Enrollment Management Committee
Subcommittee on Distance/Outreach Learning
Final Report
Section 1: Charge to the Subcommittee and Relationship with MU’s
Strategic Plan
The charges to the Subcommittee on Distance Learning/Outreach Learning and the
relationship of the charges to the MU Strategic Plan follow. This report will address
distance learning programs and outreach programs designed for nontraditional students
such as those who learn in the evening program, face-to-face off-campus, via the video
network or by distance learning.
Charge 1: Determine the role of distance learning and non-residential learning in
meeting the needs of current and potential MU students
1. Growth of MU’s distance learning and for-credit outreach is supported by both
the MU Mission Statement and MU Strategic Plan. Distance learning programs
are an indication of the commitment to outreach and service to students and
should be mission driven. At the same time, that distance learning can provide
access to MU programs, assurances must be in place to guarantee the program
quality will not decrease using this delivery method.
MU Mission Statement:
As the state's original and largest land-grant university, the University of
Missouri-Columbia has as its mission creativity and the discovery, preservation,
application and dissemination of knowledge on behalf of the people of Missouri,
the nation and the world. (1997 MU Mission Statement)
MU Strategic Goal 3:
Consistent with MU’s role as one of the nation’s great land-grant universities,
emphasize strongly the clinical, service extension, and outreach responsibilities
throughout the campus.
Goal 3 Specific Objectives:
Ensure that MU is an engaged university, i.e., one that responds to and
serves the needs of the general public through its many educational,
clinical, service and outreach activities in health care, business, law,
agriculture, and other areas. Strengthen specifically those outreach,
extension, service, and distance education programs where MU has the
expertise to identify and respond in effective and fiscally responsible ways
to state needs and problems.
Charge 2: Determine the optimal size for distance learning and for-credit outreach
programs

MU currently has 11 Distance Learning Programs offered through MU Direct. In
FY 2000-01 there were 390 for-credit courses with 5,350 enrollments generating
3,186 undergraduate and 11,456 graduate credit hours. It is expected that these
enrollments will increase by 10 % this year, 5% next year, and 1% a year
thereafter, at a minimum.
o Nursing – online RN to BSN
o Radiography – BHS degree completion program
o Respiratory Therapy – BHS degree completion program
o Health Informatics Executive Program MS
o Health Services Management Executive Program (MHA)
o Information Science & Learning Technologies
 Emphasis in Library Science (MA)
 Emphasis in Educational Technology (M Ed)
o Master of Education with a focus in (M Ed)
 Educational Leadership (Educational Administration)
 Gifted Education
 Literacy
 Social Studies
o Journalism - Media Management (MA)
o Mental Health Nursing (MS)
o Pediatric Nursing (MS)
o Public Health/School Health Nursing (MS)

A survey of deans indicated that three new distance learning programs are
currently being developed. It is estimated that these programs will have 50
students enrolled in 5 years and 100 students enrolled in 10 years. A masters in
Social Work funded in part by UM System to be offered in north west Missouri is
also under consideration.
o
o
o
Health Science in Occupational Therapy (MHS)
Respiratory Therapy (BHS)
Radiography (BHS)

The MU in the Evening BGS program offered by the College of Arts and Sciences and
facilitated by MU Direct currently enrolls 190 students. This program is expected to
grow to a steady state of 250 students in the next five years.

The Center for Distance and Independent Study (CDIS) expects to enroll
approximately 4,000 student enrollments in total for FY02 from all four
campuses. Since all enrollments are directed through MU, all could be counted in
MU enrollment figures, although they have not been included in any institutional
counts in the past. For FY 01 there were approximately 5,700 enrollments in
CDIS; however, this number is expected to drop for FY02 due to policy changes
enacted at UMKC. Assuming no changes in the fundamental relationship
between CDIS and departments, the incorporation these enrollments in MU’s
enrollment numbers would cause a corresponding increase in MU’s enrollment
numbers. Assuming current operating procedures, these students are expected to
increase by approximately 5% per year
Optimal Size
The optimal size of the distance learning and outreach for-credit teaching mission
of MU will ultimately be established at the department and program level.
Assuming a constant motivation to participate in these programs over time, there
will be modest growth in this sector as new programs are developed and as the
market for MU’s product grows slightly. The ability and desire of programs to
extend their offerings to non-traditional students will vary, depending on the
incentives in place and the perceived benefits to the departments involved.
The proper counting of the non-traditional enrollments will also influence the size
of the University. Whereas UMSL has counted their dual credit high school
students in its enrollments, MU has not counted MU Direct, CDIS, or other offcampus enrollments as part of MU, even though those students are part of the MU
mission and are supported by MU resources. Size planning must include the
counting of all students.
Section 2: The key recommendations of the subcommittee related to the
charge
1. The ultimate size of MU’s distance learning program must be determined by
the aggregation of the efforts of the divisions. Departments/divisions must
assess their individual programs, opportunities, needs, resources, incentives
and ability to deliver a quality product consistent with on-campus offerings
and campus expectations. All distance learning degree programs and for
credit courses work must have an academic home in an appropriate academic
department or division with the curriculum controlled by the faculty of the
area offering the program.
2. The MU infrastructure which supports distance learning must be improved to
be more student friendly with better and more consistent services, if growth is
desired.
3. Ways to remove barriers that exist for nontraditional and distance students
must be identified. These barriers include admissions and registration
procedures and the provision of advising and financial aid services, among
others.
4. The funding model for distance learning should be reexamined to assure the
provision of appropriate shared infrastructure with minimal redundancy, high
quality student services, and departmental incentives for distance learning
efforts.
5. Assessment and program review efforts should be enlarged to include distance
learning programs.
6. It is essential to address the CDIS enrollment issues. Reduction of barriers to
the use of CDIS credits would allow more aggressive marketing of the
evening BGS program and other on-line degree completion programs. This
would increase participation of students in CDIS.
7. Registration and admission procedures must be developed to allow the
inclusion of all distance learning, CDIS, and other non-traditional enrollments
to be included as part of MU’s student counts.
Section 3: The assumptions used in developing the recommendations as
well as an analysis of the issues that provide the basis for your
recommendations.
1. Distance learning is congruent with MU’s Mission and MU has the current
infrastructure to support distance learning endeavors although there are barrier
and inefficiencies which should be addressed in planning. The infrastructure is
fundamentally sound and can be scaled up to handle more students since the
funding model allows investment in the infrastructure. Distance learning serves a
crucial role in meeting the needs of current students and has the potential to serve
additional students; however, the ultimate role of distance learning must be
determined by divisions as they assess their individual programs, opportunities,
needs, resources, incentives and ability to deliver a quality product consistent with
on-campus offerings and campus expectations.
2. Demand for learning opportunities for non-traditional students is growing.1





From 1980 to 2000, part-time enrollments in higher education have grown
27%
Over the same period, part-time enrollments among women age 35 and
older have grown 137%.
Students already in the workforce cannot afford to quit their jobs to attend
school.
Part-time master’s students accounted for 51% of all graduate, degreeseeking enrollments.
Total higher education enrollments of students age 30 and older have
grown 63% from 22% in 1980 to nearly 30% of all higher education
enrollments in the year 2000.
“Responding to Diverse Learner Needs,” in Lifelong Learning Trends, UCEA, sixth ed. 4/2000, pp. 3338.
1
3. MU has developed and has in place a system for distance and outreach learning
that assures program quality and will scale to serve larger enrollments. The
following is MU policy with respect to for-credit distance, off-campus, and MU in
the Evening programs:
 All distance learning courses and programs at MU must have an academic
home in a department or division. The faculty of the department or
division has complete control over and responsibility for the curriculum,
the admission of students, course content, and all academic standards. No
academic course or degree program is offered except by the department or
division. All instructors are hired by and responsible to the unit offering
the course/program.
 Students must meet MU’s academic standards and/or admission criteria to
enroll in any degree program.
 An infrastructure exists through MU Direct to provide administrative
services for the programs in conjunction with MU’s admissions,
registration, and financial aid offices.
 MU Direct funds a significant portion of the services of ET@MO to
support faculty members in the creation of high-quality on-line courses
which are part of degree programs.
 MU Direct will provide student services including library and computer
access, help-desk, registration, program information and promotion, and
marketing.
 All programs must be financially self-sufficient. A budget model exists
which splits the revenue from these programs to provide for both
infrastructure and departmental costs and incentive.
4. MU’s distance learning efforts will support diversity by providing access to a
diverse population of learners who are older, first-time college, geographically
disperse, and of varying backgrounds. The degree to which ethnic minorities will
participate in distance learning programs is not known. On-line learning will be
impacted in varying degrees by the participation of ethnically diverse students.
For some subject areas it is thought that on-line minority students will not be
discernable from majority students. In more behavioral areas, minority students
may bring valuable insights to their student colleagues. Current research is mixed
with respect to the value of diversity as an enriching factor for on-line courses. At
a minimum, MU must identify areas where potential minority on-line learners
may be located and assure that they have appropriate program information and
access.
5. MU’s distance learning efforts complement the retention and graduation
completion goals addressed by the retention and other subcommittees.
 The actual number of MU students who have been retained due to the
presence of the Center for Distance and Independent Study (CDIS) or other
on-line course work at MU is not known, although anecdotal instances are
known. Additional information about these students should be gathered.

The degree to which distance learning will support MU retention efforts in the
future will depend on the resolution of some of the issues associated with
CDIS.
6. The size of MU’s for-credit distance learning enrollments are determined by the
upper limit of demand for MU’s outreach products and the commitment of the
deans/chairs to provide access to their courses and programs in this way.
Specifically, the number of enrollments and credit hours generated will depend
on:
 The number of divisions (colleges or schools) and departments who choose to
develop and support distance learning coursework and programs.
 The type of programs developed (degree completion, bachelors, masters,
certificate, etc.)
 The enrollment capacity of the programs created.
 The demand for and the competition with the programs created.
 The sufficiency of the funding model.
 The quality of support services for departments and students.
Section 4: Steps and timetable needed to accomplish these recommendations. Delineate
the steps that can be accomplished with the current resources and those that will need
new resources. Also identify those steps that will require structural changes such as in
organizational reporting lines, etc.
1. Establish a taskforce to study barriers to distance learning and non-traditional
student enrollments. The taskforce will be charged to identify changes to
administrative procedures which can be implemented immediately. They will
identify barriers to be brought to appropriate curriculum committees for
considerations. Finally, they will analyse the infrastructure and delivery system
costs and make recommendations with respect to the appropriate funding of the
distance and outreach teaching. Report Due January 20, 2003.
2. Establish a work group to determine administrative changes and other changes
needed to properly represent all non-traditional enrollments. These changes
should be in place to allow correct counting for the Fall 2002 student census.
Section 5: Appendix. Include information such as list of charges to each "subsubcommittee" (when relevant); key resources, such as prior reports, used in making the
recommendations; resource people consulted; and other related information.
APPENDIX I
Barriers and issues to be addressed in future subcommittee work

Residency Issues

Admissions Issues

Registration Issues

Financial Aid Issues

Center for Distance and Independent Study Operations

Funding Issues including infrastructure, service delivery, and departmental
expenses

Redundancy of Infrastructure
APPENDIX II
CDIS
The Center for Distance and Independent Study currently enrolls 445 undergraduate
and 253 graduate FTE students. These students generated 10,674 credit hours in AY
2000. This credit and these enrollments are not counted anywhere in the UM System,
although the 1972 memorandum from UM System clearly established CDIS as a
Columbia campus unit.
The academic department offering the course reviews all CDIS courses maintained in
the CDIS inventory annually. Each year, the chair is asked for changes and
comments and must give approval for offering the course in the following year. The
courses offered are existing offerings from MU, UMR, UMSL and UMKC. Faculty
working with the courses on an overload are approved by the chair before the develop
or teach the subject matter.
It is now important that we address two issues:

Appropriately counting the CDIS credit as part of MU enrollment.
This may entail addressing issues which previously were not
considered, such as admissions access to non degree seeking students.

Integration of CDIS into the overall distance learning operation of MU
so as to take advantage of common infrastructure as possible.
APPENDIX III
MU Direct Policies and Procedures
Insert Extension Division Document here
APPENDIX IV
Responses to Q&A about MU’s Current Distance Learning Practices
What model should we use? A separate D.L. “campus” verses a combined
D.L./traditional campus?
The Provost’s Office supports the policy of all distance learning programs having
an academic home on campus. There has been little indicated interest in the
development of a separate campus with separate programs. Recent news items
describing the problems encountered by national universities with distance
learning programs has shown that strong academic links are necessary for success
of most distance learning programs.
What should be the DL admission requirements?
Same as for MU, with program admissions set by faculty members in the
program, as currently done.
What is the cost to the department, college or school?
Colleges/Department/School provide instructional resources (pay for instruction)
and contribute to infrastructure with a fee charged “off the top.” Revenues are
returned to the units after fees to support infrastructure are deducted.
What is the cost to the student in time and dollars?
Depends on program. Programs have latitude in determining fees charged
depending on demand for the program and type of program.
How is residency (as it relates to cost to the student) determined?
This topic is under discussion.
What are the enrollment goals? Is there an emphasis on net new students?
It depends on the program. Some programs have a set size, others are more
flexible. Ultimately, this may depend on funding model, demand, and the mission
of the department/division.
How does the new RAC model for revenue distribution impact distance learning?
Revenue generated by the 70/20/10 model for outreach teaching covered by inload teaching assignment will be part of the revenue generated by student fees in
the basic RAC model. Revenue generated by 70/20/10 model for outreach
teaching covered by overload or other teaching assignments will be paid to the
unit outside the RAC model. Units will continue pay the cost of instruction and
course fees to MU Direct.
How can D.L. be made seamless and integrated with the campus systems.
Working with MU Direct every effort is being made to revise administrative
activities to use and strengthen existing financial aid, registration, admissions,
reporting, educational technology and computing services. . There is a strong
preference to not create or maintain redundant systems.
How will faculty workload and performance review be conducted?
Since distance learning contributes to the mission and productivity of the
department, the contributions of faculty to these programs should be included in
workload and performance review.
How will support services and staff be paid for?
From revenue generated by the programs. Centrally held resources will be paid
for from the course fees and 20% provost allocation. Divisional support will be
compensated from the divisions 70%.
How will internal and official reporting be done?
All students taught a part of departmental and divisional programs will be
counted. They will be included as MU students in CBHE reports. Efforts are
currently underway to make sure that all distance students are properly counted.
Who sets academic policy for distance learning?
The faculty of the programs involved in a manner consistent with university
policy.
How will library support be provided?
On-line and residential library privileges will be provided as for any student.
Eventually MU may need to consider the implementation of a library fee for
distant learners. .
History of Distance Learning at MU
Prepared for Distance Learning Subcommittee of Enrollment Management Committee
Thomas A. Henderson, Vice Provost, MU Extension
January 3, 2002
At the request of the distance learning subcommittee of the campus enrollment
management committee, this paper has been developed to describe the "big picture" of
distance learning efforts at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Before describing those
efforts and the context of current practice at MU, it seemed important to describe
historical policy perspectives within the University of Missouri System.
Prior to May 6, 1993, policies governing the operation of Extension/Continuing
Education evolved under Sections 40, 90 and 210 of the Collected Rules of the
University of Missouri System. (Those Collected Rules are contained in Appendix
A.) At the May 6, 1993, meeting of the Board of Curators, the following sections
were repealed: Sections 40.010, 40.030, 40.040, 90.060 and 320.020. In
addition, Section 40.020 was removed from the Collected Rules. (See Appendix
B for the Board of Curator's action.)
An author's review of the Collected Rules as well as Executive Orders by the
Office of the UM President showed no direct instruction related to the current
administration of distance learning within the UM System. Following the May 6, 1993,
board action, President George Russell sent a letter delegating responsibility for the
operation of all Continuing Education programs to the respective Chancellors. The letter
included his directives on the full costing of continuing education but also stated
Chancellors could exempt "programs"(emphasis added) from full costing at their
determination. (See President's letter in Appendix C.)
There are Collected Rules, currently in place, to address such issues as faculty
compensation and fee structures that affect the delivery of distance learning credit
initiatives; but the author could find no Collected Rules or Executive Orders at the UM
system level to use as policy guidance for distance learning efforts at MU.
While the MU campus is bereft of system-wide policy guidance in the delivery of
distance learning, a rich tradition exists of providing access to those who have been
historically described as non-traditional students. The delivery of such campus efforts
has included credit and non-credit experiences since the turn of the 20th century.
The focus of this paper is centered on the delivery of credit courses/programs and
degrees. Distance learning in current use has been used to differentiate course delivery
through the medium of on-line delivery via the Internet. At MU, the earliest off-campus
credit work was delivered by faculties in the Colleges of Education and Agriculture to
teachers, reached by means of the railroads. Since that time, different mediums of credit
delivery have included face-to-face instruction, video tapes, instructional television, CDROMS, Internet and combinations of the aforementioned.
Credit courses have also been delivered since 1911, in an asynchronous as well as
a term or semester-based manner. Asynchronous delivery of university credit courses
through the Center for Distance and Independent Study involves anytime enrollment with
nine months to complete a course of study.
In a position paper prepared May 1987, Dr. Roger Young, Director of the Center
for Independent Study, briefly outlined the administrative history of the Center. (The
history of that administrative evolution is described in Appendix D.) It is clear that in
1965 the Center was moved back to the Columbia campus for its administrative and
budgetary home and that it should involve the four campuses. There does not seem to be
any instruction from the system or MU campus at that time, or since, as to the academic
disposition of the credit generated by UM faculty via the Center's support.
In April 1985, the University of Missouri College-at-Home Program was moved
from the University of Missouri Central Administration to MU, Center for Independent
Study and renamed the Video Credit Program. Formerly known as the University of
Mid-America, the Video Credit Program delivered university-level courses to students
via television and tapes. Most courses have been print based with a video component.
This medium of delivery has greatly waned in light of other delivery alternatives.
(Appendix E supports Dr. Young's account in the preceding Appendix D.)
The MU Extension Division has recently sought to more closely integrate the
credit delivery work supported by the Center into the fabric of the MU campus.
Approximately 8% (422) of CDIS' 5,249 university level enrollments in FY 00-01
involved students already enrolled at MU. Another 102 resident students from the other
UM campuses were enrolled during the same period. The remaining 89% of the
enrollments came from students not considered "enrolled" at the time of completing the
CDIS supported course. (See Appendix F.)
At this time, all credit supported through CDIS is treated as transfer credit to the
MU campus. Students, unless already enrolled, are not considered to be MU students.
This issue, in recent weeks, has come to the forefront of discussions because MU library
agreements prohibit such students from having access to the electronic reserves of the
library.
Unless involved in the development and delivery of asynchronous credit courses
through CDIS, there seems to be a dearth of information and/or understanding by faculty
and administrators concerning courses supported by the Center. Courses are taught by
UM faculty on an overload basis. Faculty are approved by the respective chair or unit
before they develop and teach the subject matter. Dr. Von Pittman, Director of CDIS,
notes that courses developed for CDIS are reviewed annually by the academic
departments and serve as the bedrock of university level evaluation. He further states
that each year the study guide or URL for each course is sent to the respective department
chair for changes and comments as well as the chair's approval for offering the course in
the following year. Such discussion and review have the potential for curricular changes
or withdrawal of courses from the CDIS course inventory. "Academic rigor and
timeliness are the foundation for any academic review" as stated by Dr. Pittman. This
annual review process is meant to secure approval for the departmentally appointed
faculty member to teach as well as for approval of the course offering. A significant
decision in front of the campus lies in the status of UM/MU students supported by
courses taught by UM/MU faculty through the Center for Distance and Independent
Study.
A second medium for delivery of off-campus credit courses is supported in the
MU Extension Division by MU Direct. This unit supports term or semester-based credit
delivery for non-traditional students, including the newly initiated MU in the Evening
effort. MU Direct's effort was reorganized about two years ago and the expectations for
the MU Extension Division were incorporated into Provost Deaton's letter of November
1999. (Provost Deaton's letter is Appendix G.) Two off-campus degree programs: the
Master's in Social Work in Southeast and Northwest Missouri and the Master's in Public
Administration in Jefferson City are not currently supported by the MU Extension
Division as outlined in Provost Deaton's letter.
MU Extension efforts in support of off-campus credit have grown significantly
with new technologically based methods of instructional delivery. During FY00-01, MU
Direct supported 5,350 enrollments that generated 14,642 credit hours. Approximately
78% of the student credit hours supported by MU Direct were at the graduate level.
Coupled with the delivery of 15,221 hours of credit through The Center for Distance and
Independent Study, the MU Extension Division provided the infrastructure for almost
30,000 hours of undergraduate and graduate credit during the past year. (See Appendix
F.)
An additional indication of the campus' commitment to distance learning is
embedded in the most recent Fifth Report on the Strategic Planning Process dated June
2001. Strategic Goal 3 states, "Consistent with MU's role as one of the nation's great
land-grant universities, emphasize strongly the clinical, service, extension, and outreach
responsibilities throughout the campus." (Goal 3 and the accompanying specific
objectives to strengthen distance education programs are included in Appendix H.)
The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on
Institutions of Higher Education offers additional insight into the Division's role from an
accrediting perspective. The NCA Record of Status and Scope states under new degree
sites that "no prior Commission approval required for offering existing degree programs
at new sites within the state or through the Extension Division." (The NCA Record of
Status and Scope is contained in Appendix I.)
With the explosion of on-line learning, much discussion has ensued over issues of
perceived quality of such efforts. The nationwide discussion has resulted in statements
developed by the North Central Association and the Missouri Coordinating Board for
Higher Education. (The CBHE and NCA practice statements that are supported by the
Extension Division and Educational Technologies at Missouri may be read in Appendices
J and K respectively.) A 2001 monograph by Judith Eaton for the Council for Higher
Education Accreditation is an excellent national summary of accreditation issues in
distance learning. (It is found in Appendix L.)
Dr. Amy Hyams, in a December 2000 dissertation for the Doctor of Education
Degree at the University of Nevada Las Vegas, explored Intra-Institutional
Collaborations: Academic and Continuing Education Departments on Campus. In her
review of the literature, Dr. Hyams noted, "King and Lerner (1992) also argued that
continuing education units are often pressured to fulfill two potentially competing
expectations: to be a profit center and to be a conventional academic unit. King (1992)
addressed this issue further and indicated that in addition to generating new funds and
supporting the traditional university agenda, continuing education administrators are
frequently forced to compete with academic deans for the same, often dwindling, internal
resources. Consequently, the competition can lead to conflict between schools,
departments and deans (King, 1992). King and Lerner (1992) concluded by presenting
an integrated model approach combining entrepreneurism and academic rigor, and
suggested that the ideal situation involves continuing education in the strategic planning
process of the parent institutions and continuous, intra-organizational coordination (King
and Lerner, 1992)."
Given the lack of UM system guidance in the form of existing executive orders or
collected rules, the means that the MU campus chooses, to academically and
administratively integrate its credit delivery to off-campus, non-traditional students,
should be of its own making. Given 90 years of off-campus history in credit course
delivery, the question for MU seems, to the author, to center on a model for appropriately
wedding entrepreneurism and academic rigor in our campus processes and practices.
In considering the role of distance education in any of its present and future forms
and its relationship to enrollment management, the traditional who, what, where and how
questions seem to be ever present. As long as distance education at MU is considered to
be an entrepreneurial process that is void of centralized campus resource support, the
answer to the "what" question of academic credit offerings could be said to lie within the
academic units and their respective programmatic needs for increased student access.
The external "who" question in distance learning is minimally limited by the emerging
globalization of higher education. The internal "who" question appears to focus on the
issue of increased access as a public, land grant institution vs. the academic rigor that
resides in an extensive research institution of higher education. The question of the
"internal who" seems to have created the most diversity of opinion across the campus at
this time. The "where" question of our distance education students is limited in some
instances by public policy established through the Missouri Coordinating Board of
Higher Education. New off-campus degree programs that utilize face-to-face or ITVdelivered instruction are problematic to initiate in light of competing institutional
offerings from non-MU campuses or institutions. Since on-line degree efforts originate
from the MU campus, the issue of place or "where" at this point in time has not been
addressed by CBHE. The answer of "how" to consider distance education in enrollment
management as well as in the general academic culture at MU seems to lag the other
practice questions.
If the who, what and where questions are within our reach to answer, the central
question is whether we have a collective campus resolve to answer the important
"how" question.
APPENDIX V
Committee Information
Charge to the Committee:
Determine the role of distance learning in meeting the needs of current and potential MU
students
Determine the optimal size of distance learning enrollment at MU
 1 year target
 5 year target
 10 year target
Subcommittees
1. Current practice at MU and at peer institutions (delivery, structure and
enrollments)
2. Infrastructure and organizational changes needed to facilitate increased
involvement in distance learning (removing barriers)
3. DL program plans of MU colleges, units, and departments
4. Funding models
5. Capacity issues
Committee Members: Deborah Finfgeld, Mark Prelas, Suzanne Ortega, Debbie Robison,
Richard Andrews, Brenda Selman, Michael Prewitt, Roxanne McDaniel, Barbara Rupp,
Ed Mahon, Von Pittman, Esther Thorson, Theodore Tarkow, Russell Jeffrey, Thomas
Henderson, Lori Franz.