MOCC Agenda
Thursday, July 16th, 2009
1:00 to 3:00 pm, CST
605-773-2323; password = 5502#
Minutes recorded by Rose Ann Lennon
Main Agenda:
1. Introductory items:
« Roll call
Present: Pam Thomas, Sandy Anderson, Sharon Kienow, Barb Dolan, Matt Aschenbrener, Don Ticknor, Rose Hansen, Sharon Sopko, and Trudy Zalud
« Agenda modifications: None
« Review of minutes from our May meeting
I sent the first draft out to the group; Pam and Sharon submitted several changes, and I incorporated these into the second draft. If there are no other changes, I will post this draft of the minutes to our MOCC website.
2. Reduced Tuition Programs – see attached spreadsheet
« Notes from conversation with Monte
During two recent trips to Pierre, I discussed this project with Monte. On both occasions, he stressed the importance and urgency of this project. I reassured him that we are making progress. Ultimately, Monte envisions creation of a webpage on the SDBOR website that provides a form, link, etc for each tuition program.
Since our last meeting, Pam has developed a user-friendly spreadsheet that delineates current practices across the university system. Today, we are ready to discuss the findings; Pam will guide the dialogue.
« Spreadsheet commentary – Pam
During the fact finding phase, several commonalities emerged; this creates a serviceable starting point. The spreadsheet that was distributed with the agenda lists all current tuition programs; some were approved by the BOR, and some were established by the legislature. Let’s discuss each of them in order.
ê WUE – determined at the point of admission
ê 65 year of age or older – determined at the point of admission
ê Graduate Fellows/Assistants - suggestion for webpage: direct student to the Graduate School/Department of Graduate Studies at the home university to obtain the appropriate paper work.
ê ROTC – only DSU and SDSU have students currently enrolled in this program; do you use the same form, different forms, or no forms at all?
Sandy: For purposes of ROTC, DSU students actually go to SDSU; all related paper work is housed there.
Matt: We do have official forms for completion by the student.
Pam: I assume that enrollment in ROTC is very different than registering for Military Science courses?
Matt: Yes, that is correct.
Pam: Logically, the website will direct students to the appropriate office at SDSU.
ê Adjacent State – determined at point of admission
ê Children of Alumni – determined at point of admission
ê North Dakota Residents Attending NSU – The website will direct students to the appropriate office at NSU.
ê Non-Resident Tuition Rates for Enrollment Management – This program is a mystery to most of us; consequently, Trudy and I were excited to see that DSU has students enrolled in the program. Sandy, can you enlighten the rest of us?
Sandy: No, we don’t have any students associated with this program; the affirmative answer was a misunderstanding.
Pam: It appears to be a campus management tool.
Trudy: Historically, we offered an array of out-of-state rates; now that variety is a thing of the past. I wonder if this program is an artifact of that era.
Pam: Or is it still valid, but no one is aware of its existence?
Sandy: I don’t think this program is attached to a special tuition code. I believe that it presents a way to boost enrollment.
Pam: Is any school currently charging resident tuition rates to non-resident students? I can’t help but wonder if this program is obsolete.
Matt: I don’t disagree; however, I do want to preserve any option that allows us to promote enrollment.
Sharon: If used, this program needs its own code. But since we have no evidence of its use, we may want to ultimately recommend its retirement.
Pam: To piggyback on Sharon’s comments: if this program is used, it should be known and available to all universities.
Trudy: We need clarification on this one; I will touch bases with Monte for additional details and report back to the group.
ê Military Science Courses – this is coded at the section level and reflected in the student’s bill.
ê Employees of the State of South Dakota – a common form has been developed and implemented.
ê South Dakota National Guard – procedures attached to this program have been standardized over the last two years. Coding is a function of the share site. Depending on the operating practices of the specific university, the share site is utilized by Accounts Receivable, Records, and/or Financial Aid. The website will provide guidance to the NG Education Services Office; established Share Site procedures will then be followed by the campuses.
ê Veterans and Others Who Performed War Service – at BH, we use the standard VA form; it specifically references BOR policy. This form was developed and is periodically updated by the Office of Veterans Affairs. Submission of the form requires prior validation outside the campus. We should determine which campuses currently use this form and whether those that don’t are agreeable to its implementation. Trudy, if I fax the document to you, could you make contact with the various campus go-to people for veterans?
Trudy: Yes, no problem. These individuals are listed on our spreadsheet of campus contacts.
ê Dependents of National Guardsmen Disabled or Deceased in the Line of Duty – USD has one or more students currently associated with this tuition program; Don, can you speak to that?
Don: No, not at this time; however, I will visit with Jen Jost, our Registrar and seek out additional information, including whether we require completion of a form.
ê Visually Impaired Persons: This program is connected to Vocational Rehabilitation; our webpage should direct candidates to this group.
ê Children of Residents Who Died During Service in Armed Forces – Matt, SDSU currently has students in this program; how do you process the requests?
Matt: There is no form; the information flows from the Office of Veterans Affairs to SDSU.
Pam: With that in mind, our webpage should direct students to that office.
ê Dependents of Prisoners or Missing in Action – again, we should direct students to the Office of Veteran Affairs. As a note, none of the campuses have worked with such students for quite some time. We should call this to Monte’s attention.
ê Teachers – this is the second program for which we currently use a common form. The current version is dated March 2009 and is available through the SDBOR website.
ê Survivors of Fire Fighters, Law Enforcement Officers, and Emergency Medical Technicians – at BH, we currently ask for a death certificate. Matt, how do you handle it at SDSU?
Matt: The same; we require a copy of the death certificate.
Trudy: There are two pieces that confer eligibility…death and occupation. Does anyone ask for evidence of the occupation?
Pam, Matt: No. That is another question for Monte.
ê Minnesota Reciprocity – determined in the admission process
ê Resident Tuition for Rehabilitation Services Clients – authorization from Voc Rehab drives attachment of the code.
ê Non-Resident SD National Guard Members – again, we should include a link to the share site.
« Discussion
« Next step
I have asked Pam to collaborate with me on developing a proposal that will realize Monte’s vision; she agreed. I will plan to make a trip to BH to work on this with her. If anyone else is interested in getting involved, do let me know.
3. Military Spouse Program – see attached documents
In its continuing efforts to attract recruits, the military has introduced a new program that provides educational support for spouses. As stated in the attachments, our participation is optional. If we choose to partner with the military on this program, then we assume various responsibilities; examples include:
« Verification of admission to regental system – admissions/ESC
« Advising students of program requirements – financial aid and academic advising
« Issuing bills using the military’s software package – student accounts receivable
« Reporting grades and degree objectives plus validating progress toward chosen degree objectives (again, using the military’s software) – registrars
During recent trips to Pierre, I visited with both Monte and Sam about this new program. In order to proceed, however, we need additional direction from them; specific questions include:
« Is participation all-or-none? Or can each campus make its own decision?
« If participation is all, should involvement incorporate system-wide or campus-specific procedures?
Are there other questions to be asked? What are the thoughts of this group?
Initial and continued participation is contingent upon meeting specific criteria. Clearly, accountability for submitting and validating necessary information has shifted from the student/military to us. And as you can see from the list of selected responsibilities, all modules (plus academia) will be involved. When I visited with Sam, he felt that this concept is not totally unknown to us and mentioned the TEACH Grant as a comparable scenario. Sharon, I know that you have been heavily involved with this new program…can you speak to the similarity?
Sharon: To be honest, I see no connection.
Trudy: Sandy, what are the FERPA implications?
Sandy: We have discussed this on our calls; our assumption is that the student will be obliged to sign a waiver that allows us to share confidential grade information. As a module, we are not excited about the additional work load imposed by this program. The grades will not flow from Colleague to the military’s information system. Consequently, this reporting will entail manual entry.
Trudy: Don, since we will be using the military’s software – not our own – do we need to be concerned about security issues?
Don: That is a valid question. But before I can give a meaningful answer, I will need further information.
Pam: We talked about this program on the AR call. Clearly, the military is shifting responsibility for compliance to the universities. Additionally, Senator John Thune’s office is now aware of the program; his staff is starting to ask questions about it.
Sandy: Sharon, has the Financial Aid Module discussed the program?
Sharon: No, not this specific program. However, we have talked about the Military One Program that is referenced in the attachments. At our recent financial aid conference, an excellent speaker provided information about the Military One Program; however, he did not even mention the Military Spouse Program.
Sandy: At DSU, our go-to person for veterans is housed in the Financial Aid Office. She will be the point person for this program. Could you introduce this new program on the FA call?
Sharon: Yes, I will. Another interesting point to note is that starting in July 2010, we will no longer be required to factor in military benefits when calculating financial aid packages – we will just need to make sure that each student is aware of benefits.
Sandy: I will also take this back to the Registrars’ Module for continued discussion.
Sharon: In doing a quick look-up, I see that SDSU, SDSMT, and USD have signed up to partner with the military on new programs.
Barb: I can confirm that for SDSMT. According to our cashier, the military’s website is user-friendly.
Sharon: Todd Otterburg may be able to share some useful information. He did serve as a recruiter for the South Dakota National Guard; since his retirement, he has been working with the Military One Program.
Pam: Sharon, can you give me his contact information? I will gladly touch bases with him.
Trudy: I will also continue my conversations with Monte and Sam.
4. Pre-registration: As the group recalls, we moved the spring 09 pre-reg time frame back one week. In the aftermath of this adjustment, pre-registration and its link to student retention was discussed at COPS; the matter was then referred to AAC. Please access background information through this link:
http://www.sdbor.edu/administration/academics/aac/documents/07-09AAC_6.M_prereg_dates.pdf
At their meeting last week, the AAC members discussed this dilemma in great detail. The emergent strategy of choice centers on condensing the pre-registration time frame from three weeks to two. I consulted with Dave, Suzanne, and Carla on the feasibility of this strategy. In turn, Dave included Darren and Monte in the email discussions, and Suzanne involved the technology module. What is the input from MOCC/modules? AAC hopes to reach resolution in September.
After visiting with the Technology Module, Suzanne crafted a proposal for condensing the preregistration time frame. Don, you just sent that to this group; can you supply additional background information?
Don: We brainstormed various ideas that will enable us to shorten the prereg period; however, I’m not sure whether these will permit us to eliminate one entire week. This is a good time to consider a hardware upgrade…such an upgrade would enable us to handle the stress of greater loads.
Sandy: If we shorten the pre-registration time frame, I anticipate slower response time.
Don: Agreed. To expound on our proposal: registration sessions start at designated times throughout the day. Our first session currently starts at 7:00 am, and the last starts at 9:00 pm. We propose starting earlier (6:30 am) and ending later (10:00 pm). This will allow us to incorporate one additional session per day. Additional possibilities entail starting weekly maintenance later on Thursdays, scheduling more students on the first day of prereg (currently, a low volume day), and working Saturday into the mix.