As previously announced, the Work Session originally scheduled for 21 May has been changed to a Special Meeting. Basically, the 11 June meeting has a very full agenda (including approval of the budget and personnel roster), and that date will also serve as the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Space Science Center.
As promised, here is an abbreviated agenda for the Special Meeting on 21 May (9:00 a.m. Riggle Room):
1. Ratify Awarding of Honorary Doctor's Degree
2. Ratify Spring Graduates
3. Approve Amended Campus Master Plan
4. Approve Reappointment of Auditing Firm
5. Approve Minimum Scope of the Annual Audit
6. Approve 2009-10 Tuition Rates
(The only item that probably needs an explanation is #3. The current Campus Master Plan calls for the construction of a new warehouse to replace the Cowden Building. As it turns out, the University is able to buy an existing warehouse for less money, and the Campus Master Plan needs to reflect this change.)
Do note that while this Special Meeting is public, the Board will probably also go into Executive Session to discuss some personnel matters, including the process for the President's evaluation.
I hope that you're enjoying some time off.
Ron
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Another View of the Audit
An anonymous reader presents a different view of the academic audit:
"With all the issues flying around with the audit report there has been few voices about the positive side of many of these changes. My program is affected by the changes but hopefully in the end the program will be better off than before. We hope to have a stronger program with a better position for the future. The audit report was designed to bring out the problems with programs and focus on addressing them. Faculty may not always want to focus on the problems or admit that the changes could end up being better for the program. It would seem that the only faculty that are complaining about the audit are those with problems with their programs that don't want to see those problems addressed."
I am glad to hear a different point of view on this subject and welcome further comments on the subject.
I am not entirely sure I agree with the last statement, however. Many of the complaints I'm hearing do not concern the rating but are focused on the implementation process. For example, some faculty from programs that are marked for "enhancement" have questioned how reorganization is connected to enhancement.
Other thoughts on the matter?
"With all the issues flying around with the audit report there has been few voices about the positive side of many of these changes. My program is affected by the changes but hopefully in the end the program will be better off than before. We hope to have a stronger program with a better position for the future. The audit report was designed to bring out the problems with programs and focus on addressing them. Faculty may not always want to focus on the problems or admit that the changes could end up being better for the program. It would seem that the only faculty that are complaining about the audit are those with problems with their programs that don't want to see those problems addressed."
I am glad to hear a different point of view on this subject and welcome further comments on the subject.
I am not entirely sure I agree with the last statement, however. Many of the complaints I'm hearing do not concern the rating but are focused on the implementation process. For example, some faculty from programs that are marked for "enhancement" have questioned how reorganization is connected to enhancement.
Other thoughts on the matter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
