Pointer Partnership Advisory Board
Minutes for February 26th, 2016
1:15 PM, DUC Room 378
I.
II.
Call to Order
1:17 PM
Roll Call
Present: Vida, Behselich, Glazner, Trzebiatowski, Welz, Peralta
Absent: Grutza
III.
Approval of the Agenda
Agenda approved with no discussion.
IV.
Public Forum for Non-Agenda Items (3 min. each)
No speakers from the public.
V.
Review Academic and Career Advisor Position Description
Trzebiatowski: Is this model a cohort model? Does the body need to know
anything about the model to be able to speak to this document?
Vida: Advisory members are for this; the Memorandum of Understanding laid an
outline which can be flexed to serve the colleges.
Vida: Why is it stated in the PD that ACAs report to the colleges’ satellites or to
University College? Shouldn’t it be the central ACAC within University College where
they report?
Sue: Explained wording troubles and complications in the development of the
model and plans. Concerns shared that students won’t know where to go, given the
names, particularly if they’re all very similar.
Expressed desire to have a different name for the central unit.
Discussion focused on potentiality of different names, the confusion of having the
satellites called ACACs when the central unit is the ACAC. Implications of this.
Al: Warning against “getting into the weeds,” assurance that this is unimportant
to the discussion.
Andrew: Is the Student Success Center in the CNR being asked to move?
Sue: It’s not set up to handle so many people—they need to move to an
appropriate space, particularly if they gain staff.
Trzebiatowski: Suggestion to focus on the process of advising and referral, and
not the names of things.
Sean: Are the bullets under “additionally all professional advisors will” repetitive
or redundant? It sounds like they will be brand new, training one another. That doesn’t
make sense.
Sue: Differentiated the three bullet points with the help of Max, discussing
internal training and networking, sharing amongst colleagues from other centers, and
training and working with peer advisors.
Trzebiatowski: Some will know things others won’t—and particularly when it
comes to faculty who are not trained in this or perhaps prepared, even a new advisor can
offer support.
Welz: Some departments can definitely use this help.
Sue: Sharing advising duties will free faculty up to have a more meaningful
relationship with students and then they can focus on their field.
Andrew: Asked of advisors present if they were concerned with percentages as
reflected in position description.
Becky: Concerned—peer mentor advising is a specialty and takes time—can’t be
split across all these positions, a tiny portion of it done by each.
Al: Not a concern of this body, it’s just a position description, everything’s in flux
and not everyone will do all these things.
Sue: Lead advisors may be present in each center, but the position description for
the search could only be one so it had to be generalized.
Becky: Should it be in here if many candidates would never be asked to do it?
Al: It’s a blanket position common to all searches for academic and career
advisors—many won’t do all these things.
Sue: Each college has a representative for the search and screen, then University
College, then SGA—student. Could this be a student advisor or peer mentor?
Everyone, basically: Yes. That makes good sense.
Sue: Bringing candidates to campus—deans will be involved, PPAB will be
involved, Advising Council maybe—they will offer recommendations to deans. Deans
make this decision.
Vida: Are the advisors in the room comfortable with this line remaining in the
PD?
Sue: Yes.
Trzebiatowski: This position needs to be mutable—I have definitely not been
asked to do everything in my PD—and my PD has only grown.
Sean: It always shakes out—the PD isn’t always 100% to everyone. Needs
growing room.
Vida: It won’t be an even split of each duty under the section’s percentage. It will
differ by person, by the needs of the center, by the contemporary needs of the college.
Sue: It’ll differ between colleges.
Becky: It’s a monumental task to have a peer program—recommends campus to
consider the nature and structure of possible programs.
Peralta: Clarification—we’re putting this out there and bringing people in, then
colleges will slot them in where they want them. Shouldn’t there be more than 1 PD
then?
Cross training is a huge learning curve.
Vida: My understanding is that one PD is involved because it has to hire for
everyone but colleges have some autonomy, though there will be cross training. Minor
university-wide, moderate in-college, possibly area-specific expertise. But they need to
be able to move and support elsewhere at times based on needs.
Peralta: They need more specialty.
Trzebiatowski: They need to know it all, really.
Peralta: So is it people then structure, or structure then people?
Sean: It’ll have to be both. There’s mutability. I’d suggest moving peers into
college-specific duties.
Becky: Move it to college specific.
Sue: I’d want the deans’ word that they’re going to honor it and it will stay.
John: What’s our role here as a body?
Vida: We look at it and determine if it’s appropriate and if it serves the
discussions we’ve had on campus. We consider it with advisory people and approve it to
allow the search and screen to continue; it cannot continue/begin without our approval.
We also need to discuss if we will send our things to Senate for final approval. There
aren’t bylaws yet so we can’t be in violation of them.
Trzebiatowski: This is a marketing tool (PD) to get people to apply.
Peralta: All leaders and no followers is a problem—no structure will lead to chaos
if everyone “has the same position”.
Trzebiatowski: They really have to learn before they can teach. We may end up
being supervisors to begin with.
Sue: It’s the training, not the position—we don’t know. It will be different and
look different, and we also don’t know how the search will go (in terms of number of
applicants or how many can be hired).
Welz: Don’t have to do all these things just because they’re in the PD.
Greg D.: We should trust the structure of the model and the search and screen,
whose job this is.
Sean: It’s 3 weeks—we can further discuss these things.
Vida: Well, 4 weeks.
VI.
Vote considering opening the search for advisors
Discussion focused around Senate approval. The PD was approved pending
Senate approval, so this measure was also approved pending the Senate approval of the
PD.
VII.
Presentation by Sue Kissinger
Sue: We need a student for the Search and Screen. Can it be a student advisor, or
do you want someone from PPAB? Max is from PPAB and he’s on it. So a student at
large, an SGA member, or a peer advisor or some sort?
Vida: That’s definitely possible. Any of it.
Sean: Advisor student!
Glazner: Someone from SGA or a student advisor.
Becky: Someone from my office is interested in PPAB. Graduate student though.
Vida: I don’t think that’s possible but I’ll check the statutory language. Have her
fill out the app and we’ll contact her.
Glazner: There’s one additional seat.
Sue: Any other questions?
Peralta: Thanks!
Vida: Send us any questions you’d like us to consider about advising.
VIII.
Adjournment