Skip Navigation



             Task Force on Administrative Management
                        Minutes of Meeting
                        September 11, 1996

Members Present
Dr. Walter Owens, Chairman
Mr. Bill Dauksch
Dr. Leroy Davis
Ms. Susan Miller
Dr. James Morris
Mr. Bill Stern
Dr. Ron Thurston
Mr. David White

Members Absent
Ms. Paula Harper Bethea

Technical Research Advisor
Dr. Phil Moore, USC-Columbia

CHE Resource Staff
Ms. Lynn W. Metcalf
Mr. John E. Smalls

Institutional Representatives, Other
Mr. Michael Brown, CHE 
Ms. Mary Jo Cook, Lander
Ms. Susan DeWitt, Senate Ed. Comm.
Mr. David Fleming, Clemson
Dr. Carol Garrison, USC-Columbia
Institutional Representatives, Other
Guests (continued)
Mr. R. Austin Gilbert, CHE 
Dr. Charles Gould, Florence-Darlington TC
Mr. James Kirk, USC-Columbia
Ms. Maggie Hicks, CHE
Dr. McLean Holderfield, SBTCE
Dr. Wanda Hayes, USC-Aiken
Dr. James Hudgins, Midlands TC
Dr. David Hunter, USC-Columbia
Ms. Teresa Justice, Winthrop
Mr. Raghu Korrapati, CHE
Ms. Amanda Maghsoud, Winthrop
Dr. Harry Matthews, USC-Columbia
Mr. Gary McCombs, Coll. of Charleston
Mr. J. P. McKee, Winthrop
Mr. Robert Mellon, SBTCE
Mr. Tim O'Dell, SBTCE
Dr. Jeff Olson, Orangeburg-Calhoun TC
Mr. Don Peterson, SBTCE
Mr. Tim Rogers, House Ways & Means
Mr. Fred R. Sheheen, CHE
Dr. Michael Smith
Ms. Janet Stewart, CHE
Mr. Bob Taylor, SBTCE
Ms. Janice Trawick, Winthrop
Dr. James Vincent, Winthrop
Mr. Ed Zobel, SBTCE
The Task Force on Administrative Management met at the Commission on Higher Education in the
conference room at 1:30 p.m. on September 11, 1996.  Dr. Owens welcomed Mr. R. Austin Gilbert,
Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education, who was observing the Task Force meeting.

     1. Consideration of Minutes of Meeting on September 4, 1996
     The Task Force approved the minutes of the meeting on September 4 as read.
     2. Performance Indicators Previously Discussed
     (5)(B) Use of best management practices: The Task Force had asked the Advisory
     Committee on Finance and Facilities to provide a list of best management practices
     for review by the Task Force. Dr. Owens suggested that, since the Advisory
     Committee had not met until the day prior to this Task Force meeting, consideration
     of  (5)(B) be deferred until the next meeting. There being no objection, consideration
     of performance indicator (5)(B) was deferred until the Task Force meeting scheduled
     for September 17.
     (8)User Friendliness of Institution (C) Accessibility to the institution of all citizens
     of the State:  Dr. Owens reported on his meeting with the chairman of the Task Force
     on Planning/Institutional Effectiveness concerning indicator (8)(C) and its relation
     to the size of an institution. He stated that it was the intent of the Task Force on
     Planning/ Institutional Effectiveness to address the issue of institution size under the
     subject of  mission statement.   The Task Force then agreed to defer further
     discussion on indicator (8)(C) until a later time.
     3. Discussion of Performance Indicators - Entrance Requirements
     (6) Entrance Requirements (A) SAT and ACT scores of student body: There was
     considerable discussion concerning the impact of this measure as it relates to
     institutional mission, minority students, and including or excluding scores of
     provisional students.   It was also stated that the technical colleges' mission required
     an "open-door" policy which did not require SAT or ACT scores for admission. It
     was moved (Stern), seconded (Thurston), and voted that the measure would be the
     average SAT (or ACT score converted) of first-time entering freshmen, including
     provisional students.  The Task Force also agreed that a footnote outlining Task
     Force concerns relating to application of the measure be attached to the measure for
     transmittal to the Sector Task Forces. (Attachment 1)
     (6) Entrance Requirements (B) High school class standing, grade point averages, and
     activities of the student body:   The Task Force was informed by the technical
     research advisor and other institutional representatives that a large number of high
     schools no longer rank students, making data on high school rank difficult to obtain.
     The Task Force discussed whether the definition of GPA should include the GPA on
     core high school courses, total high school courses, or a weighted GPA.  It was
     agreed that the definition of GPA should be determined by the Commission's
     Advisory Committee on Information Resources (ACIR) which develops data element
     definitions for the Commission on Higher  Education Information Management
     System (CHEMIS).   
     Activities of student body were defined as extra-curricular activities.  Again, the
     technical research advisor and the institutional representatives stated that institutions
     currently collect no data on high school extracurricular activities.  
     After further discussion, it was moved, (Stern), seconded (Thurston), and voted: (1)
     that the measure  include the GPA, as defined for CHEMIS; (2) that the other two
     variables, high school class standing and activities of student body, be given zero
     weight by the Sector Task Forces because of the lack of data; and (3)the measure not
     apply to the Technical Colleges because of their open-door admissions policies. 
     (Attachment 2)
     (6) Entrance Requirements (C) Post-secondary non-academic achievements of
     student body: The Task Force believes that this indicator is misplaced in the category
     of Entrance Requirements and should be considered by the Task Force on Planning/
     Institutional Effectiveness under (7) Graduates achievements.  After some discussion
     on legislative intent, the Task Force agreed to request that indicator (6)(C), post-secondary non-academic achievements of student body, be referred to the Steering
     Committee for reassignment to another task force.
     (6) Entrance Requirements (D) Priority on enrolling in-state students: It was moved
     (Dauksch) and seconded (Morris) that the measure be the ratio of enrolled in-state
     students to total enrollment.  Institutional representatives pointed out that the in-state/
     out-of-state codes maintained in CHEMIS were based either on geographic origin or
     fee type and that a "residency" code would need to be added to CHEMIS for this
     indicator.  The Task Force also expressed its concerns that the appropriate mix of in-state vs. out-of-state students consistent with an institution's mission be considered
     in the application of this measure by the Sector Task Forces. The motion was
     amended (White) to use the definition for in-state residents included in the residency
     regulations filed under the S.C. Administrative Procedures Act, and to include the
     appropriate code in CHEMIS.  Mr. Dauksch and Dr. Morris accepted the amendment
     to the motion, and the motion passed.  (Attachment 3)
     4. Other Business

Dr. Owens distributed the following information to the Task Force: (1)  a letter from the Vice-Chair
of the Library Director's Forum, listing additional items for inclusion under the indicators of
Institutional Cooperation and Collaboration (Attachment 4); and (2) a preliminary check list of  "best
management practices"developed by the USC-Columbia (Attachment 5).

The Task Force noted that a number of firms offered services which could distribute and evaluate
standardized surveys on the management practices of companies and/or institutions, and asked that 
CHE staff collect information on this practice for review at the September 17 meeting.  In addition,
the Task Force requested that CHE staff  review the performance indicators  used by Florida relative
to best management practices.

The Task Force discussed possible definitions of "accessibility" as it relates to (8) User-Friendliness
of Institution (C) Accessibility to the institution of all citizens of the State.  The Task Force
considered whether to include in the definition access to minority students, the availability of courses
in remote or off-site locations, distance learning, or to survey current and/or former students on their
perceptions of "user-friendliness" and "accessibility."  Dr. Owens asked the Task Force to focus on
the various ways of measuring user-friendliness, including surveys, distance learning, etc., and
requested that the Task Force and CHE staff  bring specific suggestions to the next meeting for 
review and consideration.

Mr. Gilbert thanked the members for taking the time to serve on the Task Force, and  encouraged
them to persevere.   Dr. Owens thanked Mr. Gilbert for his remarks and commended the members
of the Task Force, Commission members, and CHE staff for their work in this area.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

                                   Respectfully Submitted,

                                   Lynn W. Metcalf