:00 a.m.
Honors Hall
Participants: G. Weidemann, D. Graham, R. Roeder, D. Herring, J. Barrentine, D. Hensley, L. Verma, M. Cochran, F. Stephen, R. Buescher, S. Lim, K. Lusby, B. Wideman (for POSC), R. McNew
G. Weidemann
1. Budget. The state budget picture remains uncertain. While the sales tax increase to fund public education will cover most of the estimated costs, part of the revenue is dependent on the passage of a property tax initiative in November. The predictions are that there is a good chance that this initiative will not pass. That means that revenues for public education will be short about $90 million in FY 05. This translates into about a 1.8 million reduction in the Division budget. We will need to factor in this potential budget shortfall to our budget development for next year.
2. Security at the Research Farm. Concern has been expressed that security remains an issue at the farm with the general public continuing to utilize the farm as a recreational area. We will continue to add fencing annually until the farm is totally enclosed and then add controlled access gates for evenings and weekends. We hope to add the gates as part of the widening of the highway. Continue to keep us posted on problems.
3. Administrative Evaluations. We were unable to make all the necessary changes to move to an on-line system for this year. We will develop a hybrid for this year. Unit Heads should give us the name of an administrative assistant outside the unit to whom forms should be sent. The named person will forward the quantitative form to our office and we will forward to computing services. The designated administrative assistant will compile the written comments as they have done in the past and will send a copy to me and to the unit head.
D. Graham
4. UAConnect Registration Information A reminder letter will be mailed to all faculty advisors regarding summer and fall registration information. Summer pre-registration will begin on 3-24-31. We have one week while the data is ported to the People Soft product. Then we will allow for fall pre-registration. Three very important things need to happen:
A. Faculty need to have accessed UAConnect and determined if they can remove negative service indicators (holds on registration) before the students are advised for fall registration. Otherwise, if this is not removed, the student will not be able to pre-register. This is a security access and we have to request all individuals who have this authority to advise, so this needs to be checked soon.
B. Administrative assistants have also been given access to remove negative service indicators, so they should also log in and see if their access works. Each administrative assistant can also perform quick enroll, for overrides or other consent to register actions. Conflicts of time must still be submitted to the Dean's office for overrides through quick enroll.
C. Faculty and staff should also have watched the video that demonstrates how to enroll.
We are already experiencing a lot of calls and most individuals who call are admitting that they have not watched the video or logged in. PLEASE encourage faculty to do this, because our office cannot help everyone who does not try to help him or her self. The same rule applies for the Registrar's office. I anticipate we will have enough problems of a larger magnitude, so please provide some guidance with this to your staff.
Handout: UAConnect Quick Guide. A reference guide to self-directed documents of how to use UAConnect was distributed. These documents are posted on the college Web site. A notebook has also been distributed to the administrative assistants with each of these handouts.
5. RAR—date has been set for May 25. It will be held at Continuing Education and an agenda will be mailed later. Those faculty and staff on the PSRC or Advising committee should plan to attend.
6. Strategic Planning Questionnaire. There were 43 respondents (~25%) who
completed the Strategic Planning questionnaire. I am personally disappointed in the responses. Many hit the page, but either read the questions and didn't complete and submit, or did not save their entries. Some faculty have indicated they felt it was not confidential which may be a reason for not responding. A student version will be posted next week. A committee chaired by Dr. Herring and Warnock will organize the responses into theme areas to get ready for the next round of focus groups.
7. Administrator Evaluations. There were three choices on this evaluation: 1) create a specialized instrument to use in local scanners; create a Webct version, or ask computing services to complete the service.
a. The creation of a special instrument means that someone will have to find the time to create this, set the markers, and we will depend on one person who may or may not know every person being evaluated. The software changes often and we would constantly being updating the document to be scanned. Cost to the college in time and resources. The open-ended responses would have to be compiled by an external person.
b. Create one on Web-ct. This would become a support issue for the university; data could be compiled easily both quantitative and qualitative, but confidentiality may be a problem.
c. Use the computer services personnel and use the preprinted standardized instruments. This is very inexpensive and turn around time is less than two days, once the surveys are submitted to them. The open-ended responses would need to be compiled by an external person.
Discussion: It was decided to use the services of computing services and
use the five item bubble sheet. Each department head is to submit the
names of the external support personnel to collect and summarize their
open ended questions.
8. Rotation of Courses for the GNAG program. Courses, which were either
recommended or suggested for instruction, were distributed. Review the list of suggested courses; 1) send in changes. Once the list is developed, then we will offer at least one class from each option each semester via CIV or other distance education technology. 2) Send suggestions for the name for the options; 3) at each semester, select the class that will be offered via distance education.

9. New Teaching Factors. A handout of the new teaching factors was distributed. The new weights are based upon 2080 hours (52 weeks), not a 3-semester model (48 weeks.)
10. Alumni Survey Instrument.
Each unit head was asked to submit the name(s) of individuals to serve on a committee to develop an alumni survey instrument.
11. Distance Education Task Force Report. A general discussion was conducted as a result of the task force report. Various components of the undergraduate and graduate programs were discussed. General agreement was that the ACTA partnership was not working as there is little support from the community colleges and that we should find ways to maintain a relationship without the delivery of courses. It was stated we did not have the support personnel to have a strong distance education program, but there were niche markets that might be considered such as the food industry. Some indications are that certificate programs, either credit or non-credit, may be a new demand from non-traditional populations. The general consensus is that we might look to develop certain certificate programs as web-based programs. Release time, bonus pay, or teaching assistants were discussed as an incentive to faculty to develop web courses. There was general consensus we should have graduate centers in the state for the graduate classes offered each semester. (D. Graham was charged to create action steps and a final plan for change for the college.)
The meeting was adjourned at noon.