Meeting Minutes for
SACSSOC Ad-hoc Reaffirmation Compliance
Certification Task Force
DATE:
LOCATION:
October 29, 2014
ACAD 201
Task Force Members:
Ed Whitelock, PhD, Compliance Certification Chair
Terry Betkowski, SACSCOC Liaison
Richard Baskin, PhD, Associate VP Academic Affairs
Dennis Chamberlain, EdD, VP Student Affairs
Janet Barras, Registrar
Jeff Hayes, Director of Computer Services
Clint Chastain, Comptroller
Sonya Gaither, PhD, Librarian
Departments and Faculty Representatives:
Business & Public Service: Brenda Johnson, PhD
Biology: Linda Hyde, PhD
Fine Arts & Performing Arts: Prof. Tony Pearson
History & Political Science: Frank Winters, PhD
Humanities: Adria Goldman
Mathematics & Physical Science: John George, PhD
School of Education: Pam Bell, PhD
School of Nursing: Christina Quinn, PhD
Members Present: Dr. Whitelock, Prof Betkowski, Janet Barras, Clint Chastain, Dr. Gaither, Dr. Hyde, Prof
Tony Pearson, Dr. Winters, Dr. Goldman, Dr. Quinn, and Dr. Stephen Raynie
Members Absent: Dr. Baskin, Dennis Chamberlain, Jeff Hayes, Dr. Johnson, Dr. George, and Dr. Bell
Call to Order: Task Force Chair, Dr. Whitelock, called the meeting to order at 2:05 and stated that
hopefully everyone was most of the way through determining the documents needed to support the specific
standards on their checklists. Dr. Whitelock also stated the purpose of this meeting was to hone in on the
areas that are lacking sufficient documentation to demonstrate compliance and determine where we need to
focus our efforts.
Missing or Insufficient Supporting Documentation:
Professor Betkowski stated that once all of the CCTF checklists have been completed, a workgroup needs to
review the data. This will provide other eyes to review the data to see if the questions are truly answered.
Professor Betkowski expressed concern that there are likely to be several missing areas and some
documentation may not be sufficient. For example, “It’s on file.” is not sufficient. Emailing the document is
also not sufficient. There needs to be a link to the actual document.
This brought up a discussion among several members on the purpose of the electronic documents room.
This would be a secure website that committee members are able to access; however, some secure
documents will need additional sign-in codes to limit access to only those who are approved to view the
specific document.
Mrs. Barras asked what to do if committee members find a standard for which Gordon has no supporting
documentation. Dr. Whitelock confirmed that members would note that the documentation is not currently
available so this can be addressed at a later date.
Finding Examples of Supporting Documentation:
Mrs. Barras also asked for clarification on determining “what evidence exists.” Dr. Whitelock recommended
finding the standard in the SACSCOC Accreditation guide and looking at the types of examples that are listed
as acceptable.
Mr. Chastain mentioned that, while he does use the SACSCOC Accreditation guides, he has found the
University of South Carolina and the University of West Georgia reaccreditation websites more useful for
locating specific examples of supporting documentation.
Dr. Hyde mentioned that several of the W. GA documents did not seem to fully support the corresponding
SACSCOC requirement. Professor Betkowski notated that W. GA had several recommendations. Clayton State
had no recommendations, but, unfortunately, the Clayton State re-accreditation data is not public.
Prof Betkowski also mentioned that while the University of South Carolina website has great examples, one
detriment to using this site as a guide is this school does not reference Georgia Board of Regents policies in
its documents.
Ad Hoc Reaffirmation Compliance Certification Task Force
October 29, 2014
Supporting Documentation, Additional Information:
Mrs. Barras summed up the 3 potential answers to the supporting documentation question:
1. Here is the link to the data.
2. There is currently no supporting documentation.
3. This requirement is N/A to Gordon.
Professor Betkowski also noted that some supporting documentation will overlap multiple questions.
Dr. Whitelock mentioned that while the individual questions asked under each standard are helpful, the
primary focus is the overall question. If this question is answered, then it is ok if some of the individual
questions under the overarching standard are not answered.
The variations in language between SACSCOC and supporting GSC documents (for example, General
Education vs Core Curriculum) were discussed. Dr. Whitelock stated that as GSC works longer with
SACSCOC, the language will become more standardized.
Dr. Whitelock also reminded members that the SACSCOC review team will ask questions about any
insufficient documentation and Gordon will have the opportunity to answer these questions.
Visit Timeline and Final Thoughts:
Offsite visit: End of 2015, followed by the Focus Report
Onsite visit: Spring 2016
Dr. Whitelock plans to spend the next 2 weeks looking closely at the checklists to identify specific areas of
need.
Next Meeting: The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 19, 2:00 PM, in NAHS 123.
The target for this meeting is to finalize where we are in order to give guidance to the next committee.
Adjournment: Dr. Whitelock adjourned the meeting at 2:51 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Creché Navarro
Page 2 of 2