Hello,
At our September 24th meeting we:

1. Reviewed K. Harter's revision of the Student Support Services Outline. This, along with K. Mulray's Divisional outline, should provide us serviceable matrix for addressing charge #1. A discussion followed about where retention ( Enrollment Management) would fit. Most felt that retention was an overarching goal of the institution rather than a support service, given that support services are provided to promote retention. It was discussed that a reference to retention as an overarching goal could be presented in our extended introduction to the specifics of the charge. This will have to be revisited.
2. Theresa Tsai presented her preliminary report on Charge #2:A,B & C. Theresa' report outlined the processes employed by the college and included a conversation about those processes with Clemmie Solomon. Pat Scoles raised the question of faculty responsibility relative to our expectations of students, which lead to a discussion of what recourse students have when faculty provide less than professional services to them. There was some thought that faculty issues were not part of the charge to our committee. However, given the obvious relationship between the grievance policies and the need for such policies, it would appear hard to ignore the need for a reference to how faculty conduct themselves as well as how rigorously they protect student privacy. This, too, will be revisited. Cheryl Nelson had prepared her report also addressing #2:A,B,C which included her interview with John Howe of the English Dept. and documentation provided by Howe of the process he employs to handle student complaints. Cheryl's report will be the first item on the agenda for our next meeting.

Giriga Nagaswami and Huizhen Ren presented their preliminary report on charge #2D, which addressed student rights and confidentiality. It was clear from their outline that the Center on Disability and the Student systems Area, as one would expect, were the areas that had most explicitly developed written policies protecting student confidentiality. It was noted that the Academic Affairs area appeared not to have readily available formal policy in a published venue. A question was raised whether the confidentiality pamphlets that appear in 3rd week, mid-term, and final grade sheets were sufficient to alert faculty to confidentiality issues. This was countered with a question of what Academic Affairs does for new faculty, both full and part-time to alert them to the college's policies in this area.

It was agreed that Liz Speakman and Tom Ott would serve as first draft scribes for our report, with the full committee developing the drafts into their final form.

Our next meeting is Tuesday, October 1 from 12:00-1:30 in W1-1N

We will discuss Cheryl Nelson's report and revisit Tsai/Nagaswami/Ren's Student Grievance procedures. We can also make assignments for a team to begin work on Charge #3.

We have set late October as the target date for beginning to rough out a draft for charges #2 and 3.

Tom Ott