Meeting Minutes: Regents Administrative Committee on Student Affairs (RACSA)
Sea Palms Resort, St. Simon's Island
June 3-5, 2001
Sunday, June 3
The Regents' Administrative Committee on Student Affairs was called to order at 3:20 by Chair, Charlie Nutt (Coastal Community). Introductions were made since several new student affairs officers were attending for the first time. Dr. Nutt distributed a draft document of a "Statement of Purpose" and "Bylaws." He asked members to review these documents and be prepared to discuss at the Tuesday business meeting. In response to discussion at the November RACSA meeting, the new Vice Chancellor for Academics, Faculty, and Students was introduced and asked to discuss the parameters of this newly established position in the University System Office. Dr. Frank Butler began by indicating a need for information from RACSA regarding needs, concerns, and issues. He also requested input regarding RACSA's perception of the role of the new Vice Chancellor position and encouraged on-going contact between his office and RACSA.
Barry Fullerton (USO) announced that changes will be made in admissions requirements - particular those requirements regarding elective academic units. Funding will be needed to support travel for USO staff to introduce and explain changes at system institutions as well as at public high school. Dr. Fullerton indicated that the internship for Student Affairs at the USO was approved and implementation is imminent if all funding details can be addressed. Jackie Gray (Atlanta Metropolitan) has been recommended for this position.
Additional comments from Butler acknowledged the academic orientation of the USO administrative team but indicated that student services need more attention. Dick Mullendore (UGA) addressed the need for funds to provide services to students on system campuses. Butler pointed out that student learning is a continuum and opportunities include both classroom and out of class experiences. All funded initiatives should focus on student learning and should consider impact on various constituencies. For example, the academic calendar developed by the USO presented logistics problems in connection with the new "Teachers for Georgia" program. This could have been avoided with more attention and additional input.
Joe Buck (Armstrong Atlantic) cited the value of assessment centers for students with disabilities as an excellent example of collaboration and communication. He pointed out that the system would benefit from a similar approach in serving distance learners. Dr. Buck encouraged consideration of establishing centers for meeting the needs of distance learning students. Tonya Lam (USO) responded by indicating that the system technology group is meeting monthly to discuss services and delivery of services for distance learners. She requested that all ideas and suggestions be sent directly to her for presentation to the technology committee. Dr. Butler emphasized the importance of establishing policies, procedures, and practices to serve student needs rather than for administrative convenience. Collaboration among system institutions has the potential to greatly improve services to students. He indicated that a collaborative approach would be especially helpful in dealing with issues related to Banner and PeopleSoft.
Dr. Nutt reemphasized an ongoing RACSA concern regarding the sharing of information on all matters that impact students. Butler responded and indicated that RACSA members would be included in all pertinent correspondence.
Dr. Nutt introduced the current Student Advisory Council (SAC) Chair, Brian Beers. Brian began with an overview of SAC's annual goals and his personal goals during his tenure as president. He reiterated the need for student affairs professionals to be involved in processes related to student services and vice versa. A primary personal goal is to have 100 % participation by all system institutions in SAC meetings. He recognized that communication has been a problem in the past and indicated his intention to communicate more directly with chief student affairs officers. One of the agenda items for SAC during the coming year is to secure exemption of textbooks from sales tax requirements. He also indicated that the student fee process, which began in 2001, would require additional attention. There is a general concern that all system campuses may not be following process as intended. SAC plans to exert more effort on making sure that campuses understand policy and process as they related to mandatory student fees. Another major issue for SAC is providing students a much stronger voice in selecting outside agencies for services on campus (i.e. food service, bookstore, etc.) Plans are being developed to appoint a technology committee to examine issues that impact students, such as the universal card and better on line access to information and services on all campuses. Brian encouraged each RACSA member to involve students in campus decisions. He also asked for support in making sure that each system institution is represented at SAC meetings. He also requested that RACSA members continue to communicate with SAC regarding campus issues.
Bruce Harshbarger (Georgia College and State University) indicated that clarification on the policy and process regarding student fees is needed. He pointed out that interpretation by various constituencies might be a hindrance to addressing student needs in some cases. Current practices at the system level do not appear to consistently support student needs and recommendations. As an example, Dr. Harshbarger pointed out that students on his campus recommended increases in the health and athletic fee in order to increase services and programs. The system approved an increase but a much smaller increase than that recommended and supported by students. Several decisions at the system level suggest a lack of understanding of relationship between fees and headcount on various campuses. Partially funding a recommended increase may prohibit any kind of programmatic or service delivery change. The issue of presidential recommendation regarding the establishment and use of student fees needs to be clarified also. Fred Barnabei (Augusta College and State University) identified the prevalence of the perception is that fee recommendations from presidents will not be supported unless they are endorsed by a student committee. Fullerton indicated that this is not an accurate perception; presidents remain in control of institutional budgets and may, for valid reason, alter a recommendation by a student committee. Fullerton emphasized and Brian Beers agreed that the intent is to make certain that students are informed of fee increases and that they are aware of how student fees are used. Beers indicated that students are not opposed to increases but they do want to be informed and have a clear understanding of purpose, use, etc. Dr, Nutt reiterated the concern expressed by Harshbarger and requested a review of USO response to recommendations that have followed all procedures. At the present time, no explanation is given when a recommendation from an institution is altered at the system level. At present, there is no explanation when recommendations are altered. Fullerton indicated that current leadership would review the concern and insure open communication between the USO, presidents, and students regarding fees and fee allocations.
Dr. Buck brought forward a concern regarding the role of student affairs professionals in establishing system-wide processes impacting students. Using the new mandated process for determine fees and fee budgets as an example, Dr. Buck pointed out that campuses that have historically involved students in these decisions were required to change their working processes and procedures in response to the failure of some campuses to not involve students. Buck encouraged SAC to collect widespread input to avoid changing policy and practices in response to situations on one or two campuses.
Beers responded by stating that SAC always seeks input. Buck encouraged the leadership of SAC to discuss issues with campus student affairs officers prior to recommending changes since student affairs professionals are general very knowledgeable of issues regarding fees and campus climate in terms of student satisfaction with processes. He also indicated the need for Vice President and Deans of Students receive copies of correspondence from SAC regarding meetings, agenda items, etc.
Charlie Nutt directed RACSA members to the SAC website. Maintenance of the web site is a high priority for SAC.
Harshbarger endorsed Buck's suggestion and encouraged SAC to dialog with chief student affairs officers on system campuses. On some campuses, changes in policy and practice may result in decreased emphasis on student concerns and input. Beers readily agreed that more input from student affairs would be appropriate.
Tonya Lam (Senior Advisor for Student Enrollment/Information Services) gave her report and indicated improvements to the USO web site in terms of RACSA's visibility. She encouraged every campus to develop a students services web site if one does not currently exist. Lam pointed out that RACSA minutes are now available on the web site.
Lam indicated that Banner issues still demand attention. Several campuses are scheduled to implement Banner 5.0 and to begin the migration to PeopleSoft. In addition, the system is reviewing the implementation of CAPP (degree audit program) and developing methods to assist individual campuses. She emphasized the importance of system-wide consistency for CAPP to work effectively. The system will also provide more information to institutions on Banner applications that are currently available but are not being widely used.
Georgia Easy is being phased in on campuses and will change the input of data. An implementation schedule should be announced in the near future. In response to questions about Pipeline, Lam indicated that campuses will be required to handle the cost of implementing Pipeline but the system will provide estimates of these costs.
The system survey on the use of technology on campuses will be distributed again in the fall. Lam also indicated that using a type of student ID other than the social security number is under consideration. John McElveen (Middle Georgia) asked if systems institutions will be mandated to use Pipeline and pointed out that some campuses do not have resources to support these kinds of initiatives. These campuses are handicapped in that they cannot provide services of an equal quality. Barry Fullerton reiterated that there would be no system funds to support these institutions in supporting PipeLine. Some support from the system will be available for the implementation of CAPP. McElveen encouraged the USO to emphasize the importance of these initiatives to presidents and fiscal officers so that institutional funds will be made available to support these directives. The USO does plan to solicit more input from users regarding the appropriateness of applications and products.
Fullerton announced the appointment of a system residency review committee that is charged with reviewing current board policy. The current policy is interpreted differently by various campuses. The goal of the committee is to draft a new and more generous policy that will be easy to understand and follow. Tom Walter (Gainesville) is a member of the committee.
The USO now handles all Student Advisory Committee finances. Fullerton reported that this was done in response to mandates from state auditors. He reaffirmed commitment to the student affairs internship program and indicated that plans seem firm to have Jackie Gray (Atlanta Metropolitan) serve in this capacity two days per week beginning in the fall. Fullerton reviewed changes in admissions requirements regarding additional academic units, home schooled students and those graduating from unaccredited high schools.
Wilcox (Georgia Tech) and Gray reported that results of the Alternate Dispute Resolution assessment are back from ACT. A method for disseminating results is under discussion. Data are reported in clusters and by gender, age, and class. ACT will supply a system interpretation for a fee of $2000.00. The abundance of data collected should result in strong recommendations for ADR for students at system institutions. Both Gray and Wilcox emphasized the need for system support and identified Betsy Neely's office as the most likely source.
Charlie Nutt presented the final agenda item for the day by announcing the nomination of Jackie Gray as Chair-Elect of RACSA. This nomination was unanimously endorsed by the membership.
The meeting was adjourned with plans to reconvene on Tuesday, June 5.
June 5, 2001
Charlie Nutt called the meeting to order at 10:45. He made the suggestion that RACSA members arrive earlier at the 2002 summer meeting and avoid the need for a Tuesday session.
Nutt expressed concern that student affairs professionals are not represented on the search committee for Chancellor and indicated that he had shared this concern with Dan Papp. Committee reports were then requested.
Jane Thompson reported for the Technology Committee. Several surveys were received indicating campus technology needs and concerns but Thompson indicated that it would be sent again since there was little time to respond. The following issues have been identified: Resources, shared information, and the availability of expertise. A number of applications are available but are not currently used usually for reasons associated with one or more of these issues. When more information is collected via the survey, a report will be sent to the membership and to the USO.
Charlie Nutt presented information from the Assessment Committee. Topics under discussion are using assessment for accountability, the dissemination of "best practices," and a workshop in collaboration with RACIE on assessment for accountability. The workshop will have a strong student affairs focus and all staff members should be encouraged to attend. The plan calls for a central location and low cost to facilitate attendance. RACSA may be asked to present information on assessment in student affairs.
Fullerton indicated that there is a role for RACSA in letting the USO know about institutional needs for assistance with Banner. He pointed out that a web site is available for training and will be updated with Banner 5.0.
Plans are in place to hire a financial aid professional in a position similar to that held by Tonya Lam. Funds have been designated but approval is pending with the Office of Planning and Budgets.
One of Jackie Gray's assignments as an intern at the USO will be as liaison to the Student Advisory Committee. She will also respond to issues and concerns presented by students and other constituents and work with the Student Satisfaction Survey. One meeting has been held with campus coordinators for the Student Satisfaction Survey. Each campus should have a designated coordinator.
In further discussing the role of SAC, Fullerton indicated that he had suggested a change in site for future SAC meetings. Rock Eagle was suggested as a possibility. At present, there appears to be too much free time at SAC meetings. Some student leaders have expressed resentment of the time wasted at these meetings. Campus representatives have requested the opportunity to provide more input into determining meeting agendas. It is anticipated that the presence of the student affairs intern and a more defined structure for RACSA will address some of the concerns.
Dan Papp (USO) was given an opportunity to make comments and he encouraged RACSA to maintain ongoing contact with the USO. Visits to the central office and e-mail contact are encouraged. He reminded RACSA that students are the central focus of each branch of higher education in Georgia and the reason that we are in business. He identified out of class experiences as requiring as much attention as in class, academic experiences. All aspects of student learning are critical and deserve the attention of system administrators. Dr. Fullerton should be the first point of contact for RACSA at the USO; Frank Butler should be next followed by Dr. Papp. All three will meet regularly with SAC and will seek student and student services input.
Questions were raised about the make-up of the search committee for Chancellor particularly the absence of a student services professional on the committee. Dr. Papp indicated that changes would not be made to the committee at this time. It will serve as advisory to the Board and is made up of faculty, business, presidential and student representation. A search firm is also being utilized.
Harshbarger (Georgia College & State University) raised the issue of process for determining mandatory student fees. Changes were made at the USO level with no rationale. He pointed out that the emphasis on keeping fees low might run counter to student needs and requests. It also appears that size of institution is not considered in reviewing fee proposals. Papp responded by acknowledging that the process must be adjusted to consider size. The process is new and requires certain refinements. He indicated that some system presidents presented compelling cases for fee changes while others were less dynamic. This seemed to have an impact on final results. Papp supported the provision of feedback regarding rationale for final decisions on fees and indicated the need for an appeal process in the event of disagreement. Presidents must be instructed on the importance of their role in determining outcome of fee-related requests. Papp emphasized that student committees on individual campuses are advisory and that recommendations come from presidents. Papp was not aware of the fact that the form submitted with fee proposals indicates the vote of each committee. He pointed out that it is not accurate to assume that a fee will not be approved if students do not support a presidential recommendation. Chances of approval may be enhanced if students support a recommendation but a fee could be approved for good cause without student support. Many campuses have indicated that the process is working well. Inclusion of salaries in athletic fees makes consideration of this fee different from others. It was suggested that institutions could not be easily compared in terms of athletic fees. A reduction in the amount of a recommended fee leaves institutions with few options since requests are generally specific with an attached cost. Number and kinds of sports are also a factor.
Buck (Armstrong Atlantic) brought up benchmarking in assessment - particularly with the Student Satisfaction Survey. The survey heavily emphasizes athletics and student life. Broader student opinion would be useful for evaluation and planning.
Randall (USO) presented information on the Microsoft license issue. It seems a strong possibility that groups of students may now be licensed. He also announced that faculty and staff would have the opportunity to purchase hardware from a designated vender and use payroll deduction. This process should be in place and operational by fall. Campuses should be aware that changes in licensure might result in increased costs. The new license agreement will cover all machines owned by an institution and allows for installation on home machines of faculty and staff.
Tom Walter presented a request of support from the system counseling professionals regarding B Code designations. The request specifies that codes should reflect licensure and other requirements for counseling center staff. The recommendation allows for hiring counselors who are not licensed but will reflect these credentials when a licensed person hired. A motion was made and seconded to support the counselors' requests and passed unanimously. [ Report from the University System of Georgia Counseling Directors' Association (PDF 400k) ]
Charlie Nutt reported for the Registrar, Admissions, and Financial Aid group. They are focusing on implementing the HOPE Banner module and a financial aid reporting process for the system.
Rhonda Holmes (Georgia Perimeter) presented the report from the Student Activities Directors on behalf of Penny Wills. It was announced that Michael Sanseviro from Perimeter will serve as the new chair of this group. Judith Bryant (North Georgia) is currently serving on the Leadershape Georgia planning committee.
Charlie Nutt asked for feedback on the organization document that was disseminated at the first meeting. Clarification was requested on whether RACSA is identified as administrative or advisory to the board. Though the distinction is ambiguous, RACSA is designated as administrative.
A motion was made and seconded and the membership unanimously supported the content of the organizational document with any needed editorial changes.
Jackie Gray, new Chair-elect and Jane Thompson, incoming Chair, were introduced. Thompson expressed appreciation to Charlie Nutt on behalf of RACSA for excellent leadership. This was unanimously endorsed by the membership.
Following discussion, a decision was made to hold the fall meeting at Clayton College & State University. A date will be selected that will allow participation by key people from the USO.
Thompson indicated that minutes would be distributed via e-mail as will a corrected directory. The Technology Survey will be redistributed for those who did not have an opportunity to reply previously
With no further business items identified, the meeting was adjourned.