Skip Navigation
Back 

min5-13

min5-13

horizontal line image

COMMITTEE ON PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
    Steering Committee for Performance Funding
MINUTES
May 13, 1997
S.C. COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION
LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM

Members Present                
Mr. Dalton B. Floyd, Jr
Mr. R. Austin Gilbert, Jr.
Dr. W. David Maxwell
Mr. Bill H. Stern

Guests Present
Staff Present
Ms. Camille Brown
Mr. Michael Brown                        
Ms. Sandra Carr
Mr. Charles FitzSimons                
Mr. Alan Krech
Ms. Lynn Metcalf
Dr. Gail Morrison
Mr. Fred Sheheen
Mr. John Smalls
Dr. Mike Smith    
Dr. Lovely Ulmer-Sottong
Dr. Karen Woodfaulk
The Committee on Planning and Assessment, acting as the Steering Committee for Performance Funding, met at 10:30 a.m. on May 13, 1997 in the large conference room. Mr. Dalton Floyd, presided.

I. Introductions
Mr. Floyd welcomed committee members and guests. All persons present introduced themselves and stated which institution or agency they represented .
II. Approval of Minutes
It was moved (Maxwell) and seconded (Stern) and unanimously voted to approve the minutes of April 20, 1997 Steering Committee meeting, as written.
.
III. Consideration of Process for Approving Institutional Benchmarks and Determining     Institutional Performances
Mr. Dalton Floyd reviewed three principles relating to sector benchmarks: 1) Sector Benchmarks do not affect the performance rating except in the case of an institution substantially exceeding both sector and institutional benchmarks. Therefore, it is anticipated that a rating of six (6) will be rare. 2) Sector benchmarks should be rigorous and demanding. Therefore, aspirational peer benchmarks can only be used if they meet or exceed sector benchmarks. 3) The sector benchmarks should set the desired direction for the indicator. Dr. Michael Smith reviewed the proposed guidelines for determining institutional benchmarks. He reiterated that institutions would not be disadvantaged in the rating process if they chose not to set institutional benchmarks for this year. Ratings would be determined by sector averages, previous years performance and other relevant data as provided by the institution.
There being no further discussion, it was moved (Stern) and seconded (Maxwell) and voted to accept the proposed guidelines for determining institutional benchmarks.

IV. Consideration of Proposed Sector Benchmarks for the First 14 Indicators
Mr. Dalton Floyd explained that the sector benchmarks should indicate a desired direction and that each benchmark would be discussed and voted on one by one. Dr. Sally Horner expressed a concern around the fact that only four (4) items of recommendations from the Statewide Planning Committee were agreed upon by the CHE staff and a lot of time was given by the institutions to assist with the recommendation process. Institutions expressed reservations about the CHE staff recommendations being generally at a level which was too much of a 'reach' for the institutions in the early years of performance funding. The technical colleges expressed concerns about the CHE staff recommendations for accreditation (3D), administrative costs (5A) and accessibility (8C). Mr. Floyd noted these concerns. Discussion occurred around the Proviso to Act 359. Mr. Floyd reiterated that the indicators may be changed to reflect the Proviso, but Committee action could not be really taken until the passage of the Proviso. Discussion ensued about the Proviso's changes in specific indicators. After a lengthy discussion regarding the sector benchmarks, it was moved (Stern) and seconded (Maxwell) that all indicators be approved as written by the CHE staff and that after one year, the benchmarks will be revisited and adjusted if necessary.
V. Discussion of Tentative Performance Funding Time Line 1997-98
Dr. Smith distributed a handout of the Proposed Time Line to Determine Institutional Benchmarks.
After a brief discussion by Committee members and institutional representatives, it was agreed that the time line would be refined and considered at a later date. Institutions were asked to share suggestions relative to the time line.
VI. Other Business

The next meeting was scheduled for 10:30 a.m. on May 27, 1997, in the large conference room at the Commission on Higher Education.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,

Saundra E. Carr
Recording Secretary