In December 2009, President Hartford announced she would move forward on developing an ongoing review process for administrative units of the College that would parallel the academic review process that was currently being developed. President Hartford asked me to help her with this process and together we formulated a list of potential members which we finalized with input from the vice presidents for College Programs and Business and Finance. Steve Walters, two representatives from College Programs (Denise Parker and Marie Sumerel), two representatives from Business and Finance (Sharon Campbell and Diane Sherman), one representative from Marketing (Karen Dunton), and one representative from Institutional Advancement (Tara Brannon) joined us on the committee.

 

Both the academic and administrative review committees were charged with delineating quantitative and qualitative information needed about each program/department. The main purpose of collecting this information is to provide individuals and committees across the College common information about departments and programs during discussions and decisions related to the prioritizing of institutional resources.

 

The administrative review committee met throughout spring and early summer 2010. To provide a common background for the committee’s work, all members read the book Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services (2010) by Robert C. Dickeson and adapted the information in Resource C: Criteria for Measuring Administrative Programs when preparing the administrative review questions. A draft of the questions and the process was brought to SMT in fall 2010 and changes were made based on their input. The revised version was approved by SMT and sent to administrative departments that do not fall under the academic programs review process. This includes all departments that are part of College Programs, Business and Finance, Institutional Advancement and the President’s Office.

 

Given the diverse nature of administrative services across the College, the committee chose questions that could be answered by many different types of departments. The questions are intended to be answered with departmental staff input and discussion. Examples of the types of issues each department will discuss and report include recent changes in services provided and/or customers served, utilization of student work study, unmet needs for new or existing services, unnecessary services, technologies that could improve services, and projected uncontrollable future costs. All reports are due to the appropriate vice president by December 17, 2010.

 

After reports have been submitted, they will be reviewed by President Hartford and the appropriate vice president to identify overarching divisional needs and possible collaborations with other units. SMT and the Budget Planning and Management Team will also review the reports to help inform strategic planning and budgeting decisions.

 

Changes will be made to the questions based on feedback this year. The assumption is that departments will update their answers annually, although in the future the timing of the reports will most likely coincide with other Annual Reports and Continuous Improvement Reports.

 

In this Issue:

Update on Meredith’s Administrative Review Process
Classroom Recycling Pilot Project Begins in January
Meredith Fund Mythbusters
New Book Translation Explores Encouragement
Wade Looks Back on 25 Years at Meredith College

Faculty/Staff Accomplishments
Upcoming Events
News Briefs

 

Campus Connections Returns January 18.

Have you presented research or attended a professional meeting recently? Does your department have an event to publicize? Share these items and more with the Meredith community. Faculty and staff are invited to email submissions to Melyssa Allen, “Campus Connections” editor, at allenme@meredith.edu.

Please send any items for the first issue of the spring semester by Wednesday, Jan. 12.