Skip Navigation
Back 

admin4

admin4


             Task Force on Administrative Management
                        Minutes of Meeting
                        September 17, 1996



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

Members Absent
Ms. Paula Harper Bethea
Mr. Bill Stern

Technical Research Advisor
Dr. Phil Moore, USC-Columbia

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

Institutional Representatives, Other
Guests
Ms. Camille Brown, CHE
Mr. Michael Brown, CHE 
Ms. Mary Jo Cook, Lander
Mr. David Fleming, Clemson
Dr. Carol Garrison, USC-Columbia
Institutional Representatives, Other
Guests (continued)
Mr. Frank Gilbert, CHE 
Ms. Maggie Hicks, CHE
Dr. McLean Holderfield, SBTCE
Dr. James Hudgins, Midlands TC
Dr. David Hunter, USC-Columbia
Mr. James Kirk, USC-Columbia
Mr. Raghu Korrapati, CHE
Mr. Nelson Lindsey, CHE
Ms. Diedre Martin, USC-Aiken
Dr. Harry Matthews, USC-Columbia
Mr. Gary McCombs, Coll. of Charleston
Mr. J. P. McKee, Winthrop
Mr. Robert Mellon, SBTCE
Mr. Robert Mignone, Coll. of Charleston
Mr. Tim O'Dell, SBTCE
Mr. Don Peterson, SBTCE
Mr. Tim Rogers, House Ways & Means
     Staff
Mr. Fred R. Sheheen, CHE
Dr. Michael Smith, CHE
Ms. Janet Stewart, CHE
Ms. Janice Trawick, Winthrop
Dr. James Vincent, Winthrop
Mr. Ed Zobel, SBTCE


The Task Force on Administrative Management met for its final meeting at the Commission on Higher Education in the second-floor conference room at 1:30 p.m. on September 17, 1996. 1. Consideration of Minutes of Meeting on September 11, 1996 The Task Force approved the minutes of the meeting on September 11 as written. 2. Performance Indicators Previously Discussed a.(5)(B) Use of best management practices: Dr. Owens noted that the Task Force had received information on a number of different approaches for this measure, including a check-list of best management practices developed by the University of South Carolina. Mr. Dauksch asked if the staff had been able to obtain any information on consulting firms that survey business and industry to determine best management practices and, more specifically, those firms which specialize in higher education. Dr. Smith stated that the staff was unaware of firms which currently specialize in this type of evaluation for higher education, but noted that accounting firms sometimes conduct these surveys in higher education settings. Task Force members asked Mr. Kirk (USC-Columbia) about the source of best management practices included on the check-list. He responded that the list was derived from a number of sources including the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), the regional accrediting agency for higher education institutions in the State. It was moved (White), and seconded (Morris) that the Task Force adopt the check list presented by USC-Columbia as a basis for determining best management practices. The task force discussed ways in which the check-list could be used to measure best management practices. Mr. Dauksch suggested that using an outside consulting firm to determine best management practices would be more appropriate than using a check-list with compliance reported by the institutions. Concerns about the cost of using outside consultants were expressed by several members and attendees. However, the Task Force noted that adopting the check-list as a measure would not preclude the Commission or an institution from hiring an out-side consultant to evaluate compliance with the check-list if funds were available. It was noted that no provision for additional funding has been included in the Commission's or the institutions' budgets for implementation of this or other performance measures. After further discussion on how the check-list would be used to measure best management practices, it was agreed that each institution would document and report to the Commission its compliance with the practices on the check-list and that the Commission would evaluate whether the measure had been met. The Task Force voted (4-2) to adopt the check-list as a basis for determining best management practices. The task force then moved (Morris), seconded (White), and voted that the evaluation of best management practices be conducted annually. b.(8)User Friendliness of Institution (C) Accessibility to the institution of all citizens of the State: Dr. Owens reminded the group that he had requested staff and others to bring to this meeting specific suggestions on ways to measure "accessibility." CHE staff presented a measure which included suggestions made by the task force at its meeting on September 11. The measure would be the ratio of an institution's accumulated points for each of four accessibility components to the maximum points allowed for the measure. Dr. Owens asked if the Task Force wished to vote on each part of the measure separately or on the measure as a whole. Mr. White requested that each part be considered separately. There being no objection, Dr. Owens so ordered. A. The percent of other-race students enrolled at an institution - It was moved (White), seconded (Morris), and voted that component A. be approved as written. B. The total number of credit hours generated off-campus in counties where no public institution, or campus of a public institution is located - Institutional representatives suggested that this component should reflect the level of the course work being offered. For example, the measure should not preclude a public four-year institution from offering upper division or graduate course work in a county served by public two-year institution. In response to these concerns, it was moved (White) that B. be amended to read "The total number of credit hours generated off-campus in places where no comparable program is offered by a public institution. The motion was not seconded. After some objection over the use of the word "places" instead of "counties," it was moved (Morris), seconded (White), and voted that the component B. be approved as follows: The total number of credit hours generated off campus in counties where no comparable program is offered by a public institution. C. The total number of credit hours generated in-state through distance education - It was moved (Morris), seconded (Miller), and voted that component C. be approved as written. D. In-state, undergraduate, tuition and required fees are not more than X% of S.C. personal per capita income. It was moved (Morris), seconded (Davis), and voted that component D. be approved as written. c.Discussion of appropriate use of total funds vs. unrestricted funds in measuring performance indicators (1)(A) and (5)(A) and(5)(D): Dr. Owens asked the staff to present the data obtained from the Advisory Committee on Finance and Facilities on using total funds vs. unrestricted funds in these measures. Mr. Smalls reported that the data from the institutions indicated that the use of total funds would be appropriate for the research universities (Clemson, USC-Columbia, and MUSC) while the use of unrestricted funds would be appropriate for all other four-year and two-year institutions. Task force members expressed concern about the latitude in classifying data for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) survey categories, and suggested that the college and university business officers develop a uniform system of classification. Mr. White suggested that a footnote be added to the measure to ensure consistent reporting by the institutions. It was moved (Morris), seconded (Miller), and voted that total funds be used for the research universities, and unrestricted funds be used for all other four-year and two-year institutions when measuring performance indicators (1)(A), and (5)(A) and (5)(D). It was moved (White), seconded (Morris), and voted that the Advisory Committee on Finance and Facilities develop a uniform system of reporting financial data on the IPEDS reports.
d.Discussion of using undergraduate vs. total students in indicators (6)(D) and component A in (8)(C): The Task Force agreed that these indicators are applicable to undergraduate students only and instructed the staff to insert the wording where appropriate in the write-ups. 3. Final Task Force Approval of All Performance Indicators: ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT (1) Mission Focus (A) Expenditures of funds to achieve institutional mission Measure: Percent of instruction research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, operation and maintenance of plant, scholarships and fellowships expenditures compared to total educational and general (E&G) expenditures (excluding funds transfers). It was moved (Morris), seconded (White), and voted that this measure be approved as written. (4) Institutional Cooperation and Collaboration (A) Sharing and use of technology, programs, equipment, supplies and source matter experts within the institution, with other institutions, and with the business community Measure: The total number of cooperative/collaborative projects, partners, people served, or the total financial impact of the cooperative/collaborative projects. It was moved (Dauksch), and seconded (Thurston) that this measure be changed to the ratio of the number of people served to an institution's FTE students. Institutional representatives stated that the intent of the Legislative Study Committee in this measure was to look at dollars saved. Task force members also stated that the dollar impact should be considered. The motion failed. It was moved (Morris), seconded (Miller), and voted that word "or" be changed to "and" and that the measure be approved as follows: The total number of cooperative/collaborative projects, partners, people served, and the total financial impact of the cooperative/collaborative projects. (B) Cooperation and collaboration with private industry Measure: The total number of cooperative/collaborative projects, partners, people served, or the total financial impact of the cooperative/collaborative projects. It was moved (Davis), seconded (Miller), and voted that the word "or" be changed to "and," and that the measure be approved as follows: The total number of cooperative/collaborative projects, partners, people served, and the total financial impact of the cooperative/collaborative projects. (5) Administrative Efficiency (A) 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 E&G expenditures. It was moved (White), seconded (Miller), and voted that this measure be approved as written. (B) 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. It was moved (Morris), seconded (White), and voted that this measure be approved as written. (C) Elimination of unjustified duplication of and waste in administrative and academic programs Measure: Percent of administrative or academic costs 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 moved (Morris), seconded (White), and voted that the word "or" be replaced with the word "and," and that the motion be approved as follows: Percent of administrative or academic costs saved by the identification of and elimination of unjustified duplication and waste in administrative and academic programs as identified and reported by the institution. (D) Amount of general overhead costs Measure: General overhead cost per FTE student. Mr. White questioned including physical plant operation and maintenance in the definition of overhead cost for this measure because of the variance in age and condition of buildings on the different campuses. It was suggested that the physical plant operation and maintenance (O&M) data could be adjusted to consider the age of buildings. It was moved (White), seconded (Morris), and voted that wording to index O&M data by age of construction be added to the definition and that the measure be approved. (6) Entrance Requirements (A) SAT and ACT scores of student body Measure: Percent of first-time entering freshmen who meet or exceed the minimum average SAT or ACT score for the appropriate sector within the state. It was moved (White), seconded (Morris), and voted that the wording be changed to clarify the task force position on "benchmark" vs. "average" and that the measure be approved as follows: Percent of first-time entering freshmen who meet or exceed the benchmark SAT or ACT score for the sector within the state. (B) High school class standing, grade point averages, and activities of student body Measure: The percent of first-time entering freshmen with a high school GPA equal to or greater than X. It was moved (White), seconded (Thurston), and voted that this measure be approved as written. (C) Postsecondary non-academic achievement of student body Measure: It was moved (Dauksch), seconded (Davis), and voted that this indicator be referred to the Steering Committee for reassignment to a more appropriate Task Force. (D) Priority on enrolling in-state students Measure: The ratio of enrolled in-state undergraduate students to total undergraduate students. It was moved (White), seconded (Dauksch), and voted that this measure be approved as written. (8) User Friendliness of Institution (C) Accessibility to the institution of all citizens of the state Measure: The ratio of an institution's accumulated points for accessibility to maximum points allowed for measure: A. The percent of other-race undergraduate students enrolled at an institution = X points; B. The total number of credit hours generated off-campus in counties where no comparable program is offered by a public institution = X points; C. The total number of credit hours generated in-state through distance education = X points; D. In-state, undergraduate tuition and required fees are not more than XX% of S.C. personal per capita income = X points. It was moved (Thurston), seconded (White), and voted that this measure be approved as written. Dr. Owens stated that the staff would provide Task Force members and guests with a copy of the minutes and final Task Force changes to the measures by the end of the week. Dr. Owens expressed his pleasure in working with the Task Force on such a difficult task. He noted that he would be remiss if he did not state his concern with developing these measures within such a short time frame. He stated that these types of decisions needed at least a year of careful consideration, but he recognized that the Task Force was working under a legislatively mandated time frame. Dr. Owens remarked that two items had been brought to the floor that this Task Force could not address. These were (1) concerns about consideration of the number of students (size of an institution) in any of the measures, and (2) differential costs for various programs, i.e. the cost of offering baccalaureate programs as opposed to doctoral programs. However, those two items were not addressed in the legislation. In short, he noted, this Task Force had a tremendous responsibility in developing these measures. The Task Force has done its very best in making these suggestions to the Steering Committee and the Sector Committees. Dr. Owens then thanked the members of the Task Force, CHE staff, Commission members, and all of the institutional representative who participated in these meetings. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lynn W. Metcalf Recorder