Council of Chairs
Meeting Minutes
3:30 – 5:00 PM Senate Chambers
March 18, 2014
Meeting Invitees:
Anziano, Michael <ANZIANO_M@fortlewis.edu>; Baranski, John
<BARANSKI_J@fortlewis.edu>; Boxer, Majel
<Boxer_M@fortlewis.edu>; Brandon, Maureen
<Brandon_M@fortlewis.edu>; Brandt, Keri J
<BRANDT_K@fortlewis.edu>; Cardona, Nancy
<cardona_n@fortlewis.edu>; Chew, Beverly <chew_b@fortlewis.edu>;
Colby, Chad <colby_c@fortlewis.edu>; Elkins, Dennis
<drelkins@fortlewis.edu>; Erickson, Mary Ann
<erickson_m@fortlewis.edu>; Frazer, Lee <frazer_l@fortlewis.edu>;
Fulton, Richard <fulton_r@fortlewis.edu>; Gilpin, Sandra
<Gilpin_S@fortlewis.edu>; Gonzales, David
<GONZALES_D@fortlewis.edu>; Haaland, Ryan K
<haaland_r@fortlewis.edu>; Hannula, Kim <hannula_k@fortlewis.edu>;
Hartney, Cathleen <hartney_c@fortlewis.edu>; Jung, Marcy
<jung_m@fortlewis.edu>; Kendall, Kathy <KENDALL_K@fortlewis.edu>;
Lienert, Carl <LIENERT_C@fortlewis.edu>; Lyon, Douglas
<LYON_D@fortlewis.edu>; McCormick, Peter
<mccormick_p@fortlewis.edu>; Meyer, Carrie
<MEYER_C@fortlewis.edu>; Morris, Barbara
<morris_b@fortlewis.edu>; Oliver, Astrid <OLIVER_A@fortlewis.edu>;
Ortega, Joseph <ORTEGA_J@fortlewis.edu>; Owen, Dugald
<OWEN_D@fortlewis.edu>; Paul, Ellen <PAUL_E@fortlewis.edu>;
Pepion, Kenneth <PEPION_K@fortlewis.edu>; Reed, Marc
<mareed@fortlewis.edu>; Riggs, Charles <RIGGS_C@fortlewis.edu>;
Shuler, Phil <SHULER_P@fortlewis.edu>; Smith, Carol
<SMITH_CAROL@fortlewis.edu>; Smith, Pam
<smith_p@fortlewis.edu>; Snyder, Lisa <lmsnyder@fortlewis.edu>;
Sommerville, Les <Sommervil_L@fortlewis.edu>; Stanley, Kelly
<kmstanley@fortlewis.edu>; Wendland, Amy
<Wendland_A@fortlewis.edu>; Wilhelm, Suzanne
<WILHELM_S@fortlewis.edu>; Miller, Richard; Team Leaders and
Cabinet Liaisons for Criterion 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 work groups
Meeting Minutes, March 18, 2014
Page 2
Next meeting:
April 1, 2014
ANNOUCEMENTS:
Lisa Snyder said that the Chairs should be receiving an email from Suzie Null, Chair of the
Assessment Committee, with information about the Assessment Committee liaisons assigned to
each department. Liaisons will be available to departments to provide support as they collect and
analyze data for the annual program assessment plans.
AGENDA:
1. HLC Team Leaders’ presentation and discussion
The Provost gave an overview of the reaccreditation process. Institutions voluntarily agree to
participate in regional accreditation process. The Federal government is holding regional accrediting
bodies and states accountable for ensuring institutions offer quality curricular and co-curricular
experiences to students. There is current legislation attempting to move authority away from
regional accrediting bodies, giving more authority to federal and state governments.
HLC recently changed its accrediting approach and FLC is one of the first schools to go through the
new process. FLC will be going through both the Program to Evaluate and Advance Quality and the
Academic Quality Improvement this year. In the future FLC will go through one of these evaluation
programs every 5 years.
What do students have the right to expect upon graduation from their overall experience at the
institution?
Presenters:
Criterion 1 - Glenna Sexton
Criterion 2 - Ray Kenny
Criterion 3 - Pete McCormick
Criterion 4 - Anne McCarthy & Lisa Snyder
Criterion 5 - Erin McKenzie
Questions:
Can you elaborate on the timeline for the agenda items presented today? The timeline is
compressed. The final report including the evidence files is due in 2015. New policie s identified by
the Criterion workgroups will need to be in place by Spring 2015 so they can be uploaded . We will
continue the same process of bringing new policies to the Council of Chairs so that they can be
brought to faculty, then discussed again at Chair’s Council before they are brought to Faculty Senate.
The Policy on Policy workgroup has developed a policy on policy that is currently being reviewed by
the College attorney for legal review. In addition to the policy the workgroup has developed an
online site where all existing and new policies will live. Additional policies that will be coming to the
Meeting Minutes, March 18, 2014
Page 3
Council of Chairs are: Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property for Distance Education, Copyright,
Curricular Review Policies & Procedures, General Education Assessment.
Erin Lehmer, Chair of the General Education Council, will be presenting General Education Reform
proposal to the Council in April.
Betty Dorr explained that the report to the HLC will focus on policies and procedures. The narrative
piece of the report is limited to a total of 35,000 words. The bulk of the report will be the evidence
of what is said which will be demonstrated by linking to policies and procedures.
Bob Stremba asked about the retention and completion rates policy mentioned in the presentation.
The Quality Initiative is focused on student success and improving graduation rates. The College
has a goal for persistence, retention and graduation. We will show HLC that we have a plan for
improvement and we are taking actions to move toward these goals. The College’s current rates are
lower than average.
Kim Hannula asked if information about current grant projects that are focused on retention would
be helpful to share with the Criterion workgroups. Yes. The Quality Initiative Task Force should be
looking at successful practices across campus.
Dugald Owen asked about how we are going to ensure rigor and how rigor in courses is measured.
Lisa Snyder responded that we don’t currently have a collective understanding of what ri gor is and
that it is important for the faculty and departments to have this conversation. For example, who
looks at a syllabus in a specific discipline to evaluate for a text is appropriate for a 300 level course
or that higher order thinking skills are being assessed in higher-level courses? In some cases
departments are doing this type of evaluation and evaluating courses for but there is not
documentation of this practice. Currently the Curriculum Committee reviews and approves a new
course proposal but there is not documented practice of evaluating courses for appropriate learning
activities, difficulty of assignments, etc. after courses have been taught.
Sandy Gilpin asked if there are plans to have these discussions about rigor? Faculty have express ed
concern about the Curriculum Committee’s rigor statement currently at Faculty Senate. The
Criterion workgroups recognize that the proposal is not sufficient and recommend that the CC meet
with the faculty on the workgroups to develop a comprehensive statement on rigor. There will be
an opportunity for this conversation to occur in the Fall.
Pete McCormick commented that the evaluation of rigor in courses may be occurring during the
junior faculty review and during program review but these practices need to be formalized and
documented so that they can be given to HLC as evidence.
Alumni tracking has not been done at the institution level. Some departments have well -established
ways to stay connected to alum. An Alumni Director has been hired and she will eventually be
available to help departments. The Art department has found this difficult in spite of on -going
efforts. Departments should let the provost know if the new Alumni Director is not providing
assistance. Kim Hannula said that she found the director to be helpful in posting updates about
alum on the department Facebook page.
Meeting Minutes, March 18, 2014
Page 4
The provost discussed the Federal government’s new initiatives to rate colleges and universities
based on the success of their graduates. Many institutions have challenged the Scorecard and the
indicators of success. Salary earnings are not necessarily the best indicators. Institutions are
proposing that quality of life is a better indicator of success after graduation.
Michael Anizano raised a concern about the demands on departments for Spring 2015. Many
departments will be undergoing curriculum redesign, preparing HLC evidence files, and program
reviews. The provost stated that all departments will be undergoing some form of curricular
redesign, as general education reform will affect all departments. The deans may suspend program
review to allow departments more time and resources to reflect on assessment data and changed
to their curriculum. It is important for all departments to continue working on their program
assessment plans as these will help to inform curriculum changes. There will be a number of
workshops in the fall to assist faculty in this process.
Richard Fulton asked if there will be a system to help departments collect and evaluate data. We
are looking at assessment software, however in the meantime we will continue to use the
assessment wiki. Canvas may provide departments with ways to collect evidence of stud ent learning.
The Criterion workgroups have already begun to collect evidence and will be contacting individual
departments when additional information is needed.
The fact that the college will not have a completed assessment cycle for general education be fore
the HLC visit is a vulnerability.
Keri Brandt asked for clarification about the substantive change form. The provost reviewed what
she told the Council last spring based on information provided by the past liaison. The current
liaison has confirmed that the College only needs to submit the Length of Term form. This form and
8 syllabi were submitted this week. The provost stated that it is possible that the HLC could change
their requirement and request another form be submitted.
Kerri Brandt asked how much this was going to cost. The provost said the cost will depend on what
HLC does with the form. The cost will depend of if HLC chooses to do a desk review, a group review
or make a site visit. The time for review can range from several weeks to mont hs.
Nancy asked if Dr. Johnson (the current HLC liaison) is aware that some program’s curriculum will
change 100%. The provost submitted a list of all academic programs that will change as a result of
the conversion to the 3-credit model. Dr. Johnson assured the provost that the form the college
should submit was the Length of Term form.
-Meeting adjourned at 5:00