Minutes Recorded by Rose Ann Lennon s1

MOCC Agenda February 23, 2007 10:00 am to 12:00 noon, CST 605-773-2307; password: 4625# Minutes recorded by Rose Ann Lennon

Main Agenda:

1. Introductory items:

 Role call Present: Pam (BH), Sandy (DSU), Sharon (NSU), Barb (SDSMT), Matt (SDSU), Don (USD), Rose (ESC), Trudy (BOR); absent: Sharon (UC)  Agenda modifications None  Approval of minutes from February 2nd meeting Approved

2. Technology Update: Don

 Prod box migration RIS plans to migrate over to a new production box (IBM 9117-570 Power5 Plus CPU) on either Saturday March 17th or March 24th. Tech group representatives will be checking with their student services offices on their preference for the downtime, and relaying that information to RIS staff, so RIS can schedule this. Colleague will be unavailable during the migration, which could take all day.

All seems to be right on schedule. Production is planned on being down on Saturday March 17 and/or Saturday March 24. When working with test, the process took one day - it should take only one day in production. The UDA’s are conferring with their campuses and will pick the better date.

 Daylight Savings Time The change in Daylight Savings Time requires patches to the java software on our Colleague servers. The changes have already been installed on the Test FTP/WebAdvisor/Colleague servers. They will be installed on the Production Colleague and WebAdvisor servers on February 22nd during the regular maintenance period.

Daylight savings time was patched during maintenance last night and seems to be working correctly. If there are any problems, let Don know. Daylight savings time begins on March 11 and ends on November 4 for this year.

 Other

R18 – Rose asked about R18 and when it would be in place. Don indicated that the transition will occur early next summer and that WIntegrate will be non-existent after R18 is in place. Rose mentioned that she had heard UI would change over by March 21st.

3. Readmission Process: MCR #12 (approved summer 2004) introduced streamlined procedures for readmission. AAC recently indicated interest in reconsidering established procedures as they pertain to the regental student who leaves the system, does not attend other schools, and returns to home location within two years; the group has solicited feedback from MOCC concerning the feasibility of simply reactivating the student’s file. The topic will be referred to SAC as well. Please refer to AAC agenda item:

http://www.sdbor.edu/administration/academics/aac/documents/02- 07AAC_8.A.1_BOR_2-3_reactivate-files.pdf

This proposal started with an email request sent by Dr. Whitehead at SDSMT to Dr. Gingerich; the concept was reinforced by calls from legislators to the BOR.  History Rose: MCR #12 was the end result of a request that originated with UC (then USDSU). Many UC students would stop out and then return, necessitating the completion of a new application. A subcommittee reviewed the situation and concluded that completion of the full-blown application was less than ideal. Consequently, the group constructed a short form for those students who did not attend outside institutions. The new form focused on inclusion of only those particularly pertinent details, such as degree objective, contact information, etc. For students who regularly come and go, contact information was considered critical to effective tracking.  Ramifications of proposed changes Rose: The current proposal – i.e., simple reactivation of a student’s file – presents a return to historical practices. Historically, procedures were very loosely structured; this created confusion and miscommunication. The loss of structure would produce a hardship for the admissions staff members. Sandy: Registrars are also concerned about this proposal. Current information relevant to contacting the student, program intentions, etc. is needed. The policy concerning the transition to a new catalog comes into play. The student would resume old catalog requirements if his/her file were just reactivated.  Essential information to be acquired  Referral to Admissions module – others?

Additional discussion: Regrettably, the short form is not readily available to students: it isn’t featured on campus websites. Consequently, students learn about this streamlined option only if they make contact with the university- specific admissions office. Before changing the procedures outlined in MCR #12, it would be highly preferable to widely communicate the existence of this form and make it accessible to returning students by featuring it on all websites. Rose will ask the Admissions Module for feedback; Sandy will confer with the Registrars’ Module. 4. Winter Interim: Discussion of this concept continued at the February 13th AAC meeting. The next step entails creation of a small task force (a maximum of six members) to revisit issues and extend recommendations. Academic representation has been selected. With Dr. Gingerich’s approval, MOCC will identify representation from the Registrars’ and Financial Aid modules.  Discussion  Suggestions

Sam suggested that we widen our circle beyond the established MOCC membership – the suggestion was approved. Also, Sam indicated that representation from the modules should not include SDSU or USD staff members since these universities are sending academic representation. Sharon will broach the subject with the Financial Aid module, and Sandy will discuss with the Registrars’ module. Each will communicate back to Trudy. Also, Don recommended that Trudy represent MOCC on the task force.

5. Minimum Progression  Feedback from Dr. Gingerich  Proposal from Joann Pomplun: I would support a University writing a report (and sharing with the other universities) to look for students whose current cumulative gpa is 2.0 or lower to be run before CACS and each university updating any Academic Standings that they missed as the students brought in their transfer credit.

However, I dread to think of the problems that would result if we tried to do an additional CACS.

 Input from the Registrars’ module: Sandy

After lengthy discussion, we opted to pursue the two-step method proposed by Joann. Don will introduce this conversation at the UDA meeting; the group will determine the most efficient way to write the necessary program and implement across campuses. Don will report back at our next meeting.

6. Monday-Only Classes: Dropping with a full refund Spring 2008:  Wednesday, January 16th: classes start  Monday, January 21st: Martin Luther King holiday  Friday, January 25th: Census Day  Monday, January 28th: Monday only classes meet for the first time

This scenario was addressed in MCR #21. Consistent with information delineated in that document, Trudy and Carla recommend this procedural modification: allow students to drop Monday-only classes (with full refund) on Tuesday, January 29th.  Issues  Discussion  Cancelled classes Excerpt from BOR Policy 2:6:

Drop and Add Period The drop/add period is the time period during which students may adjust their academic schedule for the term without financial or academic consequences. The last day of the drop/add period for a course is designated as the census date for that course and is the official date for enrollment reporting. The end of the drop and add period for standard and non-standard courses offered in a semester shall be the date the first 10 percent of the term ends or the day following the first class meeting, whichever is later. When calculating 10% of the term, breaks of five or more days are not included when counting the total number of days but Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays are. Student registrations can only be added to courses after the end of the drop and add period by approval of the chief academic officer of the university.

Sandy and Matt concurred that the best way to handle this unique situation is to run a query of drops the next day following the first meeting of the Monday-only classes, determine which drops pertained to these classes, and provide the appropriate follow-up. Sandy will add this to the Registrars’ Module agenda for review.

7. IP Grades: Dr. Gingerich has asked MOCC to draft procedural guidelines that facilitate consistency between BOR policy and operational practices.  History  Discussion  Next step

This topic was discussed and then tabled until the next meeting. At that time, the group will craft a proposal for referral to AAC.

8. SDOS: continuation of discussion  Campus involvement: responses from Registrars (please see attachment)  Regental involvement: Ranny’s suggestion

What it sounds like is we need an edit every term that checks if there are any courses with PASS/FAIL only is set to NO and all sections of the course for that term have PASS/FAIL only set to YES.

Sharon posed this question: how will the information flow from academics to Financial Aid? She proposed this solution: thirty days before each main semester (fall and spring), RIS will run a spread sheet that will identify PF only classes and distinguish between those coded at the course level and those coded at the section level. BOR will assume responsibility for those coded at the course level, while individual schools will assume responsibility for those coded at the section level. Sharon also recommended including this information on the academic processing calendar. Don will take this proposal to the DA’s for further discussion.  Guidance from Dr. Gingerich

Sam encouraged all MOCC members to connect with their university’s VP-AA – to visit about the campus-specific list of classes and the need for updates. Sharon asked how often this conversation should take place. Trudy will check.

9. General Education Changes: This topic was discussed at AAC; procedures and forms were approved. Please refer to this link: http://www.sdbor.edu/administration/academics/aac/documents/02- 07AAC_3.A.2_gened_changes_guidelines_and_form.pdf

 Considerations  Discussion

Sandy already introduced this topic at the Registrars’ Module meeting. No issues or considerations were identified. As a result, the group concluded that this process shouldn’t impact established catalog procedures. Matt agreed with this assessment.

Next meeting: Friday, March 16; 10:00 am to 12:00 noon CST

Supplemental Agenda:

1. Immunizations:  Non-compliant students (system total on Feb 20): 147 As of yesterday, the system total was 108 (a 26.5% reduction). At the same point last semester, we had 62 on the list.  Status of grace period: completed week 4 on Thursday of this week; five-week grace period concludes next week on March 1. (Note: non-compliance reports will be run and distributed daily.)  Key dates: o March 1: Deadline for students to acquire immunity to measles, mumps, and rubella and submit evidence. o March 2: Deadline for universities to enter appropriate codes in Colleague. Carla will generate the final report of non- compliance at 5:00 pm. o March 5-7: Time frame in which universities will review final reports, remedy any discrepancies, and make decisions on Administrative Withdrawal. o March 8 and beyond: Campus discussions with Dr. Perry and Dr. Shekleton.

As communicated earlier, the proposed legislation did pass; its specific requirements will be implemented in the fall of 08. Dr. Shekleton will provide the final version of the law; we will review it and identify all possible issues that require discussion and resolution prior to implementation.

2. MCR Update:

 MCR 26A: Teacher Certification o Current thinking

Sam would like to integrate coding of interest in teacher education with new student orientation. Trudy shared a possible option for USD. Matt indicated that SDSU would not have an easy equivalent – he will need to discuss the situation with Lon.

o New twist with D codes

NSU has a well-developed system for using the D code: guided by advisors, all freshmen document degree objective and major during the first year of collegiate work. This declaration process is denoted with the D code. In other words, all students are assigned the D code; it is not specific to those pursuing teacher certification. Sandy indicated that DSU also uses the D code; however, they use it specifically for education majors. Sandy feels that Sam’s proposal targets students too early. Discussions continue; Trudy will keep the group posted.

 MCR 34: Admit Status of Incoming Students o Feedback from UDA’s: Rose This MCR was discussed by the DA’s at the last meeting. The only recommendation pertained to terminology: they suggested replacing “freshman” with “new student.” Trudy will update the MCR and send to Rose for review by the Admissions Module. o Next step: review by Admissions module: Rose

 MCR 36: Residency Appeals o Revised forms – please see attached o Next step: consideration at BAC on February 28th

3. Student Address: Rose advised Carla of relevant changes to Colleague procedures (please see attached).

4. Module Websites:  Admissions: current  Financial Aid: updated  Registrars: updated  Technology: in progress  Accounts Receivable: agenda item for next meeting 5. Other?