APR COMMITTEE

MINUTES

 

FRIDAY, SEPT. 11, 2009

263 Cartwright Center

 

Present: Grunwald, Cravins, Devine, Dickmeyer, Iguchi, Knowles, Kopp, Mortell, Rivera, Thoune, Tollefson, Nelson, Lieder.

 

Excused: Eschenbaum, Lee

 

Sandy Grunwald, Convener of the APR committee, called the meeting to order at 11 AM.  All present introduced themselves.  Grunwald stated that Eschenbaum and Lee had conflicts with this meeting time and were excused.

 

The first order of business was to elect a Chair for the APR Committee.  Sandy said she was willing to serve.  With no other volunteers or nominations, the committee approved Sandy as Chair of the APR Committee (M/S/P 10 – 0 -0).  [Note: Cravins and Rivera were not present at this vote]

 

The second order of business was to elect a committee secretary.  Due to the nature of this committee, it was agreed that a rotating secretary was not advisable.  Tollefson volunteered to be the secretary, with Dickmeyer agreeing to fill in should Tollefson not make the meeting.  The committee voted in favor of Tollefson as secretary of the committee.

 

Sandy reviewed the committee charges for this year (these charges are also listed on the Faculty Senate website under APR):

1)     The APR committee is to review the 6 full reviews (7-year) and 2 3-year response reviews, reviews that are from last year’s list.  Many are coming through Bruce Riley, Dean of SAH.   [Note: George Cravins volunteered to review Community Health Ed].

2)     Review the role of the Provost (currently the Provost does not review programs or departments until the APR Review is brought forth to Faculty Senate at the end of the review process).  [Note: According to the website, this is due Oct. 1.]

3)     Review Existing Criteria for the Academic Program Review (review current criteria, process, and formats for the Faculty Senate and submission from programs/departments). [Note: According to the website, this is due Oct. 29]. 

Additional charges were not discussed this meeting.

 

The APR process was discussed at length.  A handout was also given on the Academic Program Review Summary and the Format for the APR process.  Suggestions including reading condensed reports from Faculty Senate (available on-line) to become more familiar with the language.  Experienced committee members said that a two team member might review a program over a month.

 

The next communication from Sandy will be via email regarding our next meeting time as well as working on teams for programs/departments who have already submitted their Reviews.

 

Meeting adjourned at 11:45 AM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Mary Tollefson, Secretary