2012 Middle States Accreditation Report Review

1. 2012 Middle States AccreditationReport Review Chapter 2: Institutional Vitality Standards 2 and 3 Chapter 3: Institutional Leadership and Governance Standards 4 and 5

2. MSCHE Accreditation • Mission-based • Decennial self-study • Compliance and improvement • 14 Standards • Characteristics of Excellence • Emphasis on results instead of processes

3. 2011-2012 Timeline • Fall 2011 • Campus comment on self-study draft • Evaluation team Chair reviews draft • Dr. Javier Cevallos • President, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania • November 2nd - 4th: Dr. Cevallos makes preliminary campus visit • Final self-study report prepared • Preparation of electronic document repository • Spring 2012 • Final report sent to team (6 wks. prior to visit) • April 1st – 4th : Team visit and report • Institution response

4. Organization of Self-Study Comprehensive Model • 14 Standards grouped into 8 chapters • Chapter 1: Institutional Excellence • Chapter 2: Institutional Vitality • Chapter 3: Institutional Leadership and Governance • Chapter 4: A Learner-Centered Campus • Chapter 5: A Vibrant Faculty • Chapter 6: Intellectual Rigor • Chapter 7: An Education for the 21st Century • Chapter 8: A Culture of Continuous Improvement

5. Standard Description Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal • Ongoing planning and resource allocation based on its mission and goals, developing objectives to achieve them • Use of the results of assessment activities for institutional renewal • Implementation and evaluation of the success of the strategic plan • Resource allocation supports improvements and maintenance of institutional quality

6. Standard Description Standard 3: Institutional Resources • The resources necessary to achieve our mission are available and accessible • As part of ongoing outcomes assessment, analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of resource use in the context of the institution’s mission

7. Joe Moreau (Chair) Lorrie Clemo Mike Flaherty Dan Griffin Jeff Grimshaw Bernie Henderson Linda Rae Markert Maria Nakamura Casey Raymond Tom Simmonds Mark Slayton Byron Smith Al Stamm Steven DiMarzo Work Group Members

8. Input/Data Sources Reviewed • Engaging Challenge: The Sesquicentennial Plan • Oswego: By the Numbers • The Power of SUNY • Academic Affairs Annual Report • Campus Concept Committee • SUNY Oswego Climate Action Plan • IPEDS data • Divisional budget data • Facilities master plan • Priorities and Planning Council meeting minutes • Division of Administration and Finance annual reports • Budget Advisory meeting minutes • Interviews with specific stakeholders

9. General Findings • SUNY Oswego successfully utilizes mature and evolving planning processes at all levels • The college master plan and facilities capital plan have provided a solid foundation for the ongoing development of the campus • Fiscal resources are managed prudently and effectively to meet the current and future obligations of the college

10. General Findings (cont.) • Human resources are evaluated and allocated in a manner consistent with the short- and long-term goals of the college • The college provides a robust and reliable set of technology resources to support creativity, innovation, and experimentation in learning, teaching, and research

11. Recommendations • Complete a technology plan in support of the college's strategic plan • Make strategic planning even more transparent and vital • Develop a virtual planning infrastructure and related processes to support broader participation • Optimize alternative revenue streams and continue to pursue new alternative revenue streams • Pursue the development of public/private partnerships to advance strategic initiatives and diversify our revenue streams

12. Questions or Comments?

13. Standard Description Standard 4 A system of governance that defines the roles of the institutional constituencies in and decision-making. A governance structure includes an active governing body with sufficient autonomy. Standard 5 The institution’s governance structure and services facilitate learning and research/scholarship foster quality improvement support the institution’s organization and governance.

14. Robert Moore (Chair) Susan Camp Kristen Eichorn David King John LaLande Michael LeBlanc  Margaret Ryniker Chuck Spector Casey Walpole Work Group Members

15. Input/Data Sources Reviewed • Academic Affairs annual reports • Admissions Selectivity Matrix • Discussions with academic deans and governance leaders • Divisional Budget data • Faculty Assembly meeting minutes and handouts • Faculty Bylaws • IPEDS Data on instructional and administrative costs • Membership of the Faculty Assembly and its standing councils, 2010-2011 • Membership and Minutes of the President's Council, Spring 2011 • Organizational charts 2006-2010 • Reports from the Retention Steering Committee • Support for Undergraduate Research (Provost's Office) • Table of Expenses and Deductions 2002-2010 (IR&A)

16. General Findings • The challenges posed by fiscal constraints and other changes met with vision and preparation • upgraded physical facilities • expanded academic programs • increased presence in Syracuse with the Metro Center • more international students to our campus • more of our students studying abroad • Leadership at SUNY Oswego has engaged in collaborative planning.

17. General Findings (cont.) • The task force model has proven to be an effective tool for shared governance. • Policy recommendations with timeliness, inclusiveness, transparency. • Student perspectives in our decision-making • Opportunities within the structure • Lack of participation in practice

18. Recommendations • Create structures to encourage more student involvement. • Identify and mentor potential candidates for leadership roles, particularly among the more recently-hired faculty. • Develop more effective communications practices with respect to administrative requests for information/data and the rationale behind the resulting decisions.

19. Recommendations (cont.) • Review official FA guidelines as well as culture in an effort to ensure that body represents the will of faculty and is viewed as a relevant, important organization by newer faculty.

20. Questions or Comments?