Our Conference Call Will Be Held from 10:00 to 12:00 on May 21

Minutes MOCC Conference Call January 28, 2005

Present: Ranny Jones, Rose Hansen, Don Ticknor, Veronica Paulson, Rick Davis, Peggy Hallstrom for Sandy Anderson, Rosie Jamison, Mark Lee and Bill Jones Others: Mike Merrill

Agenda

Document Imaging – Mike Merrill – 10:00 to 10:30  The survey is not yet complete but all institutions have responded. Results will be distributed once they are compiled.  There is a broad array of how the system is used by the universities.  More departments within a university would use imaging if it were more stable.  Survey information will be used with the vendor for their evaluation and to give them a sense of how the system is being used. The vendor will then provide us with options which will then be considered by the appropriate committees.  The reason for staying with KeyFile is that all universities have a license with KeyFile so if there is a way to address the issues with this vendor it would be an advantage.  Procedures and protocols will need to be developed for record retention, record access, etc.  Although there are significant similarities in how the system is used there is also uniqueness.  The timeline is related to how quickly we can get the survey results back to the vendor. KeyFile is expecting the results and Mike feels that the they will come back with options in two weeks from the date that they receive the results. Mike expects a proposal from the vendor by end of February and we will be ready to move forward by March 31st.

MCR 8 – Orientation Restrictions – two attachments – Changes needed for Fall 2005 Orientation  Are there concerns from those who used the restrictions for spring 2005? o SDSMT-no problems reported o USD-did not use in the spring o DSU-did not use in the spring o SDSU- used this spring with no problems o NSU-did not use in the spring

MCR 10 Commitment – Next steps to analyze changes needed for Fall 2005 – one attachment, data sent on 1/26  Ranny referenced the analysis items and asked for reactions or additions.  Rosie-the manner for sharing information between campuses may need to be standardized, e.g. all use a common spreadsheet for communicating and sharing information.  Rick-the starting time for the process should be reviewed. An earlier starting time may be helpful for the larger institutions. Perhaps we should consider May 1st.  NSU-sub committee member Brandt Munsen to replace Sarah Hansen  Bill will reconvene the committee to discuss the process and make recommendations for improvement. Bill will strive for a committee recommendation by 25th of February.

MCR 22, 24, and Draft Procedures – Finalize - four attachments  Related to MCR 22, the largest change is how to handle the currently enrolled student who changes from special to degree seeking. Originally it was suggested that it should be recorded on SPRO but it is now apparent that a new APPN will need to be created and there seems to be support for this method. o Admissions perspective-to become degree seeking students must complete a new application. However, they will not be moved to student until transcripts and other documentation are tracked and received. They will then be moved to student and program would be changed on SPRO. o Rose-would spec.spec program be ended at that point? It would be ended when the move to student occurs. o There may be something that has to be done with residency status. o Ranny will modify the language that relates to the application fee. o Be sure to capture the enrollment status change from special to the new status on STAL. Ranny will check on this issue. o It is possible to have an initial application at each of the universities. The Admissions module agrees. o Does a WDR or cancel count as an initial application? Since each initial application and subsequent application will load two programs, this question is not relevant. o A currently enrolled degree seeking student section should be added. o Specials changing to degree seeking would be considered “continuing” students.  MCR 24-application fee waiver was added which would only be used for those students who are not required to pay the fee, e.g. specials, high school students, or USDSU students who attend more than one university but only pay the fee at one university. o Admissions module was in agreement. Clarification that for USDSU student there would only be one APPN. o If the student has never enrolled in the university system and applies to two universities they pay the fee twice. If they don’t enroll and later apply to a different system university they pay the fee again. Rose agrees. If the student pays, enrolls, sits out then applies to a different system university they would not be required to pay again. Rose agrees. A high school student does not pay as non degree seeking but would pay if they later apply as degree seeking. Rose agrees. o A comment is added if the fee is paid by a third party either agency or group (a comment is not needed in those cases where a relative or friend pays the fee for an individual student) . Rosie-do we really need to know this? Ranny responded that it is used for reporting purposes. If this isn’t the case it could be changed.

MCR 23 Name Changes – Finalize – Two Attachments (refer to notes sent by Rosie on 1/25 and Sandy on 1/26)  Official documentation-social security card should be included as documentation. Registrars do not support this proposal nor does AACRAO. Financial Aid relies on social security card for confirmation or discrepancy resolution. It was proposed that the social security card not be used for documentation of a name change but that it could be used for name discrepancies and to validate a name change for a student who does not have academic history.  Comments are entered to ASPR. The Admissions Module was suggesting that they be entered on ASUM as it is then available for all to view. Is ASUM used much when the individual is moved to student? ASPR was also suggested. We would want the most common screen that would apply to both prospective and current student. Ranny will visit with Carla to resolve this issue. Peggy proposed the following resolution: Since both ASUM and ASPR allow a select of “UTEC”, that would be an appropriate screen to enter the comment.  Is length of time that the student was not enrolled significant? It was recommended that it is not significant. Documentation should always be required.  There should be a campus contact list for this process.  Procedures for Ending programs – one attachment  Update the default catalog on ADPA to 2005?  There were no concerns with the proposal.

Tech/UDA Update – Don  Associate Graduation Honors rules are in PROD  Pre/Co-requisite fix for transfer and non courses has been loaded to PROD  The Deans List was a challenge this last semester due to inclusion of part time students. Also the combining of undergrad and grad courses and GPA for both PT and FT was a problem. Had to manually calculate and clean up. Determination of whether they were grad or undergrad was also a challenge. They decided to use same rules as extract. Spec at both levels is GR.  Changes were made to the semester begin dates to accommodate Monday classes. Changes were made to RYAT. Suzanne did the cleanup.  New IPEDS cohorts needed to be accommodated; new codes for FT/PT and Bachelor/Associates were created.  When to copy PROD to TEST-mid February. It was not possible to do it sooner  Placement test tracking has been discussed. Not all students end up in courses that they tested in to. Edits are being developed to identify these instances.  Minimum progression cleanup of missing historic statuses. Will review CACS process to accommodate exceptions (All grades of W, IP, S . . .)  64 line enrollment report clarification - GR students taking only undergrad courses are counted as UG. UG students taking only GR courses are counted as GR.  New procedures discussed for MCR 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  New procedures and changes to calendar for ending academic programs.  Census date extract will be frozen on February 3rd.

Other  Proposed that ADPA be populated with default catalog of 2005. There was agreement.  Early alert grades-next week USD faculty will enter grades and students will be notified the week following. Don would like to turn off the early alert display on February 7th. They will be finished by this date. The message on the early alert process, although useful during the early alert period may be confusing when the screen is changed back. Don suggested removing the portion of the comment that deals with early alert once the process is closed. Should Don run edit for all campuses? Ranny suggests that he does to identify if there have been a grade entry in GR1; this field should be clean prior to mid-term grading. MOCC agrees with Don’s proposals.  AR group recommends that a campus contact person be added for room and board issue resolutions. Veronica will send the names to Carmen Howard for inclusion on the “Contact List”.  Informational item on 2005-06 File Suite changes for FA Module - Additional release/patches enhancement clarification to the standard release continue every three weeks to date. In the past, the first week in February would be the week to go live for the new aid year. Last year we were a week behind that due to STUDENT. This year they are expecting to be three weeks later. This is related to sequential patch loads and work that Datatel needs to do to accommodate this process within the unique SD STUDENT system environment. This will impact recruitment and potentially retention. The aid award process will be later, initial processing batches will be larger and follow up communication to students up to three weeks later than desired. Our next MOCC meeting will be on February 11 from 10:00 to 12:00 CT. The number to call is 605-773-6140. Submitted by Bill Jones