Reports of the Institutional Planning Committee to the
Faculty Senate / Academic Year 2000-2001
(see also the respective minutes of the Faculty
Senate)
September 2000
Report from the Institutional Planning Committee (IPC)– M. Smith stated that the IPC had met
twice since the April Senate meeting to discuss the Program
Review Document. They approved
the document included with the agenda as Attachment #4 and
recommended the Senate’s
approval. They also met on September 18, 2000 for an organizational
meeting. The committee
plans to conduct the annual review of the VSU mission statement
and will review the budget
amendment process. L. Milbrandt stated that
it would be difficult for department heads to report
on
the viability and productivity data as it appears on Attachment #4, Page 4 of
the agenda and
asked that it be made more specific. B. Derrick referred to the
references about a review team on
Page 2 of Attachment #4 and asked what the make up of that
team should be. She also asked how
the review teams would be scheduled, if they are made up of off
campus individuals. D. Bogyo
referred to John Oliver’s previous report to the Senate, during
which he suggested, on behalf of
the task force, that the review team be composed of individuals
outside the university. L. Levy
stated that it had been suggested that this review process be done
on a case by case basis with
various departments. B. Derrick made a motion to remit the program
review document back to
the IPC until they can compose a final version of it. J. Hiers stated that a program review
document had to be passed by the Senate in order to report to SACS on
VSU’s progress on their
recommendations and to avoid a follow up visit. J. Elza
stated that department heads could begin
gathering the program review information and could ask questions of
the committee as they arise.
L. Levy suggested that the Senate pass the program review in
a formative way in order to report
to
SACS that the program review process is being piloted in the university. B.
Derrick amended
her motion to indicate the policy be remanded to the committee
for further study but that the
Senate give the Vice President for Academic Affairs’ office permission
to use the program
document for a piloting study in the interim. This was approved.
October 2000
Report from the Institutional Planning Committee – M. Smith stated
that the IPC met on October
16, 2000 to discuss the Program Review
Document. The committee decided to monitor the
use of
the document this year while trying it on three different
programs. They will make amendments
to
it after they see how it works. The committee welcomes any information or
suggestions from
department heads that will make for a stronger document next year.
November 2000
Report from the Institutional Planning Committee – M. Smith
stated that the committee
met on November 13, 2000 and approved their October minutes and
addressed the
program review policy in an attempt to make it fit the recently
released Board of Regents
guidelines. They are still working on this policy. L. Levy stated that
he had received
three program review items from the system office for degrees
that were approved three
years ago. These items required statistical reports from
individual departments regarding
the number of graduates in those degree programs.
February 2001
Report from the Institutional Planning Committee – M. Smith
stated that the committee had met
to
review the program review policy to ensure that it was in line with the Board
of Regents
policy. They made some changes and sent it back to the Executive
Committee.
March 2001
Report from the Institutional Planning Committee – C. Backes gave the report on behalf of M.
Smith. He referred to the Program Review document and asked for
approval. After some
discussion, the document was approved.
April 2001
Report
from the Institutional Planning Committee - M. Smith reported that the
Institutional
Planning Committee met on April 10 to conduct their annual review of
the
Brignati, and Dr. Levy made presentations to
the committee and that the committee
hoped to make a few minor recommendations on
the procedures in the near future.
This
report is included as Attachment #4.