Skip Navigation



Minutes of Meeting                                     
University of South Carolina Two-Year Branches Sector       
November 18, 1996                  
Present: Dr. Edwin Seim, Chairman;  Dr. Chris Plyler; Ms. Lily Roland Hall;
Dr.Deborah Cureton; Dr. Carl Clayton; Major General Thomas Olsen (ret.);
Dr.Carolyn West

Staff to the Committee Present: Ms. Kay Coleman; Dr. David Hunter; 
Dr. Gail M. Morrison; Mr. Fred Sheheen; Dr. Lynn Kelley; Dr. David Loope;
Ms. Lynn Metcalf

Dr. Seim convened the meeting at 9:35 A.M.  He asked that a  motion be made 
to accept the minutes of the November 4 meeting.  Ms. Hall so moved,
seconded by Dr. West; the Committee adopted the motion unanimously.  He
then asked that a motion be made to accept the minutes of the November 11
meeting.  Ms. Hall so moved, seconded by Dr. Clayton; the Committee adopted
the motion unanimously.  

Dr. Seim announced that the meeting for Monday, November 25 will begin at
9:30 A.M.   He then invited the Committee to begin its deliberations in the
hope that anything remaining on Critical Success Factor 8 could be
completed; and that all of Critical Success Factor 1 and 5 could be worked
through at the day's session.  

Indicator 8.B Continuing Education program for graduates and others                                                          
Measure: Number of non-credit continuing education student contact hours

Mr. John May (USC) provided a sheet with a newly proposed definition for
Continuing Education to be submitted to the Commission on Higher Education. 
He said the change from the current definition inserts "societal need" to
recognize that the USC two-year branches have a role to play in providing
liberal arts continuing education to such groups as retirees and high
school students.  Considerable discussion followed having to do with the
relative value in developing the measurement for this indicator to
encourage growth in Continuing Education offerings and contact hours.  Mr.
Sheheen assured the group that the Steering Committee was apt to look upon
the offering of liberal arts continuing education courses with approval.
He also said that the Steering Committee would want to develop a
single definition for continuing education that would apply to
all sectors.  He said that the proposed definition from USC looked
reasonable as a definition for all sectors. 

Dr. Clayton stated that the offering of continuing education at
Salkehatchie was a vital element in creating access to the community.  He
then moved that for purposes of this indicator, a base of 80% of funding
be made at the level of 4000 contact hours; and that for this indicator,
20% of funding will be distributed to institutions which achieve at least a
4% annual increase over the previous three-year institutional base.  In
discussion it was made clear that only an institution increasing at a
minimum of 4% over its own prior three-year base would receive a part of
the remaining 20%.  

Dr. West stated that in her opinion this was unfair since it would penalized
small institutions in which 80% of their budget is tied to personnel costs.
She also stated several times that continuing education is and will remain
a low priority on the USC-Sumter campus.  Ms. Miller said that it remains
to be seen how much this indicator is weighted by the Committee, so that
these kinds of concerns might not be very important.  The vote was taken on
the motion and the motion was passed 6 in favor and 2 (West, Hall) opposed. 

Indicator 8.C User Friendliness of Institution: Accessibility to the
Institution of All Citizens the State

Measure B: The total number of credit hours generated off-campus in
counties where no comparable program is offered by a public institution =X

Dr. Seim mentioned that although the Committee had decided upon how to
handle this indicator on November 11, the Committee did not have data to
review at that time.  These data were sent out with the mail-out for the
November 18 meeting.   Ms. Hall asked why Walterboro was excluded as an
off-campus site but Newberry was included as an off-campus site.  Ms.
Metcalf explained that inclusion or exclusion resulted from the
interpretation of FICE codes for classifying a site as part of a main
campus.  She used another example from another sector (i.e., Airport and
Beltline Campuses of Midlands Technical College) to illustrate that two
different campuses can be classified as "main campus" for an institution.

Ms. Hall and Dr. West expressed concerns that the two-year branches of the
University of South Carolina were underrepresented in showing the extent to
which they were providing off-campus course offerings, since USC-Columbia
received credit for any upper-division or graduate course taught by
two-year branch faculty members at these places.  Dr. Seim pointed out that
only 1 point of 10 for this indicator was assigned to 8C.B and asked if
with that information the Committee felt confident to leave the decision
alone from last time and proceed. 

The Committee agreed to his suggestion.   

Indicator 8.C User Friendliness of Institution: Accessibility to
Institution of All Citizens of State

Measure D.  In-State, undergraduate tuition and required fees are not more
than XX% of SC personal per capita income=X points  
Ms. Coleman stated that the tuition and fees of all the two-year branches
of USC except Lancaster (which was 10.7%) were at 10.4% of the average
annual per capita income of  South Carolina.  An informal proposal was
advanced that this ratio not exceed 12% if institutions were to be funded
at 100% of this indicator. Mr. Sheheen, however, pointed out that the
intent of the General Assembly was to depress the level of tuition and fees 
as a percentage of average personal income and that 12% as a benchmark for
this sector would be encouragement to raise it. 

It was pointed out that the proposal from the Technical College system was
to limit tuition and fees to 10% of average personal income.  Mr. Sheheen
pointed out, however, that the Technical Colleges have a local fund of
financial support which is typically unavailable to the USC two-branches
and that the current level of tuition and fees at the technical colleges
is only approximately 5%.  Dr. West then moved that a two-year USC branch
would receive 100% of funding if it was at or below a 12% ratio of tuition
and fees to average personal income; and that it would receive no funding
if it were above 12%.  Ms. Hall seconded the motion. The vote was 7-1 (Dr.
Seim, opposed) in favor of the motion. 

Indicator 1.A Mission Focus: Expenditure of funds to Achieve Institutional

Measure: Percent of Instruction, Research, Public Service, Academic
Support, Student Services, Institutional support, Operations and
Maintenance of Plant, Scholarships, Fellowships Expenditures Compared to
Total Educational And General (E & G) Expenditures (Excluding Fund

Dr. Seim stated that Appendix 3 of the minutes of the October 28 meeting
shows the percentage of expenditures minus mandatory and nonmandatory
transfers.  He noted that, exclusive of the USC-Beaufort campus, this
figure approaches 100% for all the USC two-year branches.  Questions
followed about whether measurement of the indicator requires eight discrete 
easures or only one.  After considerable discussion, Dr. West moved that
100% of funding for this indicator will be given to an institution if it is
within +/- 5% of the sector's three year average for each category; and
that the institution will receive only 80% of the possible funding for the
indicator if the institutional score is outside that range.  Dr. Cureton
seconded the motion.  The Committee adopted the motion unanimously.  

Indicator 1.B Mission Focus: Curricula Offered to Achieve Mission

Measure: Using the institution's most recently approved mission statement,
curricula offered to achieve that mission will be measured as the
percentage and number of degree programs and other curricular offerings as
defined by CHE which a) are appropriate to the degree-level authorized for
the institution in Act 359 of 1996; b)support the institution's goal,
purpose, and objectives as defined in its approved mission statement;
c)meet baseline CHE-approved productivity standards with respect to student
enrollment, degrees awarded , and student placements; d) represent a
reasonable investment of resources as measured against actual student
enrollments, degrees awarded, and student placements; e) have achieved a
recognized standard of excellence as denoted through instruments such
as CHE Commendations of Excellence; ratings or rankings recognized by
discipline-based groups; other awards and honors which testify to the
program's regional and national reputuation which can be quantified; and f)
are not offered, but ought to be offered in support of that mission.  

Questions arose about the nature of the indicator and about the definition
of "major" and "program."  Dr. Morrison and Ms. Coleman explained that for
this measure the two terms are synonymous and that at all USC two-year
branches except Lancaster there are only two degree programs (i.e., the
Associate of Arts and the Associate of Science, which are reported as
a single program.)  USC-Lancaster has associate degree programs in
Business, Criminal Justice, and Nursing, in addition to the AA and AS
programs.  Dr. West and Ms. Hall expressed concerns that "E" (for
commendations for excellence) was either nonexistent by national or
regional groups for AA/AS programs or would be irrelevant, since it would
be given by community college organizations.  They asked, therefore, that
it not be considered as part of the benchmark for this sector.  Dr.
Morrison passed out to the Committee members a sheet with six columns to
show how institutions might report their achievement of dimensions of this
indicator.  Ms. Hall then moved, and Dr. Cureton seconded, a motion that
the benchmark for this indicator would be answering "yes" on columns for
the measures of a,b,c, and d of the indicator ; and that for each of these
four columns which was answered "no" a 25% deduction would be made.  The
motion passed unanimously.  

Indicator 1.C Mission Focus: Approval of Mission Statement

Measure: Mission Statement with defined characteristics will be approved by
the CHE on a five-year cycle.   (The Task Force sees this measure as a
Yes/No evaluation.)

Ms. Hall moved that indicator 1.C be approved as a "yes/no" measure; and
that an institution which meets the indicator receive 100% of funding and
an institution not meeting the indicator receive zero funding for the
indicator.  General Olsen seconded the motion.  The motion passed

Indicator 1.D Adoption of Strategic Plan to Support the Mission\

Measure: Stategic plan with defined characteristics will be approved by the
CHE based on 1)whether or not it addresses the required elements and
2)whether or not it supports the mission statement (The Task Force sees
this as a yes/no measure with evaluative commentary.)

General Olsen moved that indicator 1.D be approved also as a "yes/no"
measure with either 100% or zero funding, depending upon an institution's
meeting the indicator's measure.  Dr. Cureton seconded the motion.  The
Committee adopted the motion unanimously.

Indicator 1.E Attainment of Goals of the Strategic Plan

Measure: Annual progress report on strategic plan analyzed and assessed by
the Commission on Higher Education and rated on scale based on progress of
meeting the goals and the resources required to do so.

General Olsen then moved that indicator 1.E be approved on a scale, so that
an institution meeting it fully would receive a rating of "excellent"
and 100% of funding under it; a "good" rating would receive 90% of funding;
an "acceptable" rating would receive 75% funding; a "marginal" rating would
receive 40% of funding; and "unacceptable" rating would receive 0% funding. 
Ms. Hall seconded the motion.  The Committee adopted the motion

Indicator 5.A  Administrative Efficiency: Percentage of administrative
costs as compared to academic costs

Measure: Academic costs as a percentage of total E & G expenditures
compared to administrative costs (institutional support) as a percentage of
total E&G expenditures 

Dr. West moved that an institution receive 100% of funding for Indicator
5.A if it is +/- 5% of the average for the sector for the benchmark; and
only 80% if it is outside this range.  Dr. Plyler seconded the motion.
Discussion was held on the meaning of the average and it was decided that
this would normally be a three-year rolling average, although to begin the
funding cycle it might have to be fewer years than three initially.  Mr.
Sheheen explained that the General Assembly was concerned that
administrative costs were relatively high in relationship to instructional
costs, so that the indicator is meant to depress the administrative
costs component.  In responding to questions about why the USC-Lancaster
ratio was relatively low, Dr. Cureton stated that this is related to the
fact that all administrators on the campus are typically also teaching a
full-time course load.  After discussion of these items, the motion passed

Indicator 5.B Administrative Efficiency: Use of best management practices

Measure: The evaluation by CHE of each institution's best management
practices based on a CHE approved list of criteria, reported by the
institutions, and evaluated by CHE annually.
Dr. Cureton moved that an institution receive full funding under Indicator
5.B, if it met each of the equally weighted thirteen listed criteria and
that it receive equal deductions for each criterion not met.  Her motion
was seconded by Ms. Miller. In response to a question from Dr. West,
external audits were declared to be those done by the State Auditor; and
internal audits were declared to include those done on two-year branch
campuses by the USC-Columbia offices.   With this clarification made, a
vote was taken and the motion was adopted unanimously.  

Indicator 5.C Administrative Efficiency: Elimination of unjustified
duplication of and waste in administrative and academic programs

Measure: Percent of administrative and academic costs (in relationship to
the total administrative and to saved by the identification of and
elimination of unjustified duplication and waste in administrative and
academic programs as identified and reported by the institution.

It was agreed early in the discussion that Ms. Hall's point of using this
as an incentive-funding device rather than as a punitive measure was an
important one.  General Olsen suggested that if there could be a positive
response to additional funding for this indicator, it could truly be used
for positive institutional behavioral change.  Therefore, he moved that
institutions receive full funding under indicator 5.C for no change at all
over a previous year and that for every 1% of funding saved by the
elimination of waste/duplicated effort over a previous year, the
institution will receive 1% as an incentive.  As part of this same motion,
he stated that this incentive funding should be equally divided between
academic and administrative changes.  Dr. West seconded the motion.  The
Committee adopted the motion unanimously.

Indicator 5.D Administrative Efficiency: Amount of general Overhead Costs

Measure: General overhead cost per FTE student

Mr. Sheheen stated that no figures were available yet for calculation,
since this depended upon the outcome of discussions with the Finance
Advisory Committee of the Commission.  Dr. West stated that it was
important that FTE counts under this indicator  should be attributed to the 
institution where they are located (e.g., USC-Sumter) as opposed to the one
where they might be enrolled (e.g., USC-Aiken.)  The Committee agreed with
this viewpoint and decided that the FTE reported under this indicator need
to be defined in such a way that attribution of them is appropriate to the
institutional effort made to supply physical space and student support for
the off-campus programs in which they are enrolled.  It was also decided
that the relative newness of buildings and the effort of management
to assure continuous maintenance for buildings (rather than to allow their
decay to the point of needing great repair bills) should somehow be
rewarded under this indicator, if possible.  Action on this item was
postponed until November 25.  Dr. Morrison will request that the CHE staff
and the institutions try to supply some data for this indicator by the
November 25 meeting, 

Indicator 9. A  Research Funding: Financial Support for Reform in Teacher

Measure: The percentage of an institution's private and public research
grants and Educationa l and General costs dedicated to teacher education
programs as measured against the total Educati9onal and General costs and
public and private grants allocated to research for the institutions,
weighted by total FTE enrollment in teacher education programs (graduate
and undergraduate) as related to the enrollment in all other degree
programs (graduate and undergraduate.)

Ms. Hall moved that 9.A be given a zero ranking for this sector.  Dr.
Plyler seconded the motion.  The motion was adopted unanimously. 

Indicator 9.B Research Funding: Amount of Public and Private Sector

Measure: The curent year's grants (i.e., the total dollars received from
public and private sector grants expended in State fiscal year for
research, including federal and state grants, private gifts and grants, and
local support, and excluding financial aid, student scholarships and loans)
divided by the weightedaverage of grant funding from the prior three years
(weighted at 60%, 30%, and 10% from most recent year to least recent year,

The Committee discussed 9.B, and decided informally that it would be ranked
zero, too, but Dr. Morrison will supply NACUBO data at the next meeting, if
these data are available for review by then.  

Dr. Seim stated that he had gone through each of the indicators and had
provided a percentage for each one to represent the relative worth of each
indicator to the total funding available at 100%.  He asked that each other
member of the Committee do the same before next meeting, so that a full
discussion could take place on how to rank all these indicators at that
meeting and achieve consensus.  

Dr. Seim announced that at the next meeting all indicators under Critical
Success Factor 4,6, and 7 will be discussed and acted upon; and 5.B and 9.B
will be reviewed and made final.  General Olsen then moved for adjournment;
Ms. Hall seconded the motion, which was adopted unanimously.  The meeting
was adjourned at 1:28 P.M. 

Appendix 1
Benchmarks for Indicators 1.A, 1.B, 1.C, 1.D, 1.E; 5.A, 5.B, 5.C, 5.D; 8.B,
8.C.B; 8.C.D; 9.A

1.A   An institution will receive 100% of funding if it is within a +/- 5%
range of the sector's three-year average for each category; it will receive
only 80% of the possible funding for the indicator if it has an
institutional score outside that range.  

1.B   An institution will be funded 100% for the indicator if it receives a
"yes" in columns a,b,c, and d; it will receive a 25% deduction from full
funding for each of these same four columns in which it receives a "no."
(The Sector Committee declared that columns e and f will not apply for this
Sector for funding decisions.)

1.C   An institution will receive 100% funding if it receives a "yes" and
no funding if it receives a "no."

1.D   An institution will receive 100% funding if it receives a "yes" and
no funding if it receives a "no."

1.E  An institution will receive 100% of funding if it receives an
"excellent" rating; 90% of funding if it receives a "good" rating; 75% of
funding if it receives an "acceptable" rating; and 40% of funding if it
receives a "marginal" rating.  An institution will receive no funding if it
receives an "unacceptable" rating.  

5.A   An institution will receive 100% of funding for the indicator if it
attains an institutional  score within a +/- 5% of the three-year average
for the sector; it will receive 80% of funding for the indicator if it
attains a score outside this range.  

5.B   An institution will receive 100% of funding for this indicator if it
meets each of the thirteen equally weighted criteria listed for the
indicator.  For each indicator not met, 1/13 of the total possible funding
will be deducted.

5.C   An institution will receive full funding under this indicator for no
change at all over a previous year.  For every 1% of funding saved by the
elimination of waste/duplication of effort over the previous year, the 
institution will receive 1% as an incentive.    Incentive funding shall
apply equally divided between academic and administrative changes.

5.D  Action postponed until November 25 meeting.

8.B   An institution will be funded at 80% of funding available under this
indicator if it attains a level of offering at least 4000 contact hours of
Continuing Education in a given year; it will also receive an additional
20% if its Continuing Education offerings in the most recent year exceed by
at least 4% the institutional most recent prior three-year average of
Continuing Education hours. 

8.C.b   One point of 10 only for all of Indicator "8" will be assigned from
8.C.B.  Data were distributed but the Sector Committee did not make any
further changes to their decisions of November 11.

8.C.d  An institution will receive 100% of funding for this part of the
indicator if it is at or under a ratio of 12% of tuition and required fees
to average personal income in South Carolina for the same year.  It will
receive no funding if it is above 12%.  

9.A   The Sector Committee voted to give this indicator a "zero" funding
rank for all institutions in this sector.

9.B   The Sector Committee deferred formal action on this indicator until
November 25, pending data concerning research grant funds reported under
the Research step of the current funding formula.