To: The Faculty Senate
From: The Student Affairs Committee
John Tully, Chair
Date: 8 May 2006
Subj: Report on the Proposed Restructuring of the Division of Student Affairs
and the Division’s Self-Assessment Program
1. On 15 February 2006 the President of the Faculty Senate asked the Student Affairs Committee to put on its agenda the proposed reorganization of the Division of Student Affairs (SA) in order to report to the Senate its impact to the University community. The President also charged the Committee with learning about SA’s ongoing self-assessment of programs and services through the use of the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) professional standards.
2. Vice President of Student Affairs Margaret Toston met with the Committee on 31 March 2006. She spoke about SA’s Accelerated Improvement Plan, the CAS review, and the proposed reorganization of SA. She took questions from the Committee during and after her presentation.
3. Overall, the Committee was impressed with the Accelerated Improvement Plan, which began in 2004 and is now in its final year. The plan, which was presented to the Executive Committee in October 2004, had very clear goals and objectives. One of the opportunities the plan identified concerned SA’s weakness at the time in “building strategic alliances with Academic Affairs.” The Committee was pleased to learn that strengthening the ties between SA and Academic Affairs is now a goal, and we expressed interest in having the Committee facilitate that effort. One current sign of that level of cooperation is the Learning Communities Initiative.
4. The Committee did learn that the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI), coordinated by SA, had questions about advising and instruction. With this report, the Committee is informing the Senate and its appropriate committees that there may be information from the SSI that might be valuable in reviewing student perceptions of academic support programs.
5. VP Toston explained the CAS standards and their role in SA’s continuing effort to improve the quality of its services. The CAS standards are the result of a national effort to codify best practices at colleges and universities, with a seemingly particular emphasis on areas that would traditionally fall under the auspices of an institution’s Student Affairs mission. Each department within SA is currently completing its self-assessment based on the CAS standards. The plan is then to bring these self-assessments to the Division level, identify strengths and weaknesses, align priorities with University and SA goals and mission statements, then identify areas in need of support. Faculty and staff members outside of SA departments are currently serving on many these department CAS self-assessment committees. Within one year, these CAS assessments will inform the development of SA’s new strategic plan.
Student Affairs Departments:
Academic Advising
Campus Ministry
Counseling and Wellness Services
Career Services
Health Services
Residential Life
Student Activities/
Leadership Development
Student Center
Food Services (Contract monitoring and quality assurance)
Judicial Affairs
Pre-Collegiate and Access Services
The Learning Center
Disabled Student Services
New Student Services
6. VP Toston shared with the Committee the then current plan for reorganizing SA. She asked that we not share that information because it was still in draft form. She did say that one of the objectives guiding the reorganization was how best to cluster services to maximize the return on resources. Another objective is to allow department heads to spend more time on strategic planning and less time on more routine tasks. Dr. Toston hopes to bring in more entry-level staff to allow that to occur, while at the same time increasing the level of student services. She reported that President Miller is aware of the broad strokes of the planned restructuring and approves of her emphasis on collaboration among the staff and departments of SA.
In response to a question, VP Toston informed us that she had not shared the drafts of the reorganization with SA departments. The SA leadership has decided to do this because earlier drafts had precipitated a series of rumors even after that shared draft had been changed. The Committee assumes that SA personnel will have the opportunity to comment on and shape the final draft prior to implementation. In a subsequent communication, VP Toston wrote that each department must shape the final plan to reorganize in order for it to succeed.
7. The Committee had a concern, however, in one specific area. We informed VP Toston that many in the campus community were concerned that one of the CAS standards, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Programs,” was assigned to the staff of Counseling and Wellness for review. The impression this created was that SA saw these programs or those students who utilize them as somehow being in need of counseling. She assured us that this was neither her thinking nor her intention at all, but that it was a simple staffing issue. In a subsequent communication, she wrote that in the process of dividing the CAS workload, programs without a natural home department were randomly assigned.