1999-2000 Self-Study Compliance Committee Report
Note: Page and line references in this document
pertain to the First
Printing of the 1998 Criteria for Accreditation
(Eleventh ed., First Printing)
Section I
Principles and Philosophy of Accreditation
Must/Should Statement
1.1a (5:4) An institution is required to conduct a self-study at the interval specified by the Commission...
Response
The University of Georgia is committed to the accreditation process.
The University applied to use the "alternative" method and SACS approved that application.
Dr. Robert G. Boehmer was named director of the self-study process in January of 1999. Subsequently, Dr. Peggy Kreshel,
an associate professor in the College of Journalism and Mass Communication, was appointed as associate director and editor;
Ms. Margey McQuilkin, an individual with over 20 years in higher education, was appointed as Coordinator; and Ms. Sue
Achtemeier, a doctoral candidate in Higher Education with significant prior experience in higher education, was
appointed as Research Assistant.
A budget for the self-study was established and an office, including a library and appropriate computing and office equipment,
was opened in Candler Hall.
A committee structure was designed and members were selected in February and March of 1999. The committee structure includes
an overall steering committee and committees for compliance, quality, research, technology, physical facilities, and
logistics. All committees were charged and work was initiated during the winter semester of 1999. All of these individuals
and committees have continued working on this self-study through the fall semester of 2000.
References
http://www.dowden.grady.uga.edu/selfstudy/ (accessed 11/22/2000)
http://www.dowden.grady.uga.edu/selfstudy/about/pdf/selfstudyplan.pdf
Conclusion
The University fulfills the requirement.
Must/Should Statement
1.1b (5:9) The Commission requires that the self-study assess every aspect of the institution; involve personnel from all segments of the institution, including faculty, staff, students, administration, and governing boards; and provide a comprehensive analysis of the institution, identifying strengths and weaknesses.
Response
All aspects of the University are being assessed. The Compliance Committee is assessing compliance with the Criteria while four undergraduate experience committees are reviewing separate aspects of the undergraduate experience including the overall quality of the undergraduate experience, research, physical facilities, and information technology as outlined in the charge to all self-study committees.
The committee structure involves over 200 individuals including faculty, staff, students, administration, alumni, community representatives, university trustees, and Board of Regents personnel. Further, all units on campus including all academic units, Academic Affairs, External Affairs, and Business and Finance are participating in the review process.
References
http://www.dowden.grady.uga.edu/selfstudy/about/pdf/selfstudyplan.pdf (accessed 11/22/2000)
Conclusion
The University fulfills the requirement.
Must/Should Statement
1.1c (5:14)...the Commission requires an adequate institutional follow-up plan...
Response
The self-study process is long and arduous and the University of Georgia will be responsive to the outcomes. To this end, the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost will receive the report from the Commission and assume responsibility for implementation of the results. All items will be addressed as evidenced from the University’s response to the 1989-90 self-study reports. For example, as a result of this previous self-study, the University of Georgia established a comprehensive program review system for all campus units. Also, a campus master plan was completed, a systematic review of Vice Presidents was instigated, and the strategic planning process was enhanced and is now actively updated. Thus, the previous report from the Commission served as a springboard for a broad assortment of programmatic changes. It is anticipated that the current ongoing self-study effort will produce a pool of items to serve as a rich resource to lead the University of Georgia in the following decade. A formal plan to involve the University in the follow-up phase was established in the fall semester of 1999.
References
Conclusion
The University fulfills the requirement.
Must/Should Statement
1.1d (5:17) An institution must be committed to participation in the activities and decisions of the Commission.
Response
The University of Georgia has adopted the alternative model for the self-study. The degree of the University’s commitment to participation and decision of the Commission is outlined in a web site especially created for the self-study. More than 200 individuals representing students, faculty, staff, administration, alumni, and Board of Regents personnel are involved in the process. Slightly more than $500,000 has been allocated to the self-study process. Finally, a formal plan to involve the University in the follow-up phase of the process was initiated in the fall semester of 1999.
References
Conclusion
The University fulfills the requirement.
Must/Should Statement
1.1e (5:26) An institution of higher education is committed to the search for knowledge and its dissemination.
Response
The motto of the University of Georgia is "to teach, to serve, and to inquire into the nature of things". The motto directly reflects the commitment of the University to the search for and dissemination of knowledge. Excellence in two of three areas including instruction and creative activity is requisite for promotion and tenure. Commitment to the search for knowledge is reflected in the growth of research funding between 1989-90 and 1996-97. Research funds increased from $143 million to $174 million during this period. Also, the resident instruction budget increased from $185 to $291 million, demonstrating the University’s commitment to dissemination of knowledge.
References
Conclusion
The University fulfills the requirement.
Must/Should Statement
1.1f (5:27) Integrity in the pursuit of knowledge is expected to govern the total environment of an institution.
1.1g (5:30) Each member institution is responsible for ensuring integrity in all operations dealing with its constituencies...
Response
Integrity is critical to all aspects of the University of Georgia. Academic honesty is defined broadly and simply--the performance of all academic work without cheating, lying, stealing, or receiving assistance from any other person or using any source of information not appropriately authorized or attributed. All members of the University are expected to comply with and assist in maintenance of academic honesty. The Office of Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost administers academic irregularities. A description of the structure and process for responding to allegations of academic dishonesty is described in the "UGA Academic Honesty Policy" and is maintained on a web page.
The Office of Judicial Programs manages cases involving nonacademic misconduct. The procedures include complaints, mediation, and conduct review. Hearing procedures, including pre- and post-hearings, are defined, as well as disciplinary sanctions and appeals procedures. A defender-advocate society to assist in the preparation and presentation of cases is available to all UGA students.
The integrity of the promotion and tenure process is essential to attract and maintain a quality faculty. The promotion guidelines require that faculty complete a full disclosure of conflicts of interest in the promotion and tenure process. Conflicts of interest include personal and professional interactions and relationships that would preclude highly objective and unbiased recommendations and correct, complete, and unbiased assistance in these matters. Spouses, immediate family members, and colleagues with an intimate personal relationship with the candidate are explicitly prohibited from participation.
Conflicts of interest in research and service endeavors must be avoided to ensure the integrity of the University. Over the past decade, the opportunities for employees to engage in financially rewarding, external professional and entrepreneurial activities have increased markedly. At the same time, sensitivity to questions of professional ethics has grown. Federal agencies have developed regulations to avoid conflicts of interest in sponsored programs. Further, state, Board of Regents, University, and, in many cases, college and department regulations specifically define conflicts of interest and the means to detect potential interest conflicts. University forms are available to ensure that faculty and staff have approval to pursue external work without conflicting interests.
References
Conclusion
The University fulfills the requirement.