Minutes Recorded by Rose Ann Lennon

MOCC Agenda Wednesday, December 30th 2009 1:00 to 3:00 pm, CST 605-773-2329; password = 5502# Minutes recorded by Rose Ann Lennon

Main Agenda:

1. Introductory Items

 Roll Call Present: Pam Thomas, Denise Grayson, Joann Pomplun, Barb Dolan, Matt Aschenbrener, Jen Jost, Rose Hansen, Sharon Sopko, and Trudy Zalud.  Agenda modifications None  Review of minutes from our November meeting: the final draft of our minutes was posted to the MOCC website.

2. Request submitted by the Registrars’ Module pertaining to degree audit/program evaluation and presentation of institutional credits: see attached proposal – Jen

Jen: In crafting our proposal, we were purposefully succinct; we felt that this approach would permit comprehensive discussion at the next level of consideration. The proposal includes three options; each will satisfactorily resolve the issue, and we are equally content with all three. As a note, the sample program evaluation featured in the proposal is not authentic to any student; rather, it was created to elucidate the problem. Trudy: Are these two sections actually presented in tandem on program evaluation? Jen: Yes. Trudy: So here’s the issue: institutional credits and institutional GPA display twice; in theory, the attached figures should be identical. But they aren’t. This disparity is confusing and misleading to the students. Is that an accurate depiction? Jen: Yes. As a note, Program Evaluation contains an extensive amount of information. I don’t know whether students actually sort through and make sense of all of it. I think they like a snapshot view of important information. Trudy: As a former advisor, I can attest to that. Most students get impatient or frustrated with the sorting/sense making process; they prefer to get right to the bottom line. Joann: I have a question pertaining to option #3 (ie, Change the wording “institutional credits” and “institutional GPA” to “system credits” and “system GPA”): are you suggesting that we would maintain the same look, but change headings? Jen: Yes, but we are also open to a better way. Barb: To confirm, the figures included in the top section are correct; the figures included in the bottom section are not. Is this correct? Jen: Yes, the top section is correct. The headings of “institutional credits” and “institutional GPA” are attached to the correct figures. The bottom section is the mismatch – that is, the headings of “institutional credits” and “institutional GPA” actually reflect system credits and GPA. For some students, these are one-in-the-same. But that is not the case for many. That’s where the problem enters in. Trudy: Let’s review the three options again. Option #1 is to remove the entire section that starts with “Program Status: In Progress”…correct? Or do you mean to remove only the two lines that speak to institutional credits and GPA? Jen: Either approach would work. Trudy: Option #2 is to keep the format as is, but insure precision of the figures displayed for “institutional credits” and “institutional GPA” in that second section. Correct? Jen: Yes, but we also know that this is the expensive option. With that in mind, we don’t know how realistic this option becomes. Trudy: And the third option is to change the headings in section #3 to accurately represent the figures displayed. Correct? Jen: Yes, as mentioned, we would change these to “system credits” and “system GPA.” Joann: I assume that a wording change would be minor. Trudy: I question whether the word combined - as in “combined credits” and “combined GPA” is meaningful to students. I think we could improve on that verbiage. Joann: I agree. For example, cumulative is probably more familiar to students. Trudy: Have the DA’s recently discussed this situation? Joann: No, not recently. Trudy: Where do we want to go from here? Do we confer approval and forward to ASCC? Group: Yes. Trudy: Jen, are the registrars genuinely okay with any of the three options? Jen: Yes, our single goal is resolution. Any of the three options will achieve that. Trudy: As a group, do we have strong feelings about any of the three options? Or do we want to forward this proposal to ASCC with an indication that like the registrars, we will support any of the three options? Joann: I recommend that we remove “institutional credits” and “institutional GPA” from the second section and improve the verbiage/presentation of the remaining content. Trudy: Does anyone else have strong feelings? Group: No. Trudy: I will forward the proposal to Suzanne along with notations that convey our stance. ASCC meets next Monday; hopefully, Suzanne will be able to fit this discussion into the group’s agenda.

3. Recording a student death/connection to 1098T – Pam

Pam: When we merged the university databases, procedures which fit that point in time were developed. Since the inception of the merge, new governmental requirements have been introduced. The example pertinent to this discussion relates to the 1098T, which is used for tax purposes. The federal government requires universities to submit a 1098T for all students who meet established criteria. Since the tax/calendar year just concluded, the deadline for submission is rapidly approaching. As part of the process, massive audits are run; this allows us to identify missing data elements. The two most common – and problematic – missing elements include SSN and physical address. In delving into this issue, the AR module discovered that our current Colleague Procedures direct universities to delete addresses for deceased students. Clearly, address deletion creates ramifications detrimental to the 1098T process. I have three questions for the group:

 Do all campuses follow the outlined procedures related to student death? In theory, these are common procedures. But does reality match up with theory?  As I review the procedures, I can detect no reference to deletion of SSN. How do the campuses handle SSN for deceased students?  May we revisit the Colleague Procedures?

Joann, you were an integral part of the STUDENT Project…do you recall the rationale for these particular procedures? Joann: I can say with certainty that deletion of SSN was never intended. Regarding address deletion: this was incorporated into operational practice because of mass mailings. We wanted to make sure that the families of deceased students did not receive mailings from the home university; we hoped to spare them painful reminders. Trudy: I had wondered if that were the case. I assume that actual experiences volleyed into creation of these procedures? Joann: Yes, in some instances, whoever was doing the query for the particular mailing did not check for the deceased indicator. Pam: Do you see an alternative that would allow us to satisfy both objectives? Joann: One thought is to enter the Registrar’s Office for address of deceased students. Then mailings would be routed there for evaluation – depending on the nature of the mailing, the contents could be forwarded or discarded as appropriate. Pam: Another related issue concerns attachment of privacy holds. One knee jerk reaction to this request for privacy is deletion of all personal information (in other words, no one can accidentally share information if it isn’t available). But in the world of 1098T’s, this purposeful deletion causes progress to grind to a halt. Trudy: For deceased students, one final 1098T is submitted – then address information is no longer needed. For example, a student who died during 2009: one last 1098T will be submitted for this recent tax year, and then that’s it…you will no longer have need of a physical address, correct? Pam: Yes, that is correct. Trudy: Couldn’t we maintain addresses until after 1098T’s are submitted - then run an audit to identify deceased students and delete addresses at that time? Joann: Or what about a privacy indicator? Perhaps users will be more likely to check those. Trudy: Are you saying that privacy holds would preclude mailings to deceased students? Joann: In theory, yes. Pam: That would condense multiple indicators down to just one single indicator – ie, privacy. Trudy: Do you consider that good or bad? Pam: In this case, good. The person doing the mailings would screen for just one thing; he/she would take the list of students with privacy indicators and look up the records one at a time to determine the exact reason for exclusion…then make a decision for appropriate follow-up. In this scenario, there is no need to ever delete address information. Joann: It still might be a good idea to delete address after the 1098T’s are run. Trudy: What is the logical next step in our problem solving? Joann: We need to research privacy codes. Pam: Where is this information housed in Colleague? Joann: On the BIO screen. (Note: see screen shot on next page.) The coding options include the following:  D = Do not release address and phone number  P = Do not release phone number  A = Do not release address  E = Secure everything  F = Secure faculty  X= Duplicate record Pam: What happens when the E code is entered in the privacy field? Jen: It’s like the other privacy holds. If a Colleague user accesses that student’s record, he/she gets a warning message. (Note: see screen shot below.)

Joann: I know that entry of the duplicate record code (X) also generates a pop-up box. Pam: Which code fits with the situation at hand? Trudy: Or should we create a special new code? Jen: I like the idea of a new code specific to this scenario. Trudy: I agree – then there is one clear definition attached to each code, which minimizes the possibility of confusion.

Trudy: Where do we want to go from here? Joann: I want to check on processing options; I’ll bring that information back to the group. At this point, I am leaning towards creation of a new privacy code that denotes death of the student. I will also run this by the DA’s. Pam: I don’t want to minimize the importance of resolving this issue. However, at this point, nothing can remedy the situation we face this year. Trudy: So you are saying that we have some lead time to work this out before the next cycle rolls around? Pam: Yes, that is what I’m saying. We have some time to figure out a workable strategy. As always, I marvel at the changes that have been introduced during the last ten years. These challenge us to continually evaluate and fine-tune our business practices.

4. Update relevant to MyCAA portal (Military Spouse Program) – Pam

Pam: This new program continues to frustrate; as universities, we remain in the hot seat. The military did a stellar job of marketing, but did not follow through on the mechanics of implementation. Billing is the cornerstone of the operation. Despite billing for a significant number of participating students, only one regental school has received any type of payment for the MyCAA program – and that was only a partial payment. At BH, we were assured that we were not obligated to address all pieces of the portal system – that we could enter only billing information. We were also told that payment would follow billing within 10-14 days. Neither assurance has proven valid. Bills posted on December 9th have not been paid to date (the 30th); further, the military has resumed its stance of involving the registrars with entry of a number of academic related items (examples: verification that the student has declared a program that fits criteria established by the military, confirmation that completed courses fit the program of study, provision of grade reports, etc.). Clearly, we are regressing, not progressing. I informed the representative from Military One Source that – to my way of thinking – the measure of success will be dollars in hand. BH has approximately 15 students who are participating or have expressed interest in this program…a significant number for this first year. Due to the complexities of working with this program, many schools have opted out of participation. Within the regental system, I really do believe that a system-wide approach would have served us well. At this point, each university is just trying to survive the billing aspects. Jen: Last summer, we were instructed to submit final grades – then told we were not required to do so after all. Pam: One of our students was informed that no money would be remitted until after grades were transmitted via the portal. The miscommunication is disadvantageous to all parties. Initially, these steps comprised the billing process:  Invoice posted  Invoice given pending status  Invoice given reviewed status  Invoice given processed status Now another status has been added to the mix: rejected. That complicates the process. Trudy: Matt, you had emailed me about this program – how are things unfolding at SDSU? Matt: I shared the relevant information with Jay Larsen, our Financial Aid Director. At this point, I’m not aware of the number of students who are participating. Pam: Most likely, Jay has been dealing with Chapter 33 rather than MyCAA. That program has challenges of its own. At its inception, the military did not recognize our home campus concept, so required all campuses to submit information for just their campus separately. Now some campuses have received partial payments and some have received payments for other campuses. Financial Aid and Business Offices are collaborating to sort through this. Trudy: And which school received partial payment? Pam: USD Trudy: Why only partial? Pam: On the MyCAA, not sure at this time. To complicate the MyCAA program, they decided to house it in a previously established Air Force Portal which was implemented a year or so ago on a trial basis. The Air Force is now trying to require that it be used exclusively (no paper billing), and even though both are housed in the same place, both the Air Force piece and the MyCAA piece are definite in that their procedures and requirements are not the same and have warned us against confusing the two. I will say that all programs have been embraced by students and I believe that many of these students are enrolled at our schools only because of these new funding opportunities. That’s a plus. In essence, the bottom line is this: the program is effective, but proving to be a real challenge to manage. Trudy: What is the future? Pam: As I told one student, as soon we have the dollars in hand, we’ll know. Students are dismayed over the way the military has managed this program. In fact, one sent an email apology! And regrettably, some students are borrowing money as a safety net – just in case funding doesn’t happen the way we all are hoping. That’s extremely unfortunate. Trudy: At this point, the situation does not sound encouraging; please keep us posted of developments.

5. Dates for spring pre-registration:

 Monday, March 15 – mid-point of semester  Thursday, March 18 – DEF grades are due  Friday, March 19 – DEF grades are available to students via WA  Thursday, March 25 – pre-reg starts  Friday, April 2 through Monday, April 5 – Easter Break  Saturday, April 10 – pre-reg concludes (pre-reg period = 12 days)

Pre-reg would break down as follows:

 March 25, 26, 27 (Thursday through Saturday)  March 29 through April 1 (Monday through Thursday)  April 6 through 10 (Tuesday through Saturday)

Group discussion/comments/concerns

Trudy: Jen and I combined requests from Sam, AAC, and the registrars to create this proposal. Jen submitted it to the Registrars’ Module; the group discussed and approved…so did ASCC. What are the thoughts of this group? Joann: Virginia (Shanley at NSU) mapped out the implementation mechanics of this proposal. Trudy: To my understanding, Virginia felt it could be done…correct? Joann: Yes, although as we know, condensing pre-reg from three weeks to two means that we will increase the load for each time slot. We must carefully manage the time slots. Matt: What time do the time slots start and stop each day? Trudy: I will double check that and send the information to the group.

Post-meeting note: as indicated in the email sent on 12/31/09, the first time slot of the day starts at 7:00 am each day, and the last starts at 9:00 pm. The exception to this is each Thursday (there are three); due to Colleague maintenance, the last time slot will start at 5:00 pm. The group approved this proposal. Trudy will notify Suzanne and Carla.

6. MCR 20H (Immunization Compliance for Spring 10): see attached document

Trudy: I tweaked the most recent version of this MCR to create this version for spring 10. The most significant change relates to the time line. Beyond that, I implemented two changes:

From page 2:

 Course schedule: students who register for two or more credit-bearing classes – and at least one course involves face-to-face contact on a weekly basis for two or more weeks – are obliged to comply. This includes participation at all campuses, centers (including University Center, Capital University Center, and West River Higher Learning Center), and miscellaneous off-campus sites.

In the past, the wording specified multiple weeks; hopefully the change to two or more will alleviate some confusion and the need to define the word multiple.

From page 3:

 XR (permanent exemption – religious rationale): affiliation with an established religion, the doctrine of which prohibits vaccinations -completion of approved university form or submission of hard copy personal statement required. Note: state law requires validation from a parent if the student is less than 18 years of age.

When we first started this immunization journey, our preference entailed completion of an established university form. However, reality has played out a bit differently, and we do honor free-form statements with verifiable signatures. Consequently, I incorporated this option in the procedures.

Dr. Shekleton has given his approval. Additionally, I sent the MCR to the Immunization Committee and asked for questions/concerns. I did not receive any. Matt: This looks good. Thank you for your efforts. Trudy: Is there approval from the group? Group: Yes. Trudy: I will mark the MCR as final and send via email; also, I will post this document to our MOCC website. As we start this immunization season, please let me know if I can assist you.

7. Monday-only classes for spring 10: timing issue with census date and dropping

Trudy: This semester, classes start on Wednesday, January 13th. The Martin Luther King holiday falls the very next Monday – January 18th. Census Day (ie, the last day to drop a class) is the 22nd, and Monday-only classes meet for the first time on the 25th. As always, affected students should receive special consideration for dropping Monday- only courses after Census Day. Jen: At USD, we proactively identify such students and then enter this information on the SRGD screen. (See screen shot below.) This allows students to drop via Web Advisor. Matt: At SDSU, we follow this same procedure. Trudy: That sounds slick – kudos to both schools. Jen: I will make mention of this situation involving Monday-only classes on our upcoming registrars’ call. If there are any issues, we can address them at that time.

8. Technology Report: Joann

Repeat of remedial courses: It was discovered that Colleague does not count the repeated remedial section in the total cumulative attempted credits. However, if the section is not repeated, it is counted in total attempted. Suzanne will write up something to send to Darcy.

We discovered that this calculation has not worked correctly since the implementation of Colleague. We don’t know why it isn’t working. I do want to stress that this glitch impacts only remedial courses. We will work with Datatel to determine a fix. Joyce (Kepford at SDSU) is concerned about the subsequent clean-up; after establishing an academic history, she feels strongly that we should maintain it as is. As we move ahead, we will need to involve the registrars. Trudy: How was this issue illuminated? Joann: At DSU, a restrictive hold should have been imposed on a student, but it wasn’t. Detective work revealed this Colleague glitch. I anticipate that a customization will be required. Multiple records for same institution: RIS marked the records that are not the current record with an inactive status so that a lookup will indicate which record is active, and a query can identify the active records.

An example of multiple records involves a school that switched from semesters to quarters. This school has two entries in Colleague. In doing a look-up, the user can’t readily discern which school option reflects the current format. This process should remedy that situation.

Patches will be added to Production December 31 during regular maintenance: These will include the FA updates for the new FA year as well as other patches.

IPEDS Fall Report: Agenda item: There is renewed interest in how the reports for IPEDS are being generated. Colleague has made significant strides to bring their report generation in compliance with IPEDS requirements. There needs to be some comparisons done between university reports and the Colleague IPEDS reports. RIS will be asked to explain the procedure used for IPEDS report generation.

Here’s an excerpt from an email from Dr Gingerich: “…there still seems to be some variance in date the cohort is set but I do believe everyone is moving to census date. The campuses should be following common guidelines because these cohorts are used to generate reported retention and graduation rates which are used for intra-system and peer comparisons. These changes could have significant impacts on rates…”

JP comments: If we follow the IPEDS criteria for whom to report on the Fall Enrollment, we will never match the BOR census date numbers even if we use the census date instead of October 15. The IPEDS criteria say to count students who are currently enrolled at the reporting date in sections that have started and have not yet ended. BOR census date numbers do not include students from a previous term that have an end date after the Fall census date, but they do include students who are registered for sections that have not yet begun. If we use October 15 as our reporting date, our GRS rates will be better than if we use the BOR census date as the new freshmen who drop by October 15 are unlikely to reenter and complete a degree within 6 years.

The central question is this: is each school using the report function created by Datatel? And if not, why not? Each school that opted against using the Colleague report will be asked to compare the fall 09 figures of its “home-grown” report to those generated by Datatel’s report. Trudy: Joann, you are recognized in the system as the IPEDS expert; what is your opinion of the Colleague version? Joann: I must admit that Datatel is a bit slow with the fixes. That vendor is most prompt with implementing changes that relate to financial aid. As far as IPEDS, Datatel is up- to-date with the ethnicity changes that were recently introduced. Trudy: Does this slow response time account for the reason that campuses feel compelled to “do their own thing”? Joann: Some schools didn’t move away from the Colleague report; instead, they never used it. The report has necessitated checking and tweaking. In fact, this has been an issue dating back to the transition from ISIS to Colleague. I think that schools have received numerous questions as to why the report submitted to IPEDS doesn’t match that submitted to the BOR. This deviation seems to imply that errors have been made. To avoid questions and explanations, schools have developed IPEDS reports that bring the figures into closer alignment. But in reality, the numbers aren’t intended to precisely match. For the BOR report, the referent point is census activity. For the IPEDS report, October 15th is the suggested referent point. Obviously, these are very different…so understandably, the numbers will be different. Trudy: Can you clarify the October 15th date? You mentioned that this is the suggested date. Joann: IPEDS regulations state that October 15th is the norm…but that schools have the flexibility to choose another date if that is the preference. Trudy: So each school can choose either this norm or another date that makes sense for its particular situation…correct? Joann: Yes. However, my feeling is that October 15th is the ideal date. Any students who withdraw before that date will not be counted. Their elimination from the reported figures will then enhance our retention and graduation rates. I will keep the group posted as the discovery process continues.

9. System Processing Calendar: see attached document

 AR – Pam For our module, issuing refunds is the primary task at hand. Aid will be applied this week-end; we will start issuing refunds on Friday.

 Financial Aid – Denise SAP (Satisfactory Academic Progress) is our primary concern at this time. This critically impacts student eligibility for financial aid. Pam: Is there a deadline for suspending students? Denise: Technically, no. However, any suspensions should be processed before financial aid is applied. Since we start applying aid this week-end, turnaround time is extremely tight. Obviously, the stakes are high, so this is a tense time.

 Registrars – Jen Please note this item currently dated Jan 22nd: For a standard full semester course, first day a course or all courses that are dropped will receive a ‘W” grade.

The date is in error; it should be Jan 23rd.

I have a question about this item:

Batch update of CPG1, CPG2, CGE1, CGE2, and CGET restrictions for those universities that did not notify SDA.

Can someone expound on this process?

Joann: I identify students on whom these registration/advising holds should be imposed and create savelists for the universities. Each campus then has the opportunity to review the content and update as necessary. If none of the schools notifies Carla of needed changes, then she runs the process using the savelists that I provided.

What about this item for Jan 31st?

SDOS Auto-Email opens

Denise: The Financial Aid module did not approve; I’m not familiar with the reference. Trudy: I will do some follow-up and email the group.

Post-meeting note: as indicated in the email sent on December 31st, this item belongs to Cory (RIS). Here is his explanation: I email the non-regental SDOS schools to remind them to enter their data into the SDOS Database. The regental schools can ignore it.

 Admissions – Rose On the 4th of January, we at ESC will send the last commitment letter to students who apply to multiple universities. Trudy: That item remains black…should it be green to reflect review/approval? Rose: Yes, I’ll contact Carla.

 Technology – Joann I see another item that should be green: the item is dated January 4th and relates to adding codes for affiliates on the Chapters screen. Affiliates include those people who are regularly present on campus, but do not work directly for the university. One example relates to the staff members who work for the food service contract companies.

Also, the item pertaining to file maintenance on Jan 15th should be green. I’ll mention this on our upcoming DA call. A Very Happy New Year to all!!