higher learning commission focused visit report...writing team: david cox, chair; greg thornburg,...

HigherLearningCommissionFocusedVisitReport

Shared Governance

Shared Governance

ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY ‐ JONESBORO

HigherLearningCommission

FocusedVisitReportMarch 2008

Strategic Planning Shared Governance

Arkansas State University educates leaders, enhances intellectual growth, and enriches lives.

2 Arkansas State University-Jonesboro HLC Focused Visit Report 2008

Table of Contents

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………..3

Strategic Planning Process……………………………………………………..5

Overview……………………………………………………………………5

Planning Assumptions………………………………………………….11

Strategic Plan…………………………………………………………….13

Applications and Outcomes of Strategic Plan……………………..15

Enrollment Management Planning…………………………………...18

Shared Governance……………………………………………………………..23

Overview and Process………………………………………………….23

Revision of Shared Governance……………………………………...24

Academic Governance…………………………………………26

Institutional Governance………………………………………27

Faculty Handbook………………………………………………………30

Concluding Remarks…………………………………………………………...35

Appendices………………………………………………………………………36


Introduction

Arkansas State University – Jonesboro participated in a comprehensive visit by The

Higher Learning Commission in March 2003. At the conclusion of that visit, a focused visit

addressing assessment, strategic planning and shared governance was mandated. In fall 2006,

HLC selected ASU as a pioneering institution for participation in the Academy for Assessment of

Student Learning and removed the assessment component of the focused visit. The rationale for

the focused visit addressing strategic planning and shared governance as stated in the 2003

Team Visit Report follows:

Strategic Planning

The team noted that ASU’s strategic plan was formulated in 1996. There have been a number of

significant changes that have rendered the plan obsolete. ASU has initiated changes in nearly

every area of the University including decisions to add doctoral programs, to emphasize research,

to create the Biosciences Institute and to include additional colleges and programs in an

institutional reorganization. These changes have not been integrated into a strategic plan that

provides a blueprint for managing them in a context of shared governance amidst, the challenging

economy of both Arkansas and higher education in particular, anticipated changes in the student

body of ASU, the opportunities posed by community colleges in the area, assessment, and the

changing roles of faculty members. The Team recommends a focus visit to examine a revivified

strategic plan that accounts for the major changes at ASU generated by its dynamic leadership.

The Focus Visit team should find evidence of a completed strategic plan in the process of

implementation and evidence that the plan is widely understood by the constituents of the

University community.

Shared Governance

The Self-Study indicated and the Team confirmed that ASU had a governance structure in place

that provides faculty, staff and student input to the decision-makers of the institution. A review of

governance documents, minutes and information from faculty also supported the Self-Study’s

conclusion that there is significant confusion about the meaning of shared governance at ASU.

Faculty members, chairpersons and elected Faculty Senate members indicated that connections in

decision making are elusive at ASU. Board members indicated to the Team that they were unsure

of the meaning of shared governance relative to their statutory obligations and to the


responsibility of the chief executive. The Team recommends a focused visit on Shared Governance

to evaluate whether the governance structure has been amended to insure faculty participation in

curriculum and related matters consistent with Higher Learning Commission provisos. The Focus

Visit team should find in place and operative, a clear chain of decision making within an

institutionally accepted understanding of shared governance. The Team should receive evidence

of an updated faculty handbook that includes delineation of the governance structure as

formulated through a process of shared governance.

Following the comprehensive visit, our campus began preparation and implementation of

an institutional strategic planning initiative. During this process, a specific strategic planning task

force, the Governance Task Force, addressed shared governance concerns. The Arkansas State

University Board of Trustees approved the new strategic plan in February 2005. The campus

continued work on the shared governance and faculty handbook components through mid-2007.

This report consists of strategic planning and shared governance sections. Separate

writing teams of key individuals involved in these processes provided the foundational information

for each section. The reports were merged to produce a common format with supporting

appendices. Additional ancillary reports and documents are provided separately in support of the

strategic planning and shared governance activities. These include unit strategic plans/goals, the

enrollment management plan, handbooks for faculty, staff and students, financial reports,

undergraduate and graduate bulletins and various institutional data reports.


Strategic Planning Process

Writing Team: David Cox, Chair; Greg Thornburg, Lynita Cooksey, Len Frey, Myleea Hill, Bud Kennedy and Scott Reeves

Overview and Process

The strategic planning process for the Jonesboro campus of Arkansas State University

began September 2003 when approximately 150 faculty, staff and students accepted the

campus-wide invitation to become involved on various task forces. The process was guided by an

external consulting firm and by an internal 38-member Strategic Planning Council.

Major planning “conferences” were held in October, February, and April of 2003-2004.

The October conference focused on an internal and external “environmental scan” of

opportunities and “driving forces” affecting the university. Draft reports from the task forces were

presented to the Council in February including a report from the Governing Ideas Task Force on

new statements of mission, core values and vision. The February conference generated a draft of

strategic priorities. The April conference developed strategic initiatives for each of the priorities.

Over the summer of 2004, a writing team from the Strategic Planning Council worked on refining

and polishing all of the data generated by the overall process.

In September 2003, President Les Wyatt (First Friday) addressed the question, “What will come from this strategic planning effort?”

First, I hope that the campus and external communities will share information, concerns, and dreams about what our university may become.

A tangible outcome will be a document that will define our ambitions, and which also will advise our successors about our wishes for their subsequent development of the university we will leave to them.

This planning document will be available for the Higher Learning Commission team when it returns. They will be able to gauge the success of our immediate efforts following the publication of the plan.

Finally, I am hopeful that the new plan will reinvigorate the university toward its future,

and that each of us may more clearly see how we fit into this development. If we commonly understand the direction we intend to steer, we are more likely to get there together. And if we can do that, we will be a stronger university.


The strategic plan product outlines a new mission statement for the university which has

clarity, succinctness, and passion for the university’s current purpose, a new set of core values

for guiding the actions of the university, and a new vision statement that seeks to capture

Arkansas State University’s aspirations for its future. The plan then presents a set of eight

priorities with initiatives listed for each priority as operational guidelines for budgeting and

decision-making over the next several years. This is our plan and our dream leading up to the

centennial celebration of Arkansas State University in 2009.

Timetable and Process http://asunews.astate.edu/StrategicPlanning.htm

Summer 2003 President Wyatt authorized the Academic Affairs Division to take leadership responsibility for development of a strategic plan for the Jonesboro Campus of Arkansas State University.

August, 2003 Strategic Planning Coordinator (administrator) appointed. Faculty member invited to serve as Chair of the Strategic Planning Council.

September 12, 2003 Invitation extended campus wide to become involved. Approximately 150 faculty, staff, and students accepted the invitation. The process was guided by an external consulting firm (Penson Associates) and by an internal 38 member Strategic Planning Council. Five task forces and three committees were involved.

Task Forces

o Environmental/Institutional Scanning and Driving Forces o Governing Ideas o Institutional Distinctiveness o Graduate Education and Research o Governance

Committees

o Diversity o Enrollment Management o Assessment

September 2003 Strategic Planning Council membership and Task Force membership (Appendix A) organized by Strategic Planning Coordinator and Strategic Planning Council Chair. Invitations issued from the President’s Office.

September 25, 2003 Research and Academic Affairs Council retreat generated planning assumptions

September 30, 2003 Strategic Planning Council

Initial meeting, generated planning assumptions


October, 2003 Planning assumptions were distributed and revised

October 8-22, 2003 Electronic Strategic Planning Survey, 240 responses from 105 faculty, 54 staff, 40 alumni, 19 administrators, 13 community members, 5 students, and 4 Emeritus faculty members. Questions were:

What two or three core values would you like to be associated with ASU?

What are two or three distinctive strengths or attributes for which ASU is known and respected?

What are two or three strategic planning directions in which you think ASU should be moving over the next five to six years?

What is the single most important thing that needs to be done for ASU to rise to the next level in terms of reputation and stature?

As you envision ASU in the year 2009, for what would you like it to be widely known and respected?

Please list any other ideas or issues you would like to share with the Strategic Planning Council

October 20, 2003 Stakeholders’ Conference

An internal and external “environmental scan” of opportunities and “driving forces” affecting the university. Approximately 110 participants. Facilitated by consultants Dr. David McFarland and Dr. John Moore of Penson Associates.

Panel Members

o Mr. Chris Thyer, State Representative o Mr. Joe Turney, Union Planters Bank President o Mrs. Marilyn Hummelstein, Partner of Hummelstein Iron and

Metal, Inc. o Mr. Mike Medlock, ASU Trustee and President of Insurance

Network

Participants shared the following information:

An overview of the planning process, the organizational structure for the process, timelines for various activities, and how the plan will be put into action.

A set of observations about the university given by representatives of the external community, and especially their perceptions of driving forces which would influence the future of ASU. The representatives responded to questions posed by participants.

A set of observations from Dr. John Moore about driving forces that have influenced other universities and that also may be pertinent to ASU.


A list of driving forces identified by stakeholders as those that present internal and external opportunities, threats, or concerns.

Participants at the Stakeholders Conference met in small groups (18 tables of 6 each) to identify internal and external driving forces they felt would affect the future of ASU; which of these forces would have the greatest impact, positively or negatively; and what should ASU do to take advantage of, or minimize the disadvantages of, these driving forces. Some 25 forces were identified. Each participant was asked to identify, through dot voting, the top five forces felt to be most important.

Those issues that rose to the highest frequency of identification, out of 458 indications, were:

University image (59) Finding new resources (51) Absence of a sense of cooperation and community (46) Communications - community (43) Internal pride (42) Who we are and who we serve (34) Appropriate balance between teaching, service, and

scholarship (31)

November, 2003 Distribution and analysis of electronic survey results

November 3, 2003 Strategic Planning Council

Planning assumptions finalized Task Force Reports

November 13, 2003 Stakeholders’ Follow Up (of Oct 20) Conference

Conversation with President Wyatt to discuss several internal issues. All stakeholders from Oct 20 invited. Approximately 90 attended. Agenda:

Sense of cooperation, communication, campus community, and internal pride.

Who we are and who we serve, including the balance between teaching, scholarship, and service, i.e., clarification of our mission and President’s perspective of our vision.

Finding new resources. Enhancing the university image, both externally and

internally.


November 20, 2003 Electronic survey data released to community at large

December 9, 2003 Strategic Planning Council

Task Force updates Student survey results Environment Scanning and Driving Forces draft report Principles for shared governance draft report

February 11, 2004 Strategic Planning Council and Governing Ideas Task Force

Task Force reports

Governance Environmental Scanning and Driving Forces Institutional Distinctiveness Governing Ideas Graduate Education and Research

Committee reports

Enrollment Management Committee report Diversity Committee report

February 17, 2004 Student forum on mission, core values, and vision draft

February 25, 2004 Faculty/staff forum on mission, core values, and vision draft

February 26, 2004 Stakeholders’ Conference on Strategic Directions

Chamber of Commerce from 3:00 to 9:00. In attendance were Strategic Planning Council, Governing Ideas Task Force, and Deans. Conference purpose was to generate a draft of strategic directions. Nine were drafted.

February 27, 2004 Deans met with consultant Dr. McFarland to discuss dissemination (March 1-12) of strategic directions at the College level.

March 1, 2004 Stakeholders received a polished version of outcomes from February 26 conference.

March 3-5, 2004 ASU at large received draft of February 26 strategic directions.

March 8, 2004 Strategic Planning Council (and writing team from Governing Ideas Task Force)

Meeting to discuss strategic directions, other task force data, and to look ahead to the strategic initiatives conference originally schedule for April 8, 2004, then moved to April 25, 2004. Worked on wording of strategic directions developed at the Feb 26 conference.


March 12-22, 2004 Governing Ideas Task Force and its writing team finalize strategic directions. Distributed to ASU at large after spring break.

March 22, 2004 Strategic Directions released to ASU at large with invitation to think about potential specific strategic (action) initiatives that stakeholders believe should be included with each strategic direction.

April 8, 2004 Strategic Planning Council

Approved nine strategic directions. Council entertained comments on the proposed mission, core values, and vision statements. Writing Team of volunteers formed to wordsmith mission, core values, vision, strategic directions, and strategic initiatives.

April 14, 2004 Ideas for initiatives, under each of the nine strategic , were solicited from the community at large through email.

April 26, 2004 Stakeholders’ Conference on Strategic Initiatives (measurable, action steps).

St. Bernard’s auditorium from 3:00 to 9:00. Strategic Planning Council, Deans, Governing Ideas Task Force, and other expertise. Came out with top ten initiatives from a total list of 140 initiatives. Approximately 75 participants

April 27, 2004 Strategic Planning Council

Strategic Plan draft, Delphi ratings, and Writing Team charge to “make sense” of all of the data generated by the overall process. This was a summer 2004 activity. Delphi led to dropping from nine strategic directions to eight.

May 26, 2004 Writing team met and agreed on a plan, a template model, and individual assignments. Writing team attempted to “make sense” of the initiatives generated April 26.

June 9, 2004 Rough draft of initiatives and action steps presented to President, Vice Chancellor for Research and Academic Affairs, and members of the Writing Team in preparation for June 14 meeting.

June 14, 2004 Writing Team met and finalized its draft work on initiatives and actions steps.

June 18, 2004 Draft of initiatives and action steps turned over to President.

July 13, 2004 Writing Team met to attempt breakthrough thinking on mission, core values, and vision statements.


July 14, 2004 President and Vice Chancellors met to discussion drafts.

July 16, 2004 President and Vice Chancellors met and produced an executive council draft version of strategic directions and initiatives.

July 21, 2004 President met with Writing Team, which now included Chair of the Governing Ideas Task Force, and asked the group to respond to executive council July 16 draft of directions and initiatives, plus revisit mission, core values, and vision.

July 27, 2004 Writing Team reviewed executive council rework of a Writing Team draft and produced another draft of eight directions with initiatives. Also worked on draft of mission, core values, and vision.

August, 2004 Faculty Colloquy, President presented eight strategic directions and accompanying initiatives. President invited feedback from ASU community at large.

September, 2004 Terminology changed from strategic directions to institutional priorities (to provide greater emphasis and attention).

October, 2004 Writing Team reviewed feedback from community at large on strategic planning priorities and initiatives.

January 14, 2005 First Friday reported on draft plans and asked for feedback by first of February.

January 28, 2005 Strategic Plan final draft.

February 25, 2005 Board approved strategic plan.

March, 2005 President met with Writing Team to discuss board’s response and to discuss ideas for distribution of the plan.

June 8, 2005 Strategic Plan published on ASU web site.

Planning Assumptions (in no order of priority)

Arkansas State University will continue to be a student-centered institution committed to educating, serving, and meeting the changing needs of students in and out of the classroom.

Enrollment

Competition for student enrollment will increase. ASU will remain financially competitive with comparable institutions. ASU will remain academically accessible. The student recruitment demographics will include a greater percentage of people of

diverse races. Creative outreach, recruitment, and retention activities will be critical to continuing

enrollment growth.


Resources and Facilities State funding will increase, but may decrease as a percentage of the overall

operating budget. External funding will increase. New funding sources will become increasingly important. Research funding from federal and private sources will increase. ASU will obtain commensurate state-funding comparable with other institutions of our

size and mission. Funding for instruction will increase. Tuition and fees will reflect increasing costs of operation. ASU will continue to expand and replace physical, informational, and technological

facilities and equipment. ABI funding will continue at or above its current level. State assessment and accountability will drive academic funding. The cost of acquiring qualified faculty and staff and providing faculty and staff

development opportunities will increase.

Curriculum and Instruction

Various instructional delivery models will continue to be used and new models will evolve.

Technology will continue to play a vital role in the facilitation of learning. Ongoing program assessment outcomes will impact curricular decisions. Undergraduate quality education will continue to be the primary emphasis of the

university. Graduate education will play a more prominent role at the university. Demand and competition for qualified full-time and part-time faculty will increase. ASU will continue to seek and maintain appropriate accreditation of academic and

support programs. Administration and Institution

Strategic planning will be active and ongoing. The ASU System will receive greater emphasis. The ASU Intercollegiate Athletic Program will continue to be challenged to meet

funding requirements of NCAA division 1A status. Institutional assessment and accountability will continue to increase. ASU will continue as a significant component of the engine for economic

development in the region. ASU will be responsive to business, civic, and governmental communities. While ASU is a university with a regional and global mission, the Delta will remain a

special focus.


Strategic Plan Mission Arkansas State University educates leaders, enhances intellectual growth, and enriches lives. (ASU = e3) Core Values Arkansas State University values the following as central to our success:

Student-Centered: We are committed to education, inquiry and service in order to meet students’ changing needs. We foster lifelong learning, civic and social responsibility, leadership, and individual and career growth.

Learning-Centered: We nurture intellectual flexibility, knowledge and skills by

integrating teaching, research, assessment and learning to promote continuous improvement of our scholarly community.

Excellence: We pursue excellence within the campus community through opportunities

for achievement in teaching, research, scholarship, creative activity and service. Diversity: We embrace diversity in all of its dimensions realizing that mutual respect for

individuality and the inclusion of all are vital for personal and institutional success. Service: We support and recognize service at all levels of the university. We strive to

contribute to the benefit of the university, the Delta, the state, the nation and the world.

Integrity: We hold high standards of character and integrity as the foundations upon which the University is built.

Vision Arkansas State University aspires to be an academic leader recognized for innovation and quality in teaching and learning, international standing in strategic research areas, and commitment to outreach and service to the Delta and beyond. Institutional Priorities

Priority: Enhance the university’s reputation, visibility and influence.

Coordinate, develop, and support Arkansas State University’s academic leadership position in the Delta and beyond.

Coordinate and expand internal and external communications.

Develop and implement an Arkansas State University Centennial Celebration with active involvement of all constituencies.

Develop a plan to make Arkansas State University competitive in attracting and retaining faculty and staff.


Priority: Enhance learning by focusing on the institution’s priorities — teaching, research, and service.

Establish Arkansas State University - Jonesboro as a premier learning centered university.

Design, develop, and implement a “Delta Educational Corridor.”

Increase opportunities for faculty and staff development.

Define and implement a revised faculty workload model, congruent with State of Arkansas funding mechanisms, which capitalizes on individual strengths in teaching, research, and service.

Assure access to relevant, current information resources and learning technologies.

Provide sufficient resources to the Arkansas State University library to support student and faculty teaching and research.

Enhance infrastructure for research.

Build upon alliances and opportunities presented by the Arkansas Biosciences Institute.

Priority: Develop a cohesive campus community based on strong shared-governance, excellent communication, and mutual respect.

Develop and implement a revised university governance policy.

Develop and approve a revised Faculty Handbook.

Enhance the effectiveness of university governance committees.

Facilitate open communication and information sharing among all constituencies.

Develop and implement plans designed to enhance faculty, staff, and student morale.

Develop training and mentoring programs to enhance the success of administrators, faculty, staff, and students.

Priority: Develop a culture of assessment to enhance institutional outcomes.

Implement a flexible and comprehensive institutional assessment strategy with emphasis on general education and academic programs to improve student learning.

Develop consistent data at the institutional level to support assessment and improvement.

Priority: Increase enrollment, retention rate and graduation rate of undergraduate and graduate students.

Design and implement a comprehensive enrollment management plan.

Develop programs and services that address the needs and increase the enrollment of non-traditional-aged students.

Develop and implement a strategy to enhance student persistence and academic success.

Assure student accessibility to ASU courses.


Develop and implement courses and programs to meet industry and community needs and interests.

Priority: Enhance the diversity and inclusiveness of students, faculty, staff, and curriculum.

Design and implement a comprehensive diversity plan.

Recruit, enroll, retain, and graduate greater numbers of students from underrepresented groups.

Attract, employ, retain, and advance greater numbers of university faculty and staff from underrepresented groups.

Integrate diversity and global perspectives into the academic curriculum and into programs and services for university students, faculty, and staff.

Implement a system of responsibility, accountability, and recognition for advancing a multiculturally diverse campus community.

Priority: Increase resources to the university.

Develop and implement a plan to generate non-state revenues.

Enhance opportunities for colleges and administrative departments to become entrepreneurial.

Provide opportunities to increase intellectual property-driven activities.

Priority: Strategically manage resources among divisions and colleges based on institutional priorities.

Define and implement an institutional allocation and reallocation process.

Applications and Outcomes of the Strategic Plan

Since the adoption of the strategic plan and institutional priorities in 2005, all units of the

university have made a concerted effort to uphold the priorities and associated initiatives as

applicable to the given unit. The University Planning Council (UPC) has used the plan to guide

the budgeting process for FY 2006, FY 2007 and FY 2008. Units are required to tie budget

requests to the priorities and initiatives of the strategic plan.

Approaches to the application of the strategic plan has varied by unit. The Research and

Academic Affairs division conducted a planning retreat in spring 2006 with deans and key

directors to determine what aspects of the plan (goals) were most applicable to academics and

how the division would proceed in supporting the plan. Individual colleges then used the division

goals for shaping their budget requests and initiatives. Since that time, each college provides an

up-date of its accomplishments in support of these goals along with a prioritized budget request


tied to the plan. The Student Affairs and Finance divisions have used similar approaches. This

mechanism provides for efficient, equitable distribution of resources as all units can support the

components of the plan.Selected examples of initiatives in support of the institutional priorities

follow. Additional supporting evidence will be available in the resource room.

Enhance the university’s reputation, visibility and influence

We have increased the visibility of the university through our Powering Minds branding campaign. As part of our enrollment management plan, a marketing committee was established to increase awareness of the university and promote enrollment. Opinion research showed that students that graduated from ASU had good experiences on campus and competed well in their careers. This resulted in a new branding theme, Powering Minds, which was implemented in March 2006. We instituted a new graphics package and an advertising campaign utilizing television, radio, billboards, web, newspapers, magazines, brochures and signage on campus. The market areas of these vehicles were central Arkansas, east and northeast Arkansas and southwest Missouri. The

look and feel of all communications emphasized Powering Minds.

The planning phase for ASU’s Centennial Celebration in 2009-2010 is well underway. The Centennial Celebration Commission comprised of alumni, community members, faculty, staff, students, emeriti faculty/administrators and other volunteers. Various task forces and subcommittees are planning activities to engage the campus, community and state beginning on April 1, 2009 with the commemorative signing of Act 100 establishing ASU as an institution, and concluding on October 3, 2010, the anniversary of the first day of class (http://centennial.astate.edu/Centennial%20Celebration.html).

Enhance learning by focusing on the institution’s priorities — teaching, research, and service.

The approval and implementation of the Student Library Fee at Arkansas State University for FY05 and continuing has been indispensable to building collections of print and non-print resources for support of study and research at the University. During the three and one-half years since the fee began, the library has been able to respond to and meet the needs of accelerated academic instruction and research of our students and faculty at the undergraduate and graduate levels, especially with regard to electronically produced and accessed resources. The active participation of all faculty in all disciplines in the selection of materials to be acquired with the funds has been the key to our success in meeting campus-wide needs. Examples of the impact of funds from the fee during the past there years are reflected in the annual increases in circulation of print materials, reductions in the volume of materials requested from other academic libraries, and documented substantial increases in the use of online resources.

The Faculty Center for Learning and Teaching (FaCuLTy) was developed in response to

faculty for supporting excellence in teaching through a collaborative interaction among faculty (http://www.clt.astate.edu/facultycenter/). Two faculty are reassigned half-time to provide programming that encourages student/faculty retention through the scholarship of teaching. The center staff works closely with the Center for Learning Technology (CLT) and Office of


Assessment. In addition, the CLT provides faculty development opportunities for on-line learning, Blackboard course management and related activities. The CLT has been instrumental in the increase of on-line courses through its assistance to faculty. In addition, an allocation of $87,000 has provided reassigned time, training and additional support to faculty to assist with the development of on-line courses.

As a component of our teaching mission, the increased focus on assessment of student

learning outcomes is assisting with improvements in instruction and course refinement. Several departments have implemented “clicker technology” to assess real-time learning in the classroom and laboratory. We are piloting the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) to assess critical thinking and writing skills; using COMPASS testing as a diagnostic tool for better placement of students in developmental courses and assessment of associated learning outcomes as well developing in-house assessment techniques. ASU-J organized the Arkansas Assessment Association and hosted the first state-wide conference in spring 2007 with representatives from over 20 institutions in attendance.

Research activities continue to grow. Faculty submitted 168 research proposals through

the Office of Organized Research and Technology Transfer in FY07. The number of submissions has increased approximately 20% since FY05. Intellectual property activities have increased significantly with 15 invention disclosures received and nine patents filed since 2004. Prior to this time, only one patent was on record for the university.

In 2007, ASU Childhood Services opened a childcare facility with the capacity to house

up to 140 children. This facility provides service to both ASU families (faculty, staff and students) and those within the community. The center is used for instructional and observational activities of the Colleges of Education and Nursing and Health Professions.

The College of Nursing and Health Professions’ newly founded Beck PRIDE Center

focuses on the Personal Rehabilitation, Individual Development and Education (PRIDE) of injured military personnel who have served in defense of the United States and who would benefit from rehabilitation and training in a university environment. We are hopeful that the PRIDE Center will become a national model (http://cp.astate.edu/pride/ ).

Develop a cohesive campus community based on strong shared-governance,

excellent communication, and mutual respect.

Revision of the university shared governance policy has been a major component of the strategic planning process and has required more person-hours to complete than most any other aspect of the plan. Although it has had several emotional moments The revised policy resulted from dedicated individuals whose dedication and persistence

A revised Faculty Handbook (http://academicaffairs.astate.edu/facultyhandbook.htm) has been adopted. Although some areas still are in need of improvement, both faculty and administration agree on the process for handbook changes and feel comfortable that with time, it will be more reflective of the desired result of both constituencies.

The First Friday (http://asunews.astate.edu/FirstFridayarchive.htm), a monthly report from the President, started by President Les Wyatt and continued by Chancellor Robert Potts, has provided better insight into the factors and events that influence decision making in the life of the university. Other electronic communications such as the Daily Digest (faculty/staff and


student versions) provided by IT Services, and Campus News and Inside ASU supported by the University Communications Office (http://asunews.astate.edu) provide timely information for and about faculty, staff, students and the institution.

Develop a culture of assessment to enhance institutional outcomes.

In spring 2007, ASU began its three-year participation cycle in the HLC Academy for Assessment of Student Learning. Our Assessment Academy Team consists of eight members who along with an evolving Council on Student Learning composed of representatives from each academic college, are helping our campus gain the confidence, skills, and growing commitment needed to improve learning on our campus. During the next few years, we will strive to create a sustainable institutional assessment structure for student learning for continuous improvement of student learning outcomes.

Increase enrollment, retention rate and graduation rate of undergraduate and

graduate students.

The development and implementation of a comprehensive enrollment management plan has addressed many of the initiatives associated with this priority. The enrollment management planning process is addressed later in this document.

ASU-J had its highest enrollment of 10,869 students in fall 2007 with a record graduate enrollment of 1,484 students (http://irp.astate.edu/HTM/strategic_planning.htm). We are seeing other positive changes in our student demographics in terms of diversity, graduation, and origin.

Enhance the diversity and inclusiveness of students, faculty, staff, and

curriculum.

The Diversity Task Force was organized to develop a strategic plan for achieving institutional diversity. Strategic recruitment and hiring practices have produced notable changes in our staff, faculty and administrator diversity statistics (http://irp.astate.edu/HTM/strategic_planning.htm). We are gaining ground in our recruitment and retention of diverse students through mentoring programs such as Brother to Brother and Circle of Trust, targeted academic success programming and other initiatives. Recognition of “Friends of Diversity”, awarding of mini grants for curricular and campus diversity initiatives, diversity education and speaker series are just a few of the outcomes of our diversity plan (http://diversity.astate.edu/).

Increase resources to the university.

Faculty and staff have worked diligently to increase extramural funding. In FY03, grant expenditures were just over $8 million. As of FY07, grant expenditures total more than $19 million. Over the past three years, federal grant awards have increased with major awards from NIH, NSF, USDA, DOD and other agencies. Federal appropriations in the amount of $1.5 million are being received for research focusing on biofuel development.

Faculty are being encouraged to engage in more entrepreneurial activities. Faculty within the Biosciences Institute are developing spin-off companies, joint ventures and other business relationships to facilitate technology transfer and regional economic development. Intellectual property-driven activities also are increasing.


Within the academic units, a total of $65,000 was allocated between FY07 and FY08 to support faculty entrepreneurial initiatives that would increase summer enrollment. Faculty were encouraged to target initiatives for student populations not currently being served. Approximately 30 faculty responded with about 60% of the initiatives funded. New courses, summer workshops, academic camps (CSI, Pre-Law), study abroad and other activities were developed.

As funding to support faculty raises, recruitment and retention of exceptional faculty is a challenge, the Colleges of Business and Nursing and Health Professions implemented the collection of differential tuition for their programs in 2006. Both colleges have used the increased resources to enhance current faculty salaries and in the recruitment of new faculty.

Strategically manage resources among divisions and colleges based on institutional priorities.

All institutional units are required to base funding requests on the institutional priorities. New and reallocated funds are priority based unless they are unfunded mandates falling outside of the institutional priorities. Examples of tying resources to priorities may be found in the accompanying division strategic plans.

Define and implement an institutional allocation and reallocation process.

Of all of the strategic plan priorities, we have found this one to be the most difficult to accomplish. The concept of this priority is meritorious and would demonstrate a high level of accountability for the institution. The University Planning Committee has discussed this priority during each yearly planning cycle. With resources remaining static, individual units have developed internal methods of reallocation to meet their needs. We will continue to work on defining this process and its implementation.


Enrollment Management Planning

Writing Team: Greg Thornburg

Throughout the university’s strategic planning process, enrollment issues consistently

surfaced during planning discussions. Eventually, after several revisions, the strategic plan

institutional priority addressing enrollment and retention was finalized to read, “Increase

enrollment, retention rate and graduation rate of both undergraduate and graduate

students.”

ASU’s overall student headcount for the 2004 fall semester was 10,508. This was a

slight decrease from the 10,573 for the 2003 fall semester. Although the decrease was slight,

university officials immediately responded by making enrollment a top priority. In September of

2004 ASU President Les Wyatt appointed an Enrollment Management (EM) Task Force and Dr.

Jim Black, President of SEM Works, was brought in to serve as an enrollment consultant.

President Wyatt addressed our enrollment issues and plans for the enrollment task force in his

October 2004 First Friday report (http://asunews.astate.edu/FirstFriday100804.htm).

The EM Plan initially was aimed at improving undergraduate student recruitment and

retention. However, it became apparent very early in the process that graduate issues also

should be addressed.

Time Table and Process

September 22, 2004 Dr. Jim Black conducted a planning retreat with the EM Task Force. He made a public presentation to ASU faculty, staff, local media, and ASU System personnel concerning enrollment planning.

October 2004 Dr. Rick Stripling, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Dr. Susan Allen, Vice Chancellor for Research and Academic Affairs appointed by President as Co-Chairs of the Enrollment Management Task Force.

Five sub-committees with co-chairs formed from EM Task Force membership: Student Recruitment, Student Financial Support, Student Retention and Success, Student Services and Marketing (Appendix B).


October 24-25, 2004 Dr. Black met individually with sub-committee co-chairs and each sub-committee to assist with establishment of the framework, action steps and assessment for each sub-committee.

December 1-2, 2004 Return visit by Dr. Black to evaluate progress of subcommittees and provide coaching. Assisted each sub-committee with identifying “low hanging fruit” initiatives that could be implemented in spring 2005 to make immediate impact on first year enrollment for fall 2005 and retention.

February 2-3, 2005 Continued evaluation and mentoring by Dr. Black.

April 26-27, 2005 Sub-committee up-dates and presentations to entire EM task force and ASU community.

July 27-28, 2005 Draft of EM plan evaluated by Black. Meetings with sub-committees to assist with finalization of initiatives and assessments.

August 26, 2005 Final draft version of the Enrollment Management Plan released by Office of Institutional Research.

September 1-2, 2005 Dr. Black provided assistance with developing a “branding strategy” for ASU and its implementation.

Black recommends finalizing the EM plan by formally removing the “draft” designation to validate the authenticity of the document.

March 28, 2006 “Powering Minds” branding publicly unveiled with ceremony for campus, community and media.

April 5, 2006 Campus celebration of the EM planning process. Dr. Black provides overall assessment of EM plan and progress to date by campus in its recruitment and retention initiatives.

April 2006 – Present Periodic meetings with sub-committee co-chairs to provide up-dates on status of initiatives, outcomes and related information for continued documentation and assessment.

The Office of Institutional Research and Planning crafted an extensive institutional and

situational assessment report prefaced with an executive summary. The institutional and

situational analysis provided a review of ASU enrollment trends and the population characteristics

for Arkansas. The report also provided a comparative analysis that included ASU and other

Arkansas institutions of higher education regarding the academic preparation and success of


students, as well as the affordability of and the accessibility to higher education. This document

was especially useful in our planning process (see enrollment plan document).

Even before the final version of the Enrollment Management Plan was printed, faculty

and staff begin to respond to the “low hanging fruit” initiatives in spring 2005 Dr. Black

recommended during the writing of the plan. Initiatives like the faculty calling program, incentive

scholarships, intensify Craighead county recruitment, and Delta Promise Day proved to be

effective. Although initiatives substantially impacted first-year student enrollment and graduate

student enrollment, ASU’s overall enrollment still did not rebound.

Selected Enrollment Cohort 2004 2005

Fall First Year Student Enrollment 1,378 1,584

Fall Craighead County Enrollment 2,766 2,851

Fall Graduate Student Enrollment 1163 1199

Fall Total Student Enrollment 10,508 10,414

During Dr. Black’s last visit to the ASU campus following the completion of the writing of

the EM Plan, he opened his public presentation with this comment, “In the last year and a half,

ASU has completely repositioned itself as a university on the path to success. There is in place a

strong enrollment management plan that is being carried out by faculty, staff, and students to

promote enrollment growth and ensure student success.” ASU is now in its third year of

enrollment management under the plan. We are seeing evidence that our plan in having a

positive impact on our campus’ student growth.

Enrollment Cohort 2004 2005 2006 2007

Fall First Year Student Enrollment 1,378 1,584 1,727 1,733

Fall Craighead County Enrollment 2,766 2,851 3,501 3,285

Fall Total Student Enrollment 10,508 10,414 10,727 10,869

Spring Total Student Enrollment --- 9,791 9,818 10,025

Spring Graduate Enrollment --- 1,196 1,295 1,386


We are continuing to evaluate admissions policies, learning support services, the First

Year Experience (academic and residential), transitional courses (developmental writing, reading,

mathematics), and other factors associated with first year retention and beyond. We have

recently added new programming in learning support areas and adjusted other retention

initiatives which will require additional time to assess our impact on student success.

First Year Retention 2004 2005 2006 2007

Fall to Spring 83.7% 86.5% 85.6% Not Yet

Available

Fall to Fall 65.4% 71.9% 68.6% N/A


Shared Governance

Writing Team: Julie Issacson, Chair; Robert Engleken, Bill Humphrey, Curtis Steele, Len Frey

Overview and Process

The evolution toward a shared governance system at Arkansas State University has

been ongoing for many years. While the paragraphs that follow concentrate on events since the

last Higher Learning Commission visit, an overview of shared governance at Arkansas State

University prior to 2003 is provided.

Summary of the Shared Governance Process Developments Prior to 2003

Mid 1990’s

The Faculty Senate (Senate) expressed concerns about the lack of a faculty role in areas that they considered to be faculty matters. At least two committees were formed during this period and were charged with investigating and making recommendations to the Senate on the issues of “Faculty Governance”.

Spring 1996

President Wyatt came to campus in 1995 and the next year put together a committee charged with creating a structure for Shared Governance that would: 1) Ensure that all constituencies would have a voice in recommending policies that affect their interests, 2) Develop a tracking procedure to prevent items being lost in the process and to create a final outcome that is a matter of public record, and 3) Recommend changes to committee responsibilities as needed.

Fall 1996

Having met once a week and continuing into the summer, a first draft was sent to the President for comment. The President called a university-wide meeting to provide a means of public comment on the draft.

Spring 1997

After the public hearing, the Shared Governance Committee (SGC) discussed approximately 70 distinct comments, suggestions, or questions and issued a revised Shared Governance Document.

Fall 2001

The process in the document above was followed with occasional changes made as needed. In Fall 2001, President Wyatt recommended a review of the process since it had been in place for five years.

Spring 2002

The Shared Governance Committee proposed the following:

Keeping people informed and involved (shared governance chairs are responsible for notifying constituent groups of proposed policy issues and changes).

1) Increasing understanding of the shared governance process (each fall, the SGC will meet with constituent leaders to explain the goals, mechanics, and responsibilities of each committee and utilize a SG list serve).

2) Reporting System (the status of any proposal should be available and the list


serve should be used to report the disposition of policy items). 3) Time Line (the President should reach a decision within two weeks whenever

possible). 4) Petitionary Councils (these committees should remain as shared governance

committees). 5) Allowing consultants (committees should invite consultants as needed rather than

appointing additional members and committee memberships will be evaluated by the SGC).

6) Including ASU Technical Center and the Biosciences Research Institute should have a role, as appropriate, in select shared governance committees.

Revision of Shared Governance

Following the Higher Learning Commission visit and its team’s report of March 2003,

ASU embarked on a comprehensive strategic planning process that included a Governance Task

Force (GTF). The GTF was comprised of representatives from the administration, faculty, staff,

and students. The GTF evaluated the existing shared governance structure, as well as similar

structures at other institutions. Throughout the process, input was requested and received from

interested constituencies. The GTF proposed a two-tiered system of shared governance,

comprising “academic” and “institutional” governance, which was collectively labeled University

Governance. The Academic Governance tier focused upon areas of faculty primacy. The

Institutional Governance tier covered areas of shared responsibilities addressing academic

support.

The Faculty Senate approved the University Governance document as proposed by the

GTF. The University Governance document was presented to the Board of Trustees on June 9,

2005. After some discussion focused upon the length of time available for review, and concern

among the Trustees over the actions of the Faculty Senate, approval of the University

Governance document was tabled until the Board of Trustees had an opportunity to review the

completed Faculty Handbook and to examine the appropriate role of the Faculty Senate (see

Board of Trustees Minutes - June 9, 2005). An amended version of this document, entitled

“Shared Governance,” is included in the new Faculty Handbook adopted by the Board of Trustees

on February 24, 2006 (Section I.b.3. and I.c.):


I.b.3. Shared Governance Definition:

The University operates on the basis of a shared governance system in which administrators, faculty, staff, and students participate in the governance of the institution. Shared governance consists of a defined role for administration, faculty, staff, and students in proposing or influencing important policy and other decisions that affect the institution. Because all constituent groups depend on each other to advance the goals of the University, this participation must be real and based on the principle that each group has the largest influence in matters that concern it most. For example, faculty should be involved in areas of strategic and budget planning, faculty and staff welfare, creation and elimination of academic programs, selection of academic and administrative officers, campus planning and development, and organizational accountability. These functions are exercised primarily through standing Academic Governance Committees and Institutional Governance Committees. Ad hoc committees and committees of the Board of Trustees are not part of the shared governance system.

I.c. Shared Governance Committees Shared governance committees provide the opportunity for constituent participation in university governance. The spirit and intent of shared governance principles will guide all committees. Academic Governance Committees perform their assigned academic duties but also provide a vehicle for submission of proposed changes to academic policy. Likewise, Institutional Governance Committees perform their institutional functions but may also propose revisions or additions to institutional policies. The University has two methods for faculty, staff, and students to propose substantive changes or additions to existing policies or procedures. First, if the proposed change concerns an academic policy or procedure, the change should be suggested to or originate from the appropriate academic governance committee. Second, if the proposed change concerns a non-academic policy or procedure, the change should be suggested to or originate from the appropriate institutional governance committee.

All shared governance committees shall operate by majority vote. If a majority of the committee members present do not vote in favor of a proposal, it shall not go forward. Routine functions of shared governance committees include regular and timely posting of committee minutes on the shared governance website and reporting to the appropriate Vice Chancellor. A special procedure exists for suggested changes to this Faculty Handbook.

Any issue with regard to the appropriate committee jurisdiction shall be resolved by a majority vote in a joint meeting of the Academic and Institutional Governance Oversight Committees (AGOC and IGOC).

I.c.1. Committee Principles:

Communication and Accountability

Successful shared governance relies upon consistent, accurate, and timely communication that is multidirectional.


All participants in the shared governance process (faculty, staff, students, administrators, committees, constituent groups, and administrative groups) are accountable for the proper execution of their roles.

Representation:

Proportional Representation: Committee representation should reflect the particular expertise needed by the committees, the vested interests of constituency groups in the work of the committees, and the degree of primary responsibility over the functioning areas of responsibility of committees that should be attributed to particular constituency groups.

Selection of Representatives: The various constituencies should select their

representatives to governance committees.

Diverse Representation: Committee representation should reflect racial, ethnic, and gender diversity.

Procedural Integrity:

Openness: The spirit of shared governance requires both the campus administration and the appropriate governance committee to seek mutually acceptable recommendations for governance. When compromise and concurrence cannot be achieved, it is the responsibility of the administrative officer to make the governance decision. Rationale for the administrative decision will, as legally permissible, be provided from the administrative officers to the involved committee in written form whenever possible. Similarly, a committee response to an administrative request/decision should also be supported with rationale in written form.

Notification: Committees should provide constituencies with opportunities for

discussion of policy and procedural issues prior to making final recommendations.

Timeliness: Recommendations and decisions on proposals need to be made

in a manner that is timely and appropriate to the issue, yet do not overlook the governance process for the sake of expediency. It may, on occasion, be necessary to use vehicles of collaboration that can be effectively carried out in accelerated periods of time.

Oversight: Assessment and review of shared governance is essential to

ensure that shared governance is working as intended.

I.c.2. Academic Governance:

Definition: Academic Governance is the process by which the faculty influences decisions and courses of action in areas of faculty responsibility by being informed of, expressing views on, and making recommendations about academic issues affecting the institution. Academic Governance committees address those areas of activity central to the interests of the faculty and academic programs of the University. Committees are advisory to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research, except the Academic


Hearing Committee and the Academic Governance Oversight Committee which are advisory to the Chancellor.

Academic Governance Committees (defined in Appendix C):

Academic Governance Oversight Committee Academic Budget Committee Academic Calendar Committee Academic Hearing Committee Education and Technology Committee Faculty Achievement Awards Committee Faculty Handbook Committee Faculty Research Awards Committee General Education Committee Graduate Council Honors Council Library Committee Sponsored Programs Committee University Admissions, Graduation, and Credit Appeals Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Undergraduate Enrollment and Academic Policy Committee University Promotion, Retention, and Tenure Committee

I.c.3. Institutional Governance:

Definition: Institutional Governance is the process by which the university campus community has the opportunity to participate in shared governance by being informed of, expressing views on, and making recommendations about a wide variety of issues affecting the institution. Institutional Governance Committees address those areas of activity which are of broad interest to the faculty, staff, and students of the University. Committees are advisory to the appropriate vice chancellors, except the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee, the International Students Committee, the University Diversity and Affirmative Action Committee, and the Institutional Governance Oversight Committee which are advisory to the Chancellor.

Institutional Governance Committee (defined in Appendix D):

Institutional Governance Oversight Committee Buildings, Grounds, and Facilities Committee Computers and Technology Committee Development, Communication, and Alumni Committee Disability Services Committee Employee Benefits Committee Financial Aid and Scholarship Committee Intercollegiate Athletics Committee International Students Committee Parking and Motor Vehicle Committee University Diversity and Affirmative Action Committee


I.c.4. Operational Procedures for the Implementation of Academic and Institutional Governance:

Academic Governance Committee Flowchart

1. Committee chair sends proposal to VCAAR 2. VCAAR reviews proposal and makes comment back to committee (15 business days) 3. If support at VCAAR level, the committee chair distributes proposal to Faculty Senate,

Academic Deans Council, Chairs Council, SGA and GSC (if appropriate), and Staff Senate (if appropriate) via their respective presidents/chairs (5 business days)

4. Comments from all groups noted in #3 are returned to committee chair (15 business days)

5. Committee chair forwards revised recommendation to VCAAR (15 business days) 6. Revisions are posted on governance website 7. VCAAR discusses item with Chancellor (10 business days) 8. Chancellor reviews proposal and communicates decision to VCAAR with explanation for

support, modification, or non‐support (15 business days) 9. VCAAR notifies committee chair and AGOC chair of Chancellor’s decision (10 business

days)

Note: 1) If VCAAR or Chancellor has an issue to be considered through academic shared

governance, the VCAAR should charge the appropriate academic committee to

review. If the VCAAR is uncertain where to send the issue, it should be referred to the

chair of AGOC for placement.

President

Chancellor

VCAAR

Committee

Academic Governance Oversight

Committee (AGOC)

Board of Trustees


2) If expedited review becomes necessary for any reason, it should be noted on the

committee request/proposal.

3) If extended review is required for any reason, the VCAAR will advise the committee of

the additional time necessary to complete the process.

4) If the AGOC has a direct request to review an issue of academic oversight from an

individual or committee, it has 15 business days to forward a written recommendation

to the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall render a final decision in writing to the chair of

the AGOC within 15 working days.

5) If the decision is one that requires approval of the President or Board of Trustees, the

Chancellor forwards the matter with his or her recommendation to the President, who

will then, if appropriate, forward the matter with his or her recommendation to the

Board of Trustees for final action.

Institutional Governance Committee Flowchart

Committee chair sends proposal to authorizing VC

1. VC reviews proposal and makes comments back to committee (15 business days)

President

Chancellor

VCAAR VCSA VCUA VCFA

Committee

Institutional Governance

Oversight Committee

(IGOC)

Board of Trustees


2. If support at VC level, the committee chair distributes proposal to Staff Senate, Faculty Senate, Academic Deans Council, Chairs Council, SGA and GSC (if appropriate) via their respective presidents/chairs and to the other VCs (5 business days)

3. Comments from all groups noted in #3 are returned to committee chair (15 business days)

4. Committee chair forwards revised recommendation to authorizing VC (15 business days) 5. Revisions are posted on governance website 6. VC discusses item with Chancellor (10 business days) 7. Chancellor reviews proposal and communicates decision to VC with explanation for

support, modification or non‐support. (15 business days) 8. Authorizing VC notifies committee chair and chair of IGOC of Chancellor’s decision.

Note: 1) If VC or Chancellor has an issue to be considered through Institutional Shared

Governance, the authorizing VC should charge the appropriate institutional

committee to review said item. If the VC or Chancellor is uncertain where to send the

issue, it should be referred to the chair of IGOC for placement

2) If expedited review becomes necessary for any reason, it should be noted on the

committee request/proposal.

3) If extended review is required for any reason, the Vice Chancellor will advise the

committee of the additional time needed to complete the process.

4) If the IGOC has a direct request to review an issue of institutional oversight from an

individual or committee, it has 15 business days to forward a written recommendation

to the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall render a final decision in writing to the chair of

the IGOC within 15 business days.

5) If the decision is one that requires approval of the President or Board of Trustees, the

Chancellor forwards the matter with his or her recommendation to the President, who

will then, if appropriate, forward the matter with his or her recommendation to the

Board of Trustees for final action.

Shared Governance and the Faculty Handbook

The current Faculty Handbook delineates a new governance structure that was initially

formulated through a preliminary process of shared governance. However, multi-factorial

circumstances precluded the completion of the Faculty Handbook within the timeframe of

administrative expectations. This expectation was based upon an originally anticipated Higher

Learning Commission visit in 2006-2007 and the Board of Trustees’ request for timely completion

of the Faculty Handbook. In order to meet the Board of Trustees’ expectation of a revised Faculty


Handbook, the administration used an earlier draft from the Faculty Senate Handbook Committee

in the development of the new Faculty Handbook which was approved at its February 2006

meeting. Faculty members had serious concerns about the new Faculty Handbook and the

history of the circumstances leading to it. Steps have since been taken to resolve, or at least

reach a workable compromise on, those issues.

The definition of shared governance, as it appears in the new Faculty Handbook, can be

interpreted as a relaxation of the rigor of the shared governance process as compared to the

document prepared by the Faculty Senate Handbook Committee (see I.b.3.) “Arkansas State

University…operates on the basis of a shared governance system… (in which the various

constituencies) participate in the governance of the institution through University committees.” In

contrast, the Faculty Senate-approved university governance document defines university

governance by noting the “inescapable interdependence” among constituencies and the

“importance of meaningful faculty participation.” In addition, the foreword of the Faculty

Handbook was edited by the Board of Trustees to assert that the Faculty Handbook does not

constitute a contract and that the Board of Trustees has the legal authority to change the Faculty

Handbook without notice. Having adopted this language without adequate notice to the faculty or

opportunity for discussion, the Faculty Senate determined this to be a violation of their

understanding of shared governance. Consequently, the Faculty Senate voted, on March 17,

2006, not to recognize the Faculty Handbook adopted by the Board of Trustees in February 2006.

Subsequent attempts at reconciling these differences by the ad-hoc Faculty Senate Handbook

Task Force and through a “One Time Extraordinary Process for Handbook Change” during

summer 2006 were not successful.

After careful consideration, the Faculty Senate, in the spirit of shared governance, voted,

with some residual hesitancy among numerous Senators, in August, 2006 to appoint

representatives to the committee structure identified in the new Faculty Handbook for a trial

period of one year, with continuing appointments after that time contingent upon the resolution of

key areas of difference between the two handbooks. During the fall term of 2006, the University


undertook a search process to identify its first Chancellor. Dr. Robert Potts was hired and began

duties November 15, 2006. Resolution of the handbook impasse was undertaken as one of the

new Chancellor’s first and highest personal priorities. Dr. Potts established a writing team to re-

draft the foreword and the section on the shared governance process within the Faculty

Handbook, Section I, to effect a workable compromise between the faculty and the Board of

Trustees with input from the University legal counsel. The draft of these changes was brought

before the Faculty Senate during the spring term (April 6, 2007). The Faculty Senate voted to

endorse these changes and agreed to extend committee appointments specified in the Board of

Trustees’ Handbook for another year.

The revised foreword and changes to Section I involving the process for policy and

handbook changes were passed by the Board of Trustees on June 1, 2007.

I.c.5. Special Procedure for Making Changes to the Faculty Handbook:

Editorial changes in the Faculty Handbook can be recommended by the Faculty Handbook

Committee without constituent involvement. Editorial changes are changes in punctuation,

wording or grammar that do not affect the content or meaning of the text. Such editorial

changes can be recommended through the Faculty Handbook Committee directly to the Vice

Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research, who shall promptly forward the proposed change

with recommendation to the Chancellor who shall submit it to the President and Board for

decision and implementation, if appropriate.

Any faculty member or constituent group desiring to change any language in the Faculty

Handbook should submit the following information to the appropriate shared governance

committee: what text in the Faculty Handbook is being addressed; the change, addition, or

deletion of the existing text, a rationale for the proposed change; and the name and contact

information of the individual or committee making the proposal. The Faculty Handbook

Committee will notify the AGOC and IGOC as appropriate, who will assign a tracking number and

track the progress of the proposal through the shared governance process. Should a committee

in the process not fulfill its governance obligations, then the AGOC and IGOC, as appropriate, may

intervene to act for that committee.

Any constituent may propose changes to the Faculty Handbook either via the appropriate

governance committee, or in the rare event that there is not an appropriate governance

committee, directly through the Faculty Handbook Committee. In the event that the constituent is

unclear as to the appropriate governance committee, that constituent may go for guidance to the

Faculty Handbook Committee, who will send it to an appropriate governance committee. If no

such committee exists, then the Faculty Handbook Committee will deal with the issue directly.


The procedure for making changes to the Faculty Handbook will follow the same order of review

as other academic governance committees. However, to ensure full participation is afforded to all

faculty members with respect to any Faculty Handbook revisions, if a proposal for change to the

Faculty Handbook reaches step #3 of the AGOC Flowchart, a public hearing to discuss the

proposal is co‐hosted by the Faculty Handbook Committee and the appropriate governance

committee(s) and will be conducted at the next Faculty Senate meeting.

The appropriate governance committee(s) and the Faculty Handbook Committee will use

information from the public hearing and comments from the other review groups to prepare the

final recommendation, which will be forwarded to the Faculty Senate.

The Faculty Senate has 15 business days to make a recommendation (positive or negative) to the

Faculty Handbook Committee who will forward the recommendation to the VCAAR and other

appropriate vice chancellors within 5 business days. The remainder of the review then proceeds

as set out in step #6 of the AGOC Flowchart.

The Faculty Handbook is now kept continuously up-to-date after any changes adopted by

the Board of Trustees, and is available through the Academic Affairs section of ASU’s website

( http://academicaffairs.astate.edu/facultyhandbook.htm).

Although these recent revisions and associated developments are encouraging, and now

imply an ongoing process of near-convergence to an institutionally accepted definition of shared

governance, it will take an ongoing assessment of the process and its constituents over several

years to be certain of its effectiveness and long-term viability, particularly considering the recent

and ongoing significant changes in the institution.

Appointments to the Faculty Handbook Committee per the new requirements in the

revised Faculty Handbook were made early in the fall term of 2007. Since that time, policy

changes have been flowing through the system. Examples of issues considered have included:

Changes in policy for transfer of D grades Accepting English speaking students from South Africa without requiring TOEFL

scores Change in the Restart Program policy Policy adjustment (interim) to comply with a new state law on conflicts of interest

for textbook royalties Proposed policy to prohibit gambling on ASU property even though it would be

allowed under certain circumstances by a newly adopted state law (pulled subject to future revision).


Proposed policy to eliminate an existing shared governance committee in the current and prior handbooks (pulled due to comments in the Shared Governance process).

Proposed codification of existing procedures for Extraordinary Salary Adjustments as an addition to the Faculty Handbook (still out for revision based on negative reception from Faculty Senate and several other constituent groups).

Proposed academic calendar for fall 2008 with significant changes (dates revised based on input from the process.)

Proposed new Risk Management Committee (still flowing through the system). Several editorial changes (PRT, IACUC and IRB membership, selection of

faculty/initial screening, etc.) have been processed through the system and presented to the Board of Trustees for approval.

In addition, certain minor changes deemed editorial in nature have been made to clarify

processes already specified in the Handbook. As of November 2007, the re-writing task force

has been reconvened to review the existing processes to determine if additional clarifications or

certain simplifications of the shared governance processes may be needed. The AGOC has

submitted a proposal to clarify and streamline the process. Developing or purchasing software for

handling constituent responses and tracking revisions is being explored.

The Shared Governance and Faculty Handbook Subcommittee’s overall assessment is

that while the process of arriving at a workable shared governance process has been more

complex, time consuming, and emotionally charged than would have been desired, the results

from the fall 2007 term suggest that the process is starting to work. Proposals are flowing

through the system, campus constituents are responding on a timely basis, and constituent

comments are causing proposed policies to be revised or dropped. The 15 - working day

response window was specifically written to provide adequate time for considered discussion at

Faculty Senate meetings which generally occur every two weeks. The committee believes that

the current campus administration is now demonstrating a genuine commitment to the spirit and

intent of shared governance by listening to constituent voices and asking constituent groups to

revise policies based upon feedback from the process. It is sincerely hoped that this will continue

indefinitely as the University continues to evolve in mission, methodology, and personnel.

Recent proposals are available on the shared governance web site

(http://chancellor.astate.edu/shared_governance/).


Concluding Remarks

The strategic planning process has made significant changes in Arkansas State

University – Jonesboro. It has provided our institution with a starting point from which to focus

our best efforts and resources, particularly in a time when state resources for public education are

less than desirable. More importantly, the plan and its implementation has provided a set of

priorities that both faculty and university leadership have agreed upon providing a step in the right

direction for shared governance, improved morale, increased communication, a more diverse

campus and institutional change.

Shared governance is now an integral component of the university’s foundation. As it

continues to evolve on our campus, it will provide significant opportunities for engagement of

faculty, staff and students in the process of shaping our university.

Both our strategic plan and shared governance, and the implementation of these entities

still have much room for improvement. We have encountered some challenges along the way but

we have been able to use the strategic plan as a map to get back on course or to fine another

route to accomplish our goals. We are cognizant of the fact that while we prefer to have a

growing resource base, our institutional leaders must be committed to making difficult decisions

that will allow our institution to realize its priorities and accomplish it goals regardless of our

resource base -- our strategic plan has helped guide them in this process.

When we undertook the strategic planning process in 2003, the goal of our strategic plan

was to guide the planning activities of the university through 2009, the beginning of our

Centennial Celebration. We are quickly approaching this target. Our strategic planning activities

during the past few years have positioned us to be better prepared for planning the next century

in the life of our institution.


Appendices

Appendix A

Strategic Planning Participants

Strategic Planning Council Membership Strategic Planning Task Forces

Appendix B

Enrollment Management Task Force Sub-Committees

Appendix C

Academic Governance Committees

Appendix D

Institutional Governance Committees


Appendix A

Strategic Planning Participants

Strategic Planning Council Membership

Cindy Albright, Faculty Senate

Susan Davis Allen, VCRAA

Bill Burns, Faculty Senate

Jennus Burton, VPFA

Chuck Carr, Diversity Task Force Liaison

Rich Carvell, Chair of Institutional Distinctiveness Task Force

Derrick Coleman, Staff Senate

Lynita Cooksey, Coordinator

David Cox, Chair

Jan Duggar, Dean Representative

Jerry L. Farris, Chair of Graduate Education and Research Initiatives Task Force

Len Frey, Chair of Governing Ideas Task Force

George Grant, Library

Jake Hampton, SCA Vice President

Myleea Hill, Graduate Student

Mark Hoeting, Information Technology Services

Markham Howe, Public Relations

Lynn Howerton, Chair Representative

Marilyn Hummelstein, Community Representative

Bill Humphrey, Faculty Senate

Julie Isaacson, Chair of Governance Task Force

Sherry Johnson, Recorder

Glen Jones, Assistant to the President for Diversity Initiatives

Jerrod Lockhart, Graduate Student

Shelley LunBeck, SGA President

Jenifer Rice Mason, Student Affairs Director

Judy McCay, Staff Senate President


Tom Moore, Public Relations

Steve Owens, VPUA

Judy Pfriemer, Faculty Senate

Velmar Richmond, Community Representative

Bill Rowe, Faculty Senate President

Rick Stripling, VCSA

Greg Thornburg, Chair of Enrollment Management Task Force

Debra Walden, Faculty Senate

Les Wyatt, President

Jack Zibluk, Chair of Environmental Scanning and Driving Forces Task Force

Strategic Planning Task Forces

Environmental Scanning and Driving Forces Task Force

Jack Zibluk, Journalism Faculty & Chair

Bob Bennett, Faculty Senate

Catherine Cotton, International Programs

Tammy Fowler, Student Affairs

David Handwork, Facilities Management

Russ Hannah, Finance


David Holman, Graduate Education Faculty

Ed Kremers, Finance

Paula Lynn, Admissions

Sandra Miley, Financne

Clint Relyea, Business Faculty

Verlene Riggenberg, Regional Programs

Larry Salinger, Criminology Faculty

David Shaw, Student Life

Beth Smith, Alumni Relations

Jerry Smith, Economic Development


Andrew Sustich, Humanities and Social Sciences

Tim Weaver, TRIO Programs

Whitney Williams, Clinical Lab Sciences

Governing Ideas Task Force

Len Frey, Chair and Business Dean

William Allen, Center for Learning Technology

Roy Aldridge, Physical Therapy Faculty

Jeff Bailey, Library

John Beineke, Education Dean

Gloria Bridges, First Year Studies Faculty

Chuck Coffelt, Campus Ministries

Joe Givens, Graduate Student

Mitch Holifield, Educational Leadership Faculty

Warren Johnson, Languages Faculty

Pam Kail, President’s Office

Roger Lee, Student Life

David Maloch, Printing Services

Dan Marburger, Economics Faculty

Traci Perrin, Economics Development

Molly Phillips, Alumni Relations

Dan Reeves, Fine Arts Dean

Keith Steele, ASU Technical Center

Troy Thomas, Physical Therapy Faculty

Jason Young, Undergraduate Student

Institutional Distinctiveness Task Force

Rich Carvell, Chair and RTV Faculty

Jerry Biebesheimer, Fowler Center

Roger Carlisle, Art Faculty


Ricky Clifft, Engineering Dean

Linda Farris, Student Health Center Director

Deborah Gilbert-Palmer, Nursing Faculty

Richard Jorgensen, Music Faculty

Don Maness, Education Associate Dean

Rod Miller, Library

June Morse, Alumni Relations

Melodie Philhours, Business Faculty

Elaine Poynter, Advancement Officer

Terry Roach, Business Faculty

Russ Shain, Communications Dean

Jill Simons, Advising Center Director

Dana Stroud, Advancement Officer

Greg Thornberg, Financial Aid and Enrollment Management

Dawn Tucker, Advancement Officer

Ray Winters, Radiologic Sciences Director

Cynthia Wolfe, Economic Development

Graduate Education and Research Task Force

Jerry Farris, Chair

Brady Banta, Library

Kris Biondolillo, Psychology Faculty

Don Cotton, Research and Technology Transfer

Robert Engelken, Engineering Faculty

Hector Flores, Sciences and Mathematics Dean

George Foldesy, Educational Leadership

Robyn Hannigan, Chemistry Faculty

Kathy Hicks, ABI Staff

Kimberly Johnson, Graduate Student


Clyde Milner, Heritage Studies

Greg Phillips, Agriculture Dean

Thomas Risch, Biology Faculty

Greg Russell, Criminology Faculty

Darren Smith, Teacher Education Faculty

Malathi Srivatsan, Biology Faculty

Elizabeth Stokes, Nursing Chair

Tina Teague, Agriculture Faculty

Tom Wheeler, Graduate School Dean

Chris Weinke, Sociology Faculty

Governance (Shared) Task Force

Julie Isaacson, Chair

Aaron Bolin, Psychology Faculty

Chuck Carr, English and Philosophy Chair

Dan Cline, Education Leadership Faculty

Tom Fiala, Teacher Education Faculty

Gil Fowler, Journalism Faculty

Tammi Freeman, Student Life

Josh Givens, Graduate Student

Joanna Grymes, Teacher Education Faculty

John Hall, Counseling Faculty

Susan Hanrahan, Nursing and Health Professions Dean

Mitch Holifield, Educational Leadership Faculty

Bill Humphrey, Faculty Senate

Craig Johnson, Student Affairs

Jerry Linnstaedter, Mathematics and Statistics Chair

Carol O’Connor, Humanities and Social Sciences Associate Dean


Annette Stacy, Nursing Faculty

Jim Steele, Facilities Management

Herman Strickland, University College Dean

Neal Vickers, Career Services Director


Appendix B

Enrollment Management Task Force Sub-Committees

Marketing

Richard Carvell, Radio and Television

Len Frey, Business

Markham Howe, Public Relations – Co-Chair

Gail Hudson, Business

David Kenley, Admissions

Candace Martin, Student

Greg Phillips, Agriculture

Russ Shain, Communications – Co-Chair

Beth Silverthorn, Student Affairs

Recruitment Larry Aikman, Military Science

James Dunivan, Community

Tiffany Frazier, Student

Gloria Gibson, Humanities & Social Sciences


Bill Humphrey, Agriculture

Dianne Lawler-Prince, Education

Jo Lunbeck, Finance

Sue Marlay, International Programs

Judith Pfriemer, Nursing

Bill Roe, Business

Greg Russell, Criminology

Beth Smith, Alumni

Andrew Sustich, Graduate School – Co-Chair


Joe Turney, Community

Dennis White, Communication Studies

Tammy Fowler, Admissions – Co-Chair

Retention John Beineke, Education

Paula Bradberry, First Year Studies

Lynita Cooksey, Academic Affairs – Co-Chair

Tracy Finch, Registrar

Rosemary Freer, Testing

Deborah Gilbert-Palmer,

Kent Johnson, Assessment

Warren Johnson, Languages

Glen Jones, Diversity

Melanie Richardson, Athletics

Verlene Ringgenberg, Regional Programs

Jill Simons, Advising Services – Co-Chair

Calvin Smith, Heritage Studies

Student Services Patrick Dixon, Residence Life

Joanna Grymes, Education

Don James, Finance

Roger Lee, Student Affairs

Sue Marlay, International Programs

Christy Valentine, Advancement – Co-Chair

Lonnie Williams, Student Affairs – Co- Chair


Financial Aid & Scholarship Rick Clifft, Engineering

Tammy Flower, Student Affairs

Linda Hawkins, Community

Craig Johnson, Student Affairs

Kathryn Jones, Institutional Research

Robin Kaloghirou, Financial Aid & Scholarship

Dale Miller, Music – Co-Chair

Greg Thornburg, Enrollment Services – Co-Chair


Appendix C

Academic Governance Committees

I.c.6. Academic Governance Committees:

Academic Governance Oversight Committee

The Academic Governance Oversight Committee (AGOC) serves as a liaison to the

Chancellor. The committee reviews academic governance procedures and performance

and addresses issues and makes recommendations regarding policies/procedures

contained in the Faculty Handbook. Any committee or constituent having academic

governance responsibilities that experiences a possible violation of shared governance

principles or procedures (but not specific actions, decisions, or recommendations by

individual committees in the discharge of their duties) may ask the AGOC to review the

issue. The AGOC has 15 business days after a direct request is received to make a

recommendation in writing to the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall render a final

decision on the recommendation and communicate that decision in writing to the chair

of the AGOC with explanation of support, modification, or non‐support within 15

business days after receipt of the AGOC’s recommendation.

The committee also functions as a committee on committees. Retention of existing

committees, discontinuation of existing committees, and recommendations for new

academic governance committees or changes in membership or representation are

reviewed by the committee. This committee is responsible for the annual review of the

academic governance process and for a survey, to be conducted every three years, to

assess faculty satisfaction with the governance process and present recommendations to

the Chancellor. Membership consists of the president of Faculty Senate; three tenured

faculty members (appointed by the Faculty Senate to staggered three‐academic‐year

terms), the presidents of the Student Government Association (SGA) and the Graduate

Student Council (GSC), one dean appointed annually by the Academic Deans Council, and

one chair appointed annually by the Chairs Council. The committee elects a chair at the

beginning of each academic year.

Academic Budget Committee

The Academic Budget Committee (ABC) provides assistance to the Vice Chancellor for

Academic Affairs and Research (VCAAR) on budget development as it relates to the goals

and overall planning of the unit. Fiscal strategies are discussed which support the

growth and development of units which report to the VCAAR office. Assessment

strategies also may be employed to evaluate current operations as they relate to

budgetary efficiency and effectiveness.


The ABC will consist of two deans appointed by the Deans Council; two chairs appointed

by the Chairs Council; two faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate; and two

students, one undergraduate appointed by the SGA and one graduate student appointed

by the GSC. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research and the budget

officer in the VCAAR office will serve as

ex‐officio, nonvoting members. The committee elects a chair at the beginning of each

fiscal year. Deans, chairs and faculty members will serve staggered two‐year terms;

students will serve one‐year terms.

Academic Calendar Committee

The Academic Calendar Committee is responsible for studying and making

recommendations regarding the university academic calendar. The committee provides

information on calendars of other universities such as length of semester, start/end of

classes. The committee reports to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and

Research.

Membership consists of three undergraduate students appointed annually by the SGA;

one graduate student appointed annually by the GSC; four faculty members from

different colleges appointed (staggered two‐year term) by the Faculty Senate; two staff

members appointed (staggered two‐year term) by the Staff Senate; one dean appointed

(two‐year term) by the Academic Deans Council; one chair appointed (two‐year term) by

the Chairs Council; Dean of Regional Programs; one representative from ASU‐Beebe

appointed by that Chancellor; one representative from ASU‐Mountain Home appointed

by that Chancellor; one representative from ASU‐Newport appointed by that Chancellor,

and one representative from each of the following offices: Information and Technology

Services, Admissions, Registrar, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research, and

Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs (two‐year terms). The committee elects a chair at the


Academic Hearing Committee

The Academic Hearing Committee hears faculty grievances related to terms or

conditions of employment such as promotion, retention, termination, salary, and job

assignment. The committee reports to the Chancellor.

Membership is composed of 21 full‐time tenured faculty members selected by the

Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate. Members serve two‐year staggered terms.

All colleges will be represented and membership will be diverse with regard to academic

discipline, gender, race, and ethnicity. In an effort to maintain objectivity, a faculty

member may only serve on one grievance committee at a time. Thus, a faculty member

cannot serve simultaneously on the Academic Hearing Committee, a college grievance

committee, or a departmental grievance committee.


At the first committee meeting of the academic year the committee as a whole (21

members) will elect a chair. The chair of the committee must be a tenured faculty

member who has recently served on the committee. When a grievance reaches the level

of the committee, the chair of the Academic Hearing Committee will notify the

Chancellor. The Chancellor will select a subcommittee of seven from the committee to

hear each grievance after consultation with the chair of the committee. The Chancellor

also will select a Dean, from among the pool of Academic Deans, and a Department

Chair, from the pool of all Department Chairs, to serve for each subcommittee after

consultation with the chair of the committee. The committee chair will serve as the

nonvoting chair for all subcommittees. Each subcommittee will elect one member to

serve as secretary to prepare reports of the proceeding for the grievance being heard.

The Chancellor will select a replacement from the committee for any member of a

subcommittee who recuses or will not be available for the duration of the hearing.

In alleged discrimination cases, three additional tenured professors, serving on the

University Diversity and Affirmative Action Committee, will join the University Hearing

Committee. The two parties in the grievance shall each choose one member from the

University Diversity and Affirmative Action Committee; the two selected members from

the University Diversity and Affirmative Action Committee will select a third person from

the University Diversity and Affirmative Action Committee. The Office of Human

Resource Services will assemble any necessary materials, arrange facilities, and maintain

the official written record of the hearing.

The Associate Vice Chancellor for Administration or his/her designee will serve as an ex‐

officio, nonvoting member of the committee for the purpose of providing advice and

assistance on university procedural and policy matters. The Associate Vice Chancellor for

Administration will be present for the initial presentation of

the grievance to the committee and during any formal hearing. The Associate Vice

Chancellor for Administration will not be present during committee discussions and

deliberations unless asked to attend; however, he/she will review the committee’s report

of findings and its recommendations for technical and/or legal issues prior to submission

to the Chair of the Academic Hearing Committee. In discrimination cases, the

Affirmative Action Coordinator acts as an advisor in addition to the Associate Vice

Chancellor for Administration.


Education and Technology Committee

The purpose of this committee is to address issues concerning technology assisted

education, e.g., IPTV, CVN and web‐based, including the implementation of

courses and/or degrees at distant sites. The committee will report to the Vice Chancellor

for Academic Affairs and Research concerning relevant issues pertaining to distance

education.

Membership consists of the Director of the Center for Learning Technology (CLT); four

tenured/tenure track faculty members appointed to staggered three‐year terms by the

Faculty Senate and one department chair selected by the Chairs Council, all having web

and/or technology assisted teaching experience to a degree center; two undergraduate

students appointed annually by the SGA and, one graduate student appointed annually

by the GSC who have experience with distance education. The Dean of Regional

Programs will serve as an ex‐officio, nonvoting member. The committee elects a chair

who is a tenured faculty member at the beginning of each academic year.

Faculty Achievement Awards Committee

The Faculty Achievement Awards Committee is responsible for proposing guidelines and

procedures and selecting recipients of the faculty awards for teaching, research, and

service. The committee reports to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and

Research.

Membership consists of a faculty member from each college, one department chair, one

dean, and one community representative. These appointments are made on an annual

basis by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research in consultation with

colleges. The Student Government Association will appoint one undergraduate student

and the Graduate Student Council will appoint one graduate student to serve on this

committee each year. The committee elects a chair at the beginning of each academic

year.

Faculty Handbook Committee

The Faculty Handbook Committee reviews Faculty Handbook issues and recommends

proposed changes. The Faculty Handbook Committee is comprised of nine members

appointed by the Faculty Senate. The members will include seven tenured faculty

members, a dean and a chair appointed by the Senate in consultation with the respective

Councils. Each college will be represented. Each member will be appointed to a

staggered three‐year term with a two‐term limit. The committee will elect a chair and

secretary at the beginning of the academic year.


Faculty Research Awards Committee

The Faculty Research Awards Committee proposes criteria and procedures for awarding

university sponsored research grants; reviews and recommends the awarding of

university sponsored research grants; and reviews compensated leave requests and

makes recommendations as to which should be awarded. Additionally, the committee

reviews applications and selects recipients of the Nathan Deutsch and Eleanor Lane

Grants. All recommendations are forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

and Research.

Membership consists of one faculty member from each college appointed by the Faculty

Senate (appointments should be faculty members knowledgeable about research issues

and concerns), and one representative appointed by the Chairs

Council. The Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology Transfer will serve

as an ex‐officio, nonvoting member. The committee elects a chair at the beginning of

each academic year. Committee members will serve staggered three‐year terms

beginning at the start of the academic year.

General Education Committee

The purpose of the General Education Committee (GEC) is to provide guidance and

direction to the VCAAR to improve the quality and relevance of the University's general

education curriculum. The GEC considers proposals for modification of the general

education curriculum and reviews each course in the general education program once

every three‐years to determine its acceptability as a general education course. The GEC

will review assessment data on the general education program provided by the

Assessment Office and make recommendations to the VCAAR.

Membership on the GEC consists of one faculty representative from each of these

Colleges: Agriculture, Business, Communications, Education, Engineering, Fine Arts,

Honors, Nursing and Health Professions, and University College. The College of

Humanities and Social Sciences will be represented by three faculty representatives

(from different departments) and the College of Sciences and Mathematics will be

represented by two faculty representatives (from different departments). The

Independent Department of Military Science will have one nonvoting, ex‐officio faculty

representative. The Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Director of

Assessment Services will serve as ex‐officio, nonvoting members.

The committee will select a chair (must be a tenured faculty member) from

among its membership. The chair will serve a three‐year term and may not be

reappointed to a consecutive three‐year term. Committee members will serve staggered

three‐year terms beginning at the start of the academic year. Members of the

committee will be tenured faculty with a minimum of three‐years of continuous service


prior to serving on the committee. Each college will be responsible for determining the

selection of its representative(s).

In those cases where there is an issue affecting a broad area of the general education

core that is not represented by the composition of the current committee, a

representative from the area not represented must be invited to attend the meeting and

be afforded the opportunity to participate in the discussions before action is taken.

Graduate Council

The Graduate Council provides guidance and direction for the university’s graduate

programs. The Council considers and recommends graduate curriculum changes and

new programs; policies on graduate admission, academic standards, and graduation

requirements; policies on graduate faculty status; policies regarding graduate

assistants; and policies on graduate stipends and assistantships and their distribution to

programs. This council reports to the VCAAR through the Dean of the Graduate School.

Membership on the Graduate Council consists of one tenured graduate faculty member

from each college with graduate programs. Colleges with doctoral programs will have

an additional faculty representative from the doctoral program(s). Two graduate

students appointed annually by the Graduate Student Council will serve on the

committee. The Graduate Dean and the Director of Assessment Services will serve on

the Council as ex‐officio, nonvoting members. The committee elects a chair at the

beginning of each academic year. Faculty will serve staggered three‐year terms with no

more than two consecutive terms served, beginning with the start of the academic year.

Honors Council

The Honors Council develops ideas, evaluates proposals for honors classes submitted by

faculty to the respective College Honors Committees, and works closely with the Dean of

the Honors College on all major aspects of the program.

The chairs of the College Honors Committees or their elected representative will act as

their colleges’ representatives on the Honors Council. The Dean of the Honors College

will serve as a member of the Honors Council. Members will serve staggered three‐year

terms with the terms expiring at the end of the summer terms each academic year. Two

students recommended annually by students in the Honors College and appointed by the

SGA will serve on the committee. The committee elects a chair at the beginning of each

year.


Library Committee

The Library Committee advises the library staff on needs of library users and provides a

forum for expression for library users’ views in areas of acquisitions and operating policy.

The committee reports to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research.

Membership consists of three undergraduate students appointed by the Student

Government Association and two graduate students appointed by the Graduate Student

Council to serve for one‐year; five faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate (one

must be a library faculty member); two staff members appointed by the Staff Senate;

one representative from Information and Technology Services; one representative from

the Arkansas Bioscience Institute; and one representative from the Chairs Council, all of

whom will serve staggered three‐year terms, beginning with the start of the academic

year. The Dean of the Library and Information Resources will serve as an ex‐officio,

nonvoting member. The committee elects a chair at the beginning of each academic

year.

Sponsored Programs Committee

The Sponsored Programs committee reviews and recommends policy with regard to

externally funded grants and contracts. The committee reports to the Vice Chancellor

for Academic Affairs and Research through the Associate Vice Chancellor of Research

and Technology Transfer.

Membership consists of four faculty members appointed for staggered three‐year terms

by the Faculty Senate (faculty should be currently active or have a history of externally

sponsored research activity); Associate Vice Chancellor of Research and Technology

Transfer; Director of the Arkansas Biosciences Institute; Director of Sponsored Programs;

and one representative from each of the following offices: Vice Chancellor for Academic

Affairs and Research, Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration, and Vice

Chancellor for University Advancement. The committee elects a chair at the beginning of

each academic year.

Undergraduate Admission, Graduation, and Academic Credit Appeals Committee

The Undergraduate Admission, Graduation, and Academic Credit Appeals Committee

serves as an appeals committee for students contesting decisions of college admissions

and credits committees on university requirements such as

admission standards, graduation requirements, and academic credit.

Recommendations for individual student appeals concerning university requirements for

graduation or academic requirements will be forwarded to the office of the Vice

Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research with a copy to the Vice Chancellor for

Student Affairs. Recommendations concerning university requirements for admission will


be forwarded to the office of the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs with a copy to the

Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research.

Membership consists of the chair of each college admissions and credits committee and

three students (one‐year term) appointed by the SGA. The Registrar, Assistant to the

Chancellor for Diversity Initiatives, Director of Admissions, and a representative from the

Office of Student Affairs will serve as ex‐officio, nonvoting members. The committee will

elect a chair at the beginning of each academic year.

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

The primary role of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) is to advise the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research about all undergraduate curriculum development within the University. The committee considers individual course proposals, undergraduate bulletin changes, and institutional termination or modification of academic programs.

Membership on the UCC consists of the academic college curriculum committee chair

(elected by the college) from the Colleges of Agriculture, Business, Communications,

Education, Engineering, Fine Arts, Nursing and Health Professions, Humanities and Social

Sciences, and Sciences and Mathematics and one representative appointed annually by

the Student Government Association. Nonvoting members will include the Registrar and

one representative from Honors College, University College, Regional Programs,

Assessment Services, and the Library. Nonvoting members, with the exception of the

Registrar, will be expected to participate on subcommittees. The Associate Vice

Chancellor of Academic Services will serve as ex‐officio, nonvoting chair.

Undergraduate Enrollment and Academic Policy Committee

The Undergraduate Enrollment and Academic Policy Committee is responsible for

studying and recommending undergraduate admission and retention policies and

standards to the VCAAR and recommending undergraduate recruitment policies and

standards to the VCSA.

Membership consists of three undergraduate students appointed (one‐year term) by the

Student Government Association; one faculty member from each college

(staggered two‐year terms); two deans appointed (two‐year term) by the Academic

Deans Council; two chairs appointed (staggered two‐year terms) by the Chairs Council;

and one representative from each of the following offices: Admissions, Financial Aid and

Scholarships, Advising Services, International Programs and Scholar Services, Registrar,

Diversity Office, Academic Affairs and Research, and one data resource person from

Institutional Research (two‐year term). The Dean of Enrollment Services and Associate

Vice Chancellor for Academic Services will serve as ex‐officio, nonvoting members. The

committee elects a chair at the beginning of each academic year.


University Promotion, Retention and Tenure Committee

The UPRTC reviews and recommends changes in university policy and procedures on

promotion, retention and tenure. This committee reviews all college and department

PRT guidelines for consistency and compliance with university policy and approves these

documents annually. The UPRTC reviews all applications for promotion and tenure and

forwards its recommendations to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research.

The chair of each college PRT Committee will serve on the University Promotion,

Retention, and Tenure Committee (UPRTC). The committee shall elect a chair and

secretary at the beginning of the academic year.


Appendix D

Institutional Governance Committees

I.c.7. Institutional Governance Committees:

Institutional Governance Oversight Committee

The Institutional Governance Oversight Committee (IGOC) serves as a liaison to the

Chancellor. The committee reviews institutional governance procedures and

performance, and addresses issues, and makes recommendations regarding institutional

governance policies and procedures. Any committee or constituency group having

institutional governance responsibilities that experiences a possible violation of shared

governance principles or procedures (but not specific actions, decisions or

recommendations by individual committees in the discharge of their duties) may ask the

IGOC to review the issue and make recommendations to the Chancellor of the University.

The IGOC has 15 business days after a direct request is received to make a

recommendation in writing to the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall render a final

decision on the recommendation and communicate that decision in writing to the chair

of the IGOC with explanation of support, modification, or non‐support within 15 business

days after receipt of the IGOC’s recommendation.

The committee also functions as a committee on committees. Retention of existing

committees, discontinuation of existing committees, and recommendations for new

institutional governance committees or changes in membership or representation are

reviewed by this committee. This committee is also responsible for the annual review of

the institutional governance process and for a survey, to be conducted every three years,

to assess institutional satisfaction with the governance process and present

recommendations to the appropriate Vice Chancellor.

Membership consists of the President of the Faculty Senate, two faculty members

(appointed by the Faculty Senate to staggered three‐year terms), the President of the

Staff Senate, two staff members (appointed to staggered three‐year terms by the Staff

Senate), the President of the Student Government Association one undergraduate

student appointed annually by the SGA, the President of the Graduate Student Council

(GSC), one graduate student appointed annually by the GSC, one dean appointed

annually by the Academic Deans Council, and one chair appointed annually by the Chairs

Council. The committee elects a chair at the beginning of each academic year.


Buildings, Grounds, and Facilities Committee

The Buildings, Grounds, and Facilities Committee reviews space utilization, facility

planning, campus improvements, facility maintenance, and campus appearance. The

committee will review any concerns about the aforementioned made by faculty, staff, or

students. The committee reports to the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration.

Membership consists of the Executive Staff; one dean appointed annually by the

Academic Deans Council; one chair appointed annually by the Chairs Council; the

Assistant Vice Chancellor for Facilities Management; two faculty members appointed

annually by the Faculty Senate; the chair of the Disability Services Committee; two staff

members appointed annually by the Staff Senate; one undergraduate student appointed

annually by the SGA; and one graduate student appointed annually by the GSC. The

committee elects a chair at the beginning of each academic year.

Computers/Technology Committee

The Computers/Technology Committee coordinates computer and technology

implementation. The committee reports to the Vice Chancellor for Finance and

Administration and the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research.

Membership consists of two undergraduate students appointed annually by the Student

Government Association; two graduate students appointed annually by the Graduate

Student Council; four faculty appointed to staggered three‐year terms by the Faculty

Senate (faculty chosen with computing and instructional technology expertise); the

Director of the Center for Learning Technology (CLT); two staff members appointed to

staggered three‐year terms by the Staff Senate; one dean appointed annually by the

Academic Deans Council; one chair appointed annually by the Chairs Council; the Chief

Information Officer or designee; the Director of the Instructional Video Network; and one

representative appointed annually from each of the following offices: Research and

Technology Transfer, Arkansas Biosciences Institute, Academic Affairs and

Research, Finance and Administration, and the Library. The committee elects a chair at

the beginning of each academic year.

Development, Communications, and Alumni Committee

The Development, Communications, and Alumni Committee advises and makes

recommendations on issues concerning fund raising, communications, and alumni

relations. The committee reports to the Vice Chancellor for University Advancement with

copies to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and the Vice Chancellor for Academic

Affairs and Research.


Membership consists of three undergraduate students appointed annually by the

Student Government Association; two graduate students appointed annually by the

Graduate Student Council; one faculty member from each college appointed by the

Faculty Senate (staggered two‐year terms); two staff members appointed by the Staff

Senate (staggered two‐year terms); two deans appointed by the Academic Deans Council

(two‐year term); one chair appointed by the Chairs Council (staggered two‐year terms);

Assistant to the Chancellor for Diversity Initiatives; Director of Alumni Relations; Director

of Development; Director of University Communications; Director of Publications and

Creative Services; Director of the Museum; and the Director of the Arkansas Biosciences

Institute. The committee elects a chair at the beginning of each academic year.

Disability Services Committee

The Disability Services Committee reviews compliance with legal requirements regarding

disabilities; ensures needs are met for students, faculty, and staff with disabilities; and

recommends specific solutions for disability‐related problems to university programs and

offices. Reports are forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs with copies to

the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration and the Vice Chancellor for Academic

Affairs and Research.

Membership consists of three undergraduate students appointed annually by the

Student Government Association; two graduate students appointed annually by the

Graduate Student Council; four faculty appointed by the Faculty Senate (staggered two‐

year terms); four staff members appointed by the Staff Senate (staggered two‐year

terms); Director of Parking; Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Management; and

Assistant to the Chancellor for Diversity Initiatives. One external representative

appointed by the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and the Director of Disability

Services shall serve as ex‐officio, nonvoting members. The committee elects a chair at

the beginning of each academic year.

Employee Benefits Committee

The Employee Benefits Committee reviews policies for employee benefits and requests

for leave funding from the Catastrophic Leave Bank. Reports are forwarded to the Vice

Chancellor for Finance and Administration.

Membership consists of six faculty members appointed for staggered three‐year terms

by the Faculty Senate, which includes two retired faculty members; four

staff (two classified and two non‐classified) plus two retired staff members appointed by

the Staff Senate (one classified and one non classified) appointed for staggered three‐

year terms by the Staff Senate; a representative from Human Resources; and a

representative from the Finance and Administration office. The committee elects a chair

at the beginning of each academic year.


Financial Aid and Scholarships Committee

The Financial Aid and Scholarships Committee is responsible for recommending

minimum standards for receiving and maintaining financial aid through federal, state,

and university financed programs. The committee serves as the selection committee in

awarding privately funded scholarships that do not have specified selection committees

and hears scholarship and financial aid appeals. Policy recommendations should be

forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs with copies to the Vice Chancellor

for Academic Affairs and Research, the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration,

and the Vice Chancellor for University Advancement.

Membership consists of three students appointed annually by the Student Government

Association, one of whom is a student athlete; one graduate student appointed annually

by the Graduate Student Council; four faculty members appointed by the Faculty Senate

(staggered two‐year terms); one dean appointed by the Academic Deans Council (two‐

year term); one chair appointed by the

Chairs Council (two‐year term); two representatives from Financial Aid

appointed by the VCSA, (one in the scholarship area, staggered two‐year terms); the

Assistant to the Chancellor for Diversity Initiatives; and one representative from each of

the following offices: Admissions, Research and Academic Affairs, Finance and

Administration, and University Advancement. The Dean of Enrollment Services shall

serve as an ex officio, nonvoting member. The committee elects a chair at the beginning

of each academic year.

Intercollegiate Athletics Committee

The Intercollegiate Athletics Committee reviews and makes recommendations on issues

involving the welfare of student athletes, the role of athletics in campus life, and the

athletics program's compliance with the university, conference, and NCAA regulations;

serves as a search advisory committee for key athletics program personnel; reviews the

role of existing and potential sports programs; and reviews the athletics budget. The

committee reports to the Chancellor.

Membership consists of four students appointed annually by the Student Government

Association (one should be a student‐athlete); four faculty members appointed by the

Faculty Senate (staggered two‐year terms); one Faculty Athletic Representative

appointed by the Chancellor (two‐year term); one executive staff member appointed by

the Chancellor (two‐year term); the Dean of University College; two staff members

appointed by the Staff Senate (staggered two‐year terms); Student Government

Association and Student Activities Board Presidents; and representatives from the

following external organizations: Alumni Association, Indian Club, Letterman's Club, and

the Jonesboro Regional Chamber of Commerce ASU Committee. The Director of

Intercollegiate Athletics and the Senior Women’s Athletic Administrator serve as ex‐


officio, nonvoting members. The Chancellor appoints a chair at the beginning of each

academic year.

International Students and Scholars Committee

The International Students and Scholars Committee addresses concerns that arise for

international students, scholars, and visiting faculty. This committee reports to the

Chancellor.

Committee members should have some experience with or specific interest in non‐U.S.

cultures/students. Membership consists of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and

Research, four international students, two of whom shall be undergraduate students

appointed on an annual basis by the Student Government Association and two of whom

shall be graduate students appointed on an annual basis by the Graduate Student

Council in consultation with the International Student Association and the Office of

International Programs; five faculty members appointed to staggered three‐year terms

by the Faculty Senate; two staff members appointed to staggered three‐year terms by

the Staff Senate (one classified and one nonclassified); Director of Admissions; Director

of Student Health; Registrar; the Dean of the Graduate School; and the Director of the

Office of International Programs. The Associate Dean for Enrollment Management, the

Director of International Programs, and the Assistant to the Chancellor for Diversity

Initiatives will serve as ex‐officio, nonvoting members. The Vice Chancellor for Academic

Affairs and Research or the Chancellor’s designee shall serve as chair of the committee.

Parking and Motor Vehicle Committee

The Parking and Motor Vehicle Committee reports on parking and regulations for

operating a motor vehicle on campus and serves as an appeal body for anyone wishing

to appeal a citation. Reports are forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.

Membership consists of three students appointed annually by the Student Government

Association; three faculty members appointed to staggered two‐year terms by the

Faculty Senate; three staff members appointed to staggered two‐year terms by the Staff

Senate; and a representative from Disability Services. The Director of Parking Services

serves as an ex‐officio, nonvoting member. The committee elects a chair at the


University Diversity and Affirmative Action Committee

The University Diversity and Affirmative Action Committee reviews policies concerning

diversity and recommends modifications when necessary. In performing its duties, the

committee identifies discriminatory practices and recommends programs at the

university level to eliminate them; reviews university affirmative action programs; and

serves as a source of committee members for hearings involving alleged discrimination.


The University Diversity and Affirmative Action Committee reviews reports issued by

university, state, and federal sources to determine and recommend hiring, promotions,

and retention activities required for the University to comply with Diversity and

Affirmative Action goals. The committee will forward reports and recommendations to

the Chancellor. The Chancellor will coordinate with Vice Chancellors those actions

necessary to assure compliance.

Membership consists of four students appointed annually by the Student Government

Association; one graduate student appointed annually by the Graduate Student Council;

five faculty members appointed to staggered three‐year terms by the Faculty Senate;

and five staff members appointed to staggered three‐year terms by the Staff Senate.

The Assistant to the Chancellor for Diversity Initiatives and the Affirmative Action Officer

serve as ex officio, nonvoting members. The committee elects a chair at the beginning of

each academic year.

higher learning commission focused visit report...writing team: david cox, chair; greg thornburg,...

Documents