Response to the Reaffirmation Committee Report

 

Sam Houston

Sam Houston State University

A Member of The Texas State University System

 


August 9, 1999

Institution

Sam Houston State University

 

Address of Institution

Box 2087 SHSU

Huntsville, TX 77341

Dates of Most Recent Committee Visit

March 8-11, 1999

Kind of Report

Response to the

Reaffirmation Committee Report

August 9, 1999

Name and Title of Person(s) Preparing Response

Dr. David E. Payne, Vice President for Academic Affairs, in conjunction with committees assigned to each visiting team recommendation, the Council of Academic Deans, and President Bobby K. Marks



Introduction

 

The coordinating of Sam Houston State University's response to the recommendations of the SACS visiting team was assigned to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The Vice President, in consultation with the Chair of the Self-Study Committee, made assignments for responding to each recommendation. For each recommendation, a person was assigned to spearhead the response and several others were assigned to assist. All people assigned to these response teams were intimately involved in the areas related to the particular recommendation. In each case a member of the team was assigned who was administratively able to ensure that institutional responses to the recommendations had been or would actually be implemented (Exhibit 0-1).

Responses to recommendations of these teams were received and revised by the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs. These revised responses were submitted for review and comment to all faculty and administrative members who had been involved in preparing the response to any recommendation. After incorporating comments from all of these reviewers, the response was reviewed finally by the Council of Academic Deans, approved, and forwarded to President Marks, who reviewed and approved the document.

The entire review process, including the conducting of the self-study, the activities of the visiting committee, and the adjustments in institutional practice resulting from the recommendations of the self-study, have been of great benefit to SHSU. We look forward to giving further consideration to suggestions of the visitation team during the coming months.

1.6 Representation of Status

Recommendation #1:

The Committee recommends the University follow through on its commitment to properly list its accredited status with the Commission on Colleges in its next publication of its Graduate Catalog, and that a copy of the catalog when published be forwarded to the Commission Office.

 

Visiting Committee Concern(s):

The visiting committee is concerned that the 1997-1999 Graduate Catalogue does not include the address and telephone number of the Commission on Colleges or the candidate information for the two new doctoral degrees in educational leadership and forensic clinical psychology.

 

 

Response by Institution:

  • The Graduate Catalogue 1999-2001 (published spring 1999) contains on the inside back cover the following statement of SHSU's accreditation status with the Commission on Colleges (Exhibit 1-1):

    • Sam Houston State University is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097; Telephone number 404-679-4501) to award the bachelor's and master's degrees and the Ph.D. in Criminal Justice and is a Candidate for Accreditation to award the Ed.D. in Educational Leadership, and the Ph.D. in Forensic Clinical Psychology.

  • A copy of the 1999-2001 catalogue has recently been forwarded to Dr. Gerald Lord. Future statements in relevant university materials will read:

  • Sam Houston State University is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (1866 Southern Lane, Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097; Telephone number 404-679-4501) to award the bachelor's and master's degrees and the Ph.D. in Criminal Justice, the Ed.D. in Educational Leadership, and the Ph.D. in Forensic Clinical Psychology.

    •

    With these revisions we have addressed the concerns raised in Recommendation #1.

     

    Planning and Evaluation: Administrative and Educational Support Services

     

    Recommendation #2:

    The Committee recommends that the University designs and implements a careful assessment of advisement and that it uses the results to improve this function.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee felt that the advisement program, which is a component of student retention, is insufficiently evaluated in terms of its effectiveness.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

    Through the enhancement of existing assessment techniques, the addition of external consultants as assessors and advisors, the addition of tracking mechanisms for monitoring and improving student and advisor success, and the planned ongoing improvement of our student survey questions through the establishment of committees for regular review, Sam Houston State has addressed the concerns raised in Recommendation #2.

     

    3.3 Institutional Research

     

    Recommendation #3:

    The Committee recommends that the University demonstrates that it has a system in place to ensure the consistency and accuracy of information used for planning and assessment and that it has allocated sufficient resources to make effective use of this system.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee is concerned that the Office of Institutional Research and other units of the University are hampered by the absence of a common database, the creation of which has been recommended by the University's Institutional Effectiveness Committee. Without such a database, it has proven difficult to obtain consistent and accurate information in support of planning and assessment. In addition, as confirmed by the Committee's interviews with academic and non-academic administrators, the level of staffing in Institutional Research has limited the ability of that office to respond to planning and assessment needs.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

  • Discussions between the Office of Institutional Research and the University computing center have led to the conclusion that a common database could best be established by developing and eliminating inaccuracy and duplication rather than purchasing a new external database system. Working together, several steps have been taken to create the database, to make it accurate and accessible, and to ensure that staff across the University are trained to use it successfully.

  • In August of 1998, a new director was hired for the Office of Institutional Research. With the arrival of the new director, the goals of the office were changed to include a goal for consistent and accurate reporting of data (Exhibit 3-1, Goal 3--revised). The first objective for completing this goal was to change the current reporting practice of querying dynamic files (files that are continually updated) for reporting, to querying data snapshots (twelfth class day unchanging data sets) for reporting. Though there was a data file in place, known as the Student Management Information Database (STDM), the information was not being utilized nor reconciled with reporting done for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. In September of 1998, the state and federal reports began querying the STDM file. All other reports began querying from the STDM as of June 1999. Thus, all data reports now come from the same fixed common database and reconcile to each other.

  • The next objective in ensuring consistent and accurate data was to set up a cross check for all data reporting. For each report, a program is written by Computer Services to perform a query from the STDM file. These reports are compared to the older reports from the production data system, and also to queries performed by the Office of Institutional Research on the STDM file. Inconsistencies are reconciled and corrected. Once the inconsistencies are corrected, random subjects are chosen for a "data check." To ensure accuracy, information for each subject is compared to his/her transcript. This procedure provides a means to detect errors in programming and in data entry, resulting in improved accuracy and consistency of data.

  • The third objective in ensuring consistent and accurate data was to have all reporting done through the Office of Institutional Research. For example, the Integrated Post Secondary Data System (IPEDS) report was being reported from the Registrar's Office. Now the IPEDS report comes from the Office of Institutional Research in collaboration with the Registrar's Office. Also, the data reporting for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) was done by hand in the Department of Athletics. As of summer 1999 all NCAA reports come from the STDM (Common Database/ Student File) through the Office of Institutional Research.

  • The STDM was expanded. The reporting file is now known as the "Common Database." Within the database is a student file (STDM), an undergraduate admissions file, a graduate admissions file, a faculty file, and a staff/administration file.

  • Faculty and administrators have been asked to list data elements which are not in the existing database but which would provide useful management information. The proposed additions to the student file and the new data elements for the new files were circulated throughout the University and were approved by the Information Technology Resource Council (ITRC). A copy of the agenda and minutes of this meeting is attached, along with a copy of the proposed changes and additions (Exhibit 3-2). These additions and changes as approved by the ITRC will be added to the database this year. As additional requests are made, the database will continue to be expanded.

  • Beginning fall 1999 the STDM will be written to CD-ROMs and distributed each semester across campus to each office at the dean's or director's level or above and to all offices requesting a copy. The files will be presented in several different formats, including TEXT, SAS, SPSS, EXCEL, and ACCESS. This will allow users across campus to gather information from the same data file used in the Office of Institutional Research for reporting. Also included on the CD-ROMs will be the Mini-Profiles (a brief statistical snapshot of the university) published by the Office of Institutional Research. This will allow users across campus to have a quick reference for institutional data to use in their planning and assessment processes.

  • Accountability, by department, has been established for the supported data elements (see Exhibit 3-3). The ITRC will notify the Office of Institutional Research of any incomplete or missing data.

  • A training program for users is being conducted by Computer Services and the Office of Institutional Research. Our first training for the use of the Common Database was held the first week of August 1999 using the SPSS interface. The training included a mini-course on conducting institutional research for planning and assessment. Other interfaces are being evaluated and will be included in the training throughout the 1999-2000 school year.

  • The Common Database Committee, made up of representatives of the Office of Institutional Research, Computer Services, the Registrar's Office, the Office of Graduate Studies, the Office of Undergraduate Admissions, and the Office of Financial Aid, has been formed and will review and ensure the consistency and accuracy of the management information software (MIS) database. Any discrepancies in the data will be presented to this committee and the committee will then decide through consensus what changes should be made to the common database.

  • In an effort to reduce the workload of the Office of Institutional Research, the responsibility for institutional effectiveness has been assigned directly to the deans and the vice presidents. The Office of Institutional Research will serve only to coordinate institutional effectiveness reports and to provide technical support. This will provide a substantial reduction in the workload of the Office of Institutional Research. Further, additional office space and one half-time graduate student with statistical expertise have been added to the existing staff and space of the Office of Institutional Research. Finally, the Office of Institutional Research will be administratively relocated under a new Associate Vice President for Information Resources to increase the institutional resources from the Computer Center, which will be available to that office.

    •

    We believe this wide range of actions to increase the completeness, consistency, and accuracy of the University's common database and other information systems taken as a result of the self-study and the visiting committee's recommendations have resolved the concerns which led to this recommendation.

     

     

    4.2.2 Undergraduate Completion Requirements

     

    Recommendation #4:

    The Committee recommends that the institution ensures a procedure to demonstrate that its students are competent in oral communication and the basic use of computers.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee acknowledged that the undergraduate curriculum provides adequate preparation in mathematics and that student proficiency in writing is "clearly demonstrated" through the writing-enhanced course requirement. However, the committee expressed concern about the lack of suitable course work in computer skills . . . ." Regarding oral communication, the committee pointed out that "it is not clear if the oral communication competency is presumed through the writing intensive experience" and that, furthermore, "the core does not require a foundation course in oral communication, though the student may elect a speech course to satisfy one core criterion."

     

     

    Response by Institution:

  • In the fall of 1998, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) mandated that all public colleges and universities in the state revise their undergraduate core curricula, the object being to make core curricula universally transferable. In its subsequent revision of the core curriculum, the University made computer course work mandatory for all students as part of the core curriculum. This new core was approved by the Coordinating Board in May 1999. The core curriculum approval is contained in Exhibit 4-1 and the course outlines for the acceptable computer courses are contained in Exhibit 4-2. Undergraduate students are now required to take three semester hours of computer science to be satisfied by one of the following:

  • Computing Science (CS) 133--Introduction to Computers

  • CS 138--Multi-media and Network Computing

  • CS 143--Introduction to Computing for the Social Sciences

  • Library Science (LS) 130--Information Access Strategies

  • Management Information Systems (MIS) 188--Introduction to Information Systems

  • Three hours of a more advanced computer literacy course

  • This universal core requirement is effective beginning in the fall semester of 1999.

  • A copy of the new requirement has been prepared as an insert to the current Undergraduate Catalogue (Exhibit 4-3).

  • The only "universal" speech communications requirement at the University is in the oral presentation component of English (ENG) 165. However, most students at the University are required to take a speech communications course, and most of the rest have the option to take one. In actual practice, the majority of students at the University are required to take at least one three-semester-hour course in speech communications. For instance, Speech (SCM) 262 is a requirement in the Bachelor of Business Administration core, and all students receiving teacher certification are required at least one speech course (usually SCM 384--Speech for Teachers). Other students fall under the baccalaureate core specification of a choice between a speech communications course and a fourth English course. Some curricula on campus leave this choice up to the students, while others specify one or the other. Students in Criminal Justice have the choice between speech and English, although the majority reportedly opt for speech. Five departments in the College of Arts and Sciences specify oral communications training in their non-teaching majors. For example, all natural science majors are required to make oral presentations as part of research in sociology and political science.

    •

    Still, this leaves a significant population of students (mostly non-teaching-certification science and humanities majors in the College of Arts and Sciences) whose only required training in oral communications comes through the oral presentation component of ENG 165. The University has responded to the imperatives of the criteria and the concerns of the committee by further strengthening the oral presentation component of ENG 165 rather than adding a new course to the core curriculum. Following are the means by which this strengthening was accomplished:

    Increased emphasis on the oral presentation course requirement.

  • Past policy for ENG 165 (as reflected in the 1998-99 master syllabus) called for the oral presentation to represent 10 percent of the total grade. ENG 165 policy (newly revised to respond to Recommendation 4) specifies that this be doubled to 20 percent (Exhibit 4-4).

  • Since course policy stipulated that students must have completed all course requirements, students have never been able simply to forego the oral presentation requirement. They must now complete it to pass the course. Still, in years past a student might have been able to fail the oral presentation and still pass the course. This will be far less likely under the new course policy. (The department considered but tabled the proposal to establish the oral presentation as a specific exit requirement for ENG 165.) Finally, the oral report remains one of the five components of the official course requirements, as stated in the official syllabus (Exhibit 4-5) distributed to all students in the course.

    • Strengthened commitment to instruction in the oral presentation component of English 165.

  • Instructional guidelines for ENG 165 have been revised to increase the class time allotted for instruction in the oral communications component. A revised course objective in the master syllabus for ENG 165 specifies that students will "learn to give effective oral presentation of researched material in an interdisciplinary setting." Furthermore, the "Methods of Instruction" section of the master syllabus which is directed specifically to students now reads as follows: "You will improve your listening skills through listening to the reports of others, and improve your public speaking skills through presenting an oral report related to your research." This expanded treatment will include increased emphasis on the translation of written research to oral presentation in an interdisciplinary setting. It will also include increased time for instruction in oral communications and expanded time for speech preparation and practice.

    • Additional training for ENG 165 faculty.

  • Arrangements have been made for faculty in the Speech Communication Program to conduct beginning-of-the-semester workshops for English faculty beginning fall 1999. These workshops will stress the principles of oral communications that specifically apply to across-the-disciplines oral presentation. In addition, English faculty experienced in teaching technical writing (which includes a significant oral presentation component) will act as consultants and facilitators during the semester. Most of these faculty also teach ENG 165.

    • We believe that raising the proportion of ENG 165 which is devoted to oral communication and increasing the preparation of faculty to deliver oral communication skills instruction address this part of the recommendation. The recommendation's concern with computer competency has been addressed by the addition of a requirement that students select at least one basic computer skills course as part of the core curriculum requirement.

     

    4.2.2 Undergraduate Completion Requirements

    Recommendation #5:

    The visiting committee recommends that the number of hours in residence required for graduation should be raised to a figure at least equaling 25 percent of total credit hours.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee felt the residency requirement of 30 hours, which is less than 25 percent of the 128 academic credit hours required for degree completion, is not sufficient.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

  • The number of hours in residence required for graduation has been raised to 32 hours, 25 percent of the total hours required for graduation. During the fall 1999 semester the Undergraduate Catalogue will be revised prior to publishing the 2000-2002 catalogue. The Assistant to the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, who is responsible for catalogue production, has completed the changes necessary to accurately reflect the 32-hour residency requirement. A copy of these changes as they will appear in the 2000-2002 catalogue is shown in Exhibit 5-1.

  • Degree plans for students entering fall 1999 have been adjusted to reflect the change. (See Exhibit 5-2 for an example.)

    • The change in the requirement has been accomplished and reflected in appropriate informational locations addressing this recommendation.

     

    4.2.4 Undergraduate Instruction

     

    Recommendation #6:

    The visiting committee recommends that the institution demonstrate that it uses the results of the evaluation of instruction to ensure quality instruction.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    Despite sound policies for the evaluation of instruction, specific informational resources are not always provided to assist faculty in improving their teaching. Therefore, it remains uncertain as to whether the results of the evaluation are actually being used campus-wide to ensure quality instruction.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

  • Sam Houston State University is dedicated to providing the highest possible level of academic instruction for its students. An essential ingredient for achieving and maintaining excellence in instruction is the employment of continuous assessment and regular feedback to faculty, and faculty improvement based on that feedback.

  • Our self-study highlighted two assessment methods (student and chair evaluation of teaching) and one process (the annual evaluation and goal-setting conference with the chair). The self-study and the team report expressed concern that these interviews were so broad (covering teaching, scholarship, and service) that in some cases they were not long enough and thorough enough to give the faculty member complete enough feedback to ensure quality instruction and improvement of instruction. We agree that in some cases this has been true and have therefore taken the following actions:

    •

  • A memo has been sent to all chairs (Exhibit 6-1) instructing them that their annual evaluation meetings should be more thorough in reviewing input from student evaluations and their own evaluations as they relate to faculty members' instruction. The memo also stipulates that specific goals for the faculty members should be set from those reviews and followed up at subsequent annual reviews.

  • Follow-up letters will be sent to all chairs each year in April just before the start of the annual stewardship interview reports reminding them of these procedural changes.

  • A half-day training session for chairs on how to use student evaluations and their own observation data to set specific goals at annual evaluations will be conducted accordingly. The first session has been scheduled for the fall semester of 1999.

  • Deans will hold an annual meeting with each chair at the end of the faculty evaluation cycle to review their faculty and graduate assistant interviews in order to ensure that substantial attention is given to instructional feedback and goal-setting.

    •

    Further, all four colleges and each department have approved departmental effectiveness plans, which focus on enhancing instruction, and utilize a variety of assessment models to monitor and to modify instruction. Some have been in place for many years while others represent more recent efforts to ensure quality instruction. By highlighting just two data sources and one process we underreported the actual assessment of teaching on campus, the development of departmental effectiveness plans, and our use of those plans and assessments to improve teaching. So in addition to the changes indicated above, which directly address the recommendation of the visiting team, we provide below a summary of other assessment of instruction activities on campus, how they have been used to improve quality instruction, and how we are enhancing those in response to Recommendation 6.

    Professional Development Plan

  • The department chairs' annual performance and goal-setting interviews not only include discussion of faculty members' instruction as evaluated by students and chairs (to be expanded and systemized as discussed earlier in this response) but also include the submission of a professional development plan by each faculty member in 21 of 26 departments (see Exhibit 6-2 for examples), some elements of which impact instruction.

  • For example, the development of faculty skills in computer-assisted instruction is encouraged by over 100 professional development seminars per semester. These hands-on seminars address everything from web-based course preparation to multi-media presentations and are included in a typical faculty development plan.

  • Beginning fall 1999, all departments will include such faculty development plans as part of the annual evaluation interview.

    • Professional Faculty Portfolio

  • Twenty-one of the academic departments (78 percent of those throughout the University) require that faculty maintain teaching portfolios to be evaluated and reviewed every year by the department chair and/or the appropriate academic dean. In these departments, portfolio evaluation will be explicitly included in the instructional assessment component of the annual faculty mentor conference.

    • Classroom Observation

  • Twelve of the academic departments (44 percent) utilize direct classroom observation by deans, chairs, or peers to enhance instruction. These observations and feedback to faculty members and graduate students result in a type of mentoring and, while they improve upon teaching, they are not part of the annual evaluation interview.

    • Faculty Mentoring

  • Twenty-two of the academic departments (87 percent) have mentoring programs to improve instruction quality. Historically these departments established a senior-to-junior mentoring relationship, in some cases employing a small team of senior mentors advising and monitoring an UN-tenured junior faculty member and graduate student. With the recent development of the Post Tenure Review process, peer mentoring of senior faculty to senior faculty has been used by some senior faculty. These assessments and the associated instructional improvement are not part of the annual faculty evaluation conference process.

    • Instructional Benchmarking

  • The Departments of Biology and Chemistry employ benchmarks based on MCAT scores. Chemistry also uses American Chemical Society standards to calibrate their own measures of quality. The Department of English is experimenting with its own benchmark standards, and more humanities departments have preliminary proposals in place. These benchmarks allow chairs to assess performance of faculty in specific courses based on student outcomes. Beginning fall 1999 departments that employ such benchmarks will incorporate them directly into the faculty evaluation conference when results of the benchmarking can be tied to individual instructors or courses.

    • External Advisory Councils

  • Three colleges and thirteen academic departments have established advisory councils made up of outside professionals to evaluate academic programs and provide insight to decision makers. Council members typically represent diversity and success in their respective fields. When specific areas of the curriculum are cited as deficient by the advisory councils, revisions are made in the curriculum. For example, a survey of criminal justice alumni has led to the addition of an advanced computer retirement for majors. When the citation involves a clearly identified faculty member, it is included in the annual faculty evaluation conference.

    •  

    Graduating Senior Surveys and Exit Interviews

  • All four academic colleges obtain evaluation data from their graduating students. Format and content of these instruments vary according to the needs of the departments. Mechanisms at annual departmental retreats (e.g., Public Communication) and departmental meetings (e.g., Political Science, Geography, Biological Sciences) are in place that facilitate the dissemination of these graduate-derived results to departmental curriculum committees and more generally to faculty so that the feedback loop can be closed on more effective delivery and content. In cases where the results apply to individual faculty, they are included in the annual faculty evaluation conference.

    • Alumni and Employer Surveys

  • All colleges periodically survey alumni and/or employers to measure quality of preparation. Numerous changes in instructional methods and course content could be cited based on these surveys. In cases where the results apply to individual faculty, they are included in the annual faculty evaluation conference. Where they address larger curricula issues they are discussed in curriculum committees.

    • Educator Certification Requirements and Proficiency Exams

  • The College of Education and Applied Science (CEAS) and related component areas in Arts and Sciences and in Business consistently evaluates program instruction regarding instructional effectiveness, relevance, and delivery through the utilization of norm-referenced certification examinations. The state-mandated standards in this area are remarkably high (cumulative pass rates > 90 percent). By state law the college also has to maintain specific pass rates on state-wide tests for teacher certification in each teacher educator sub-discipline. All of these certification and proficiency exams are tied to particular areas of the curriculum. Because institutional passage rates are required for continuation of the program, extensive discussion of results and immediate revision of curriculum resulting from those discussions is the norm.

    • Certification and Admission Exams

  • The University also measures quality of instruction by performance of students in various professional certification exams such as the CPA, CFA, and admission exams which include the GMAT, GRE, LSAT, DAT, and MCAT. Low performance rates lead to instructional revision.

    • The following will provide additional examples of how two colleges utilize assessments of instruction to ensure quality instruction:

  • While sensitive to issues of academic freedom, the College of Arts and Sciences has begun a regular program wherein issues related to both teaching effectiveness and course effectiveness are extended beyond the dialogue between an individual faculty member and his/her chair. For example, the effectiveness and structure (contact hours, semester offering, lab/no lab, etc.) of the calculus sequence has profound implications for concurrent and sequential teaching in physics or analytical chemistry.

  • These issues as isolated by the college curriculum committee are reviewed by the departmental chairs as a group and revisions suggested. Individual departmental autonomies are thereby protected, but in the context of shared perceptions of quality.

  • The College of Business Administration employs feedback from current students, alumni, employers of alumni, COBA Advisory Council, and faculty not only in improving the performance of individual faculty members but also enhancing the overall integration and cohesiveness of the curriculum. For example, in the early 1990s feedback from alumni identified a weakness in computer applications. The college initiated an aggressive emphasis on expanding and enhancing technology in instruction. This was complemented by an institutional emphasis on technology. Tremendous strides have been made regarding availability of technology and programs training faculty to utilize technology in the classroom.

    •

     

     

    4.8.2.2 Baccalaureate

     

    Recommendation #7:

    The Committee recommends that the institution demonstrate that it employs at least four qualified full-time faculty members whose responsibilities include teaching in the Dance Degree Program.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee felt that the Dance Program does not have the requisite four qualified full-time faculty members.

     

    Response by Institution:

  • The PBR Form A and Personnel Requisition (SHSU P-001F) for an additional position in the Dance Program are complete and have been approved by the Vice President for Academic Affairs (Exhibit 7-1 and Exhibit 7-2). Dance interviewed for this position July 6 and 7 and filled the position on July 28. (See Exhibit 7-3 for a copy of the contract.)

    •

    This resolves the concern raised in Recommendation 7.

     

     

    5.1.2 Services

     

    Recommendation #8:

    The Committee recommends that the institution develop a comprehensive plan to ensure adequate physical facilities to house, service and make library collections easily available.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee recommends providing sufficient new space or strategies for growth in the collection. Easy access to library collections is also addressed in the recommendation.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

  • The library and university management have been keenly aware of and discussing the library’s space needs since 1990 and have developed a comprehensive plan that increases the usable space for library collections and services into the 21st century. One of Dr. Marks' first presidential initiatives was to seek legislative support for additional library space. A new academic building has been approved and funded which will house two departments now located in the Newton Gresham Library: the Academic Enrichment Center/Learning Assistance Center and the Department of Library Science, thus freeing up over 14,000 sq. ft. for use by the library.

  • When the SACS visiting committee was on campus, all of the University archives material from the Peabody Building had been relocated to the Newton Gresham Library due to a mildew problem. This problem is now corrected with the installation of a dehumidification system in the Peabody Building, and the relocation of the archives back to Peabody. Hence, a 2,000 sq. ft. room of the library that had been holding the University archives is now free also to hold general library collections.

  • Finally, the space (Room 200, roughly 3,500 sq. ft.) now occupied by a computer lab and classroom for 72 PCs and a small vending area will be removed to the new academic building. All totaled, the measures mentioned above will allow for almost 20,000 additional square feet of space available for housing collections which will become available during the next three years.

  • The library collection is currently expanding at a rate of 18,000 volumes per year. At a practical measure of 27 volumes per shelf, 55 double-sided sections are needed each year to keep pace with new volumes. This translates to the need for 1,800 new linear feet of shelving or 2,000 sq. ft. of floor space each year. With 20,000 sq. ft. of space becoming available, this will meet new collection space needs for ten years.

  • Requests for renovation, shelving, and furnishings in this and other library space were made by the Director of Library Services to the Vice President for Academic Affairs in May 1999. This project was submitted for inclusion on the University's 1999-2000 Major Renovation and Construction (MRC) list for strategic planning and budgeting purposes and will be approved as space becomes available in the next three years for the shelves and furnishings from the relocations.

  • The Newton Gresham Library’s seating for 1,100 users is adequate at all times based on the library’s assessment of actual use. The library, for example, can seat approximately 10 percent of the students enrolled, but the number of users needing seating almost never exceeds 300, excluding the computer lab that seats 72 users. Thus, it is almost never at more than 30 percent of its student seating capacity.

  • A component of the library’s space management program has been the deselection of duplicate volumes and dated or superseded editions from the library’s circulating collection since 1991. Thousands of bound volumes of "dead" periodicals have also been removed from the collection annually. These would include volumes of periodicals that were ordered in past decades, but have since ceased publication or were cancelled by the library. The addition of the JSTOR periodical database, which provides electronic access to over 120 journals dating back to the 19th century, will allow the library to remove 5,000 volumes of bound periodicals from the collection. The space gained by removing these volumes from the collection will provide 547 feet of shelving if needed for unexpected growth room. As JSTOR expands and competitive products become available, the library plans to both gain additional space and increase electronic holdings in this fashion. Since the 1993-1994 academic year, a total of 25,000 volumes have been removed from the collection without any real loss to the breadth or depth of the collection.

  • User feedback, particularly from transfer students and new faculty, indicates that books and journals are easier to locate in the Newton Gresham Library than in most other academic libraries. This user friendliness is due mostly to the fact that books and bound volumes are arranged by Library of Congress Classification over two floors. Only reference books and special collections (rare books, Texana, etc.), recreational reading paperbacks, and a small collection of children’s and young adult books arranged by Dewey Decimal Classification, are exceptions. Essentially all government documents are located in one room on the first floor. Users need not leave Newton Gresham Library as there are no department libraries.

  • Students and faculty have access to all library electronic resources from offices and computer labs on campus, and by fall 2000 all residence hall rooms will be connected to the campus network. Easy access to the library’s many databases also is provided from over 620 PCs in student labs located throughout campus, as well as from over 1,000 faculty and staff PCs. Therefore, space needed for users based on ACRL standards over-predicts the square footage needed and establishes that current space, with the additional square footage being provided to the library as noted above, is more than adequate.

    •

    Therefore, actions have been taken to make space available to accommodate all collection and student use needs for the next eight to ten years. With the hiring of a campus master planning consultant and the development of a new master plan beginning in fiscal year 2000, there is ample time to develop plans for additional library space needs which will occur after 2008.

     

    5.1.3 Library Collections

     

    Recommendation #9:

    The Committee recommends that the institution demonstrate that it provides library resources substantially beyond those required for baccalaureate programs.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee is concerned the library research needs of graduate students are not being met because library material budgets have not increased sufficiently to meet the needs of new programs and courses. The committee is also concerned that by acquiring new electronic databases and services, coupled with increased publishers’ output and inflation in publication costs, the library has reduced the number of new mono-graphic and periodical publications made available to students.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

  • The University administration has recognized the need to increase library collection development funds particularly since 1997 when it committed stepwise collection budget increases of $100,000 for each of the next three years to the library’s base budget. That is, for fiscal year 1999-2000, the library’s annual budget for collection development has increased by $300,000 since 1997. The additional funds allowed the library to maintain existing print subscriptions as well as electronic database licenses at a time when many other academic libraries are dropping them in cancellation projects. The Newton Gresham Library has not canceled subscriptions since January 1997 as a result of the increased funding. Because adequate funding is now assured, the Newton Gresham Library is adding several new print subscriptions that support the two new doctoral programs, as well as others that support other graduate-level programs. In addition, the library has acquired back-runs of these subscriptions with the additional funding in order to meet anticipated needs of these graduate students.

  • Another $50,000 was allocated to the library in May 1999, at which time $25,000 of the latter funds were used for a one-time acquisition of the JSTOR periodical database. It provides access to over 120 electronic journals dating back to the nineteenth century. An annual payment of $4,000 allows the library to add one year of issues to the back-files of these 120 or more journals. The JSTOR program has greatly enhanced the library’s already excellent electronic services and reputation for providing a state-of-the-art electronic access program that meets the needs of students and faculty. Remaining funds were used to supplement the library’s book budget, particularly in support of new graduate-level programs and to fill identified gaps in the collection.

  • Since 1992 the library has steadily increased the book budgets for Criminal Justice, Education, and Psychology, the location of the University's three doctoral programs, spending two to three times more in 1998 than in 1992 (Exhibit 9-1). The Newton Gresham Library has spent 15 percent of its total materials budget on these three programs from 1992 to the present. These increases in the materials allocations for the new programs have taken place to assure that the anticipated research needs of graduate students are being met.

  • Beginning with the 1998-99 academic year the curriculum development process was modified to allow for a collection assessment report from library bibliographers. This was a very positive change meant to make the faculty and department chair know collection strengths and weaknesses prior to course implementation so that library funding or fund allocations within the library are adjusted.

  • The faculty from all departments are regularly surveyed by the library bibliographers for input into additional journal and mono-graphic purchases needed to support the curriculum at all levels. Our library bibliographers are in especially close contact with departmental faculty liaisons in the doctoral-granting departments to determine these research needs and to acquire the needed library resources. These contacts indicate that doctoral instructional faculty are satisfied with the strength of the collections in their areas as enhanced by the base budget increases for the last three years. For example, from 1996 to the present the Library has added 20 new journal titles in support of the Education and Psychology programs. In addition, the bibliographers use information from Inter-Library Services to identify needed journal and book titles.

    •

    These changes in collection development resulting from the infusion of $300,000 additional each year and expanded consultation between library collection development professionals and faculty, especially doctoral instructional faculty, are now in place and have responded effectively to the concern raised in this recommendation.

     

     

    5.1.6 Staff

     

    Recommendation #10:

    The Committee recommends that the institution review current library staffing and demonstrate the adequacy of professional and support staff to support the institutional community.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee is concerned that additional library faculty and staff positions have not been added to keep pace with changes in technology and to meet ACRL standards, thereby placing undue burdens on current staff.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

  • The University has responded affirmatively by funding three new library faculty positions effective immediately. Ads in the media and to job lines and graduate schools were posted by the University in June 1999 (Exhibit 10-1). Three new librarians will begin during the fall 1999-2000 academic year and will greatly enhance the library’s ability to meet and improve reference, bibliographic instruction, collection development, and instructional technology goals. Their hiring will relieve the strain of current librarians, all of whom share reference, collection development, and instructional responsibilities, as well as specialized duties such as cataloging, acquisitions, interlibrary lending, special collections, or documents.

  • One of the three positions advertised is for an Assistant Library Director for Instructional Technology. The person holding this position will be a member of the library management team and will exercise leadership in developing and delivering instructional technology services to the faculty, staff, and students of the University. The library’s distance education program will be another primary focus of the new position.

  • The title of the library director will be changed August 2000 to Dean of the Library, reflecting enhanced status for the library and its leadership.

    •

    We believe the addition of these three new professional librarian positions aggressively addresses the long-term need for additional personnel in the library.

     

     

    5.1.7 Library Resources at Off-Campus Sites

     

    Recommendation #11:

    The Committee recommends that the institution demonstrate the provision of and ready access to adequate library/learning resources and services to support courses, programs and degrees offered at each remote site.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee believes that distance learning and the need for remote access to library databases and services requires the University to develop and provide electronic access needed by students, particularly graduate students. The visiting committee is concerned because The University Center and adjoining Montgomery College do not have collections that fully meet the needs of Sam Houston State University graduate students.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

  • In 1998, the Library developed and published its policies and procedures for students who need distance access to library resources and services in both print and electronic formats. The policies describe eligibility for services, how to borrow library materials, and how to register for and obtain distance education services. These are included in Exhibit 11-1.

  • The Newton Gresham Library is providing print and electronic learning resource access for students and faculty at four remote sites including The University Center. Three of the sites are on university campuses (Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, University of Texas-Brownsville, and University of Texas-Pan American), and distance education students in those areas have access to those university libraries as their primary access and use the electronic and print resources of the Newton Gresham Library only rarely. Students at The University Center have access to the Montgomery College Library and to all the electronic and direct resources listed below as their primary library support (Exhibit 11-2).

  • Special training for faculty and distance education students on how to use the print and electronic resources of the Newton Gresham Library is available. Any faculty member may at any time submit a User Education Request Form or make arrangements by phone to schedule a custom instructional session or a general library tour. For example, five sessions were held during the 1998-1999 year at The University Center conducted by Newton Gresham Library librarians to assist groups of students in using the resources of the Newton Gresham Library.

  • Several web-based instructional modules on how to use the Library at a distance were also initiated (Exhibit 11-3) in May 1999. A module on how to search the Internet has been developed and will be available to all students and faculty fall 1999 (Exhibit 11-4). Other modules are being developed and will be released by spring 2000 to provide instruction via the web on database searching and other topics related to the use of the Newton Gresham Library resources at remote locations.

  • By January 11, 1999, the Newton Gresham Library had provided two full text electronic databases through TexShare and an additional 40 electronic bibliographic databases accessible to remote users through "First Search." During spring 1999 the Library acquired four additional databases which provide both indexing and full text: Academic Search Elite, Business Source Elite, Health Source Plus and E*Subscribe (full text ERIC documents). These databases support the graduate and undergraduate classes in business as well as the variety of undergraduate degrees offered at The University Center. Electronic availability of ERIC documents provides efficient access to a wide variety of materials useful to graduate and undergraduates in Education and other fields.

  • Recognizing that today’s students want to access as much material as possible electronically, the Library and Computer Services is implementing a proxy server during the 1999-2000 academic year. This will allow SHSU students and faculty access to all the Library’s electronic resources.

  • The responsibility for further developing the Library’s remote and distance education services and resources will be the focus of the new Assistant Library Director for Instructional Technology. (Position added June 1999 as a result of this recommendation.)

  • The statewide TexShare program, in which Sam Houston State University is a participant, is designed to provide SHSU students, staff, and faculty with electronic (computer) access to periodical indexing and full-text services for hundreds of titles through a web interface from any location. TexShare provides access to UMI’s Periodical Abstracts, ERIC and ABI-INFORM databases. The latter is the acknowledged leader for access to business related periodical information and articles. At present remote access to the databases provided by TexShare is via Telnet from the SamInfo link on the Library’s web site.

  • Another TexShare cooperative program provides students, staff, and faculty of institutions of higher education in the state with direct, borrowing privileges to the circulating collections and library materials in those institutions. To participate, SHSU users must obtain a TexShare Card at the Circulation Desk of the Newton Gresham Library and present it and the items they wish to borrow at the lending libraries. Since fall 1996 these cards have been provided to all our distance education students. Users must, of course, observe the borrowing rules of the other libraries. Most participating institutions also provide free access to reference and other non-circulating materials, including bound volumes, special collections, and online databases to holders of TexShare cards.

  • The University Center, located adjacent to the Montgomery College campus of the North Harris/Montgomery Community College District (NHMCCD), is within an easy commuting distance of SHSU. A growing number of faculty and staff, in fact, live in that vicinity and commute daily to Sam Houston State University's main campus. Extensive library research in the Newton Gresham Library, therefore, is within thirty minutes by car from residential areas near The University Center.

  • For the convenience of students at The University Center, the Library participates in a statewide courier service called TexExpress. It delivers books, photocopied articles, and other library resources to The University Center and other off-campus sites that participate in the courier service by paying the annual courier fee. Students may also submit questions to the Reference Desk via a form on the Library’s web site. A librarian will respond, within 48 hours, to brief, factual questions, or suggest sources or locations that might help provide needed information. Telephone assistance is also available. A Distance Education Services Faculty Handbook (Exhibit 11-5) is sent to all faculty who teach off-campus courses. It and the Student Handbook version are both linked off of the Library’s home page under Distance Education in the Library Services & Information section.

  • Access to library services is also directly available to any student with Internet access through the Newton Gresham Library home page.

    •

    During the spring and summer of 1999, to respond to the concerns raised in this recommendation, we have increased the number of electronic resources Sam Houston State University has historically provided to distance education students attending SHSU classes and made them more readily available. We have introduced a variety of training programs to help students and faculty access them more easily. Finally, we have increased the convenience of access to non-electronic resource access for our distance students.

     

    5.3 Information Technology Resources and Systems

     

    Recommendation #12:

    The Committee recommends that the institution demonstrate that policies for the allocation and use of information resources are regularly evaluated.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee is concerned that no evidence was found during their visit that the policies for the allocation and use of information resources are regularly evaluated.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

  • A new charge has been added to those already assigned to the Sam Houston State University Information Technology Resource Council. A copy of all the charges now current is attached to this report as Exhibit 12-1. The SHSU Information Technology Resource Council will now review annually policies for the allocation and use of information resources.

  • Further, a Biennial Operating Plan, detailing planned information resource expenditures and projects for the next two years, is required to be submitted to the Department of Information Resources (a state-level agency) every two years. See Exhibit 12-2 for a copy of the last report. These reports are reviewed and evaluated by the state agency, so our plans will now receive annual local review and biennial state review.

    •

    The addition of an annual on-campus review of information resource allocation policy to the state-wide biannual policy is responsive to this recommendation.

     

    5.5.3 Financial Control

     

    Recommendation #13:

    The Committee recommends that the University administration approve the financial activities of the Former Letterman's Association and require it to submit independent audits.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee felt that there was no evidence that the Lettermen Association has been approved by the University to raise or expend funds on behalf of the athletic program. In addition, the Lettermen Association should be required to submit independent audit reports.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

  • The university recognizes the need to include the Lettermen Association under the umbrella of the university community. The university's National Collegiate Athletic Association and Southern Association of Colleges and Schools self-study discovered this area of concern and made the recommendation to correct the issue.

  • The faculty athletic representative and the director of athletics have discussed with the Lettermen Association leadership the need for its finances to be coordinated through the university. The implementation plan consists of the association submitting an independent audit to the university no later than September 1, 1999. Upon receipt of the audit the university will review for possible approval the association's financial activities.

  • The university will continue to audit, review, and approve the activities on an annual basis no later than September 1 of each year. The leadership of the Lettermen Association has agreed to comply with this plan.

    •

    We believe that these actions address the committee's recommendation for oversight and audit of the Lettermen Association activities.

     

     

    6.3.12 Auxiliary Enterprises

     

    Recommendation #14:

    The Committee recommends that the University must take appropriate action and establish appropriate written procedures to ensure that each auxiliary enterprise activities is operated in a fiscally responsible manner.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee is concerned that while there is oversight in the financial division, the operational management of many of the auxiliary enterprises accounts are not within the finance division. The Committee would encourage the University to strengthen the management oversight by formally establishing written procedures and guidelines. This information should be published and widely disseminated.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

  • The written "Budget Procedures and Guidelines" for SHSU provides procedures, guidelines, and responsibilities of all account managers including educational and general auxiliary, pledged, and designated funds. This document is widely disseminated annually on campus at the beginning of each fiscal year.

  • A copy of the "Budget Procedures and Guidelines" for fiscal year 1998-1999 is Exhibit 14-1.

  • These budget procedures, guidelines, and responsibilities are being added to the Administrative Policies and Procedures manual as of 06-01-99. A copy of this material is Exhibit 14-2.

  • The Texas State University System document entitled "Comparison of Actual Revenues, Expenditures and Transfer to Budgeted" does not take into account the use of fund balances (revenue in excess of expenditures in previous years) by auxiliary departments such as the University Hotel, Continuing Education, the student newspaper, Bearkitten Academy, freshman orientation, and the Office of Alumni Relations. A copy of the financial report for the year ended 08-31-98 is Exhibit 14-3. On pages 42-47 of this financial report, the non-pledged and pledged auxiliaries beginning fund balances, revenues, expenditures and transfers, and ending fund balances are presented. On August 31, 1998, the ending fund balance for non-pledged and pledged auxiliaries was $10,484,039.99 (page 47).

    •

    We believe that these actions and policies will ensure fiscally responsible operation of University auxiliary enterprises.

     

    6.4.4 Facilities Master Plan

     

    Recommendation #15:

    The Committee recommends that the University update and maintain a current facilities master plan consistent with the strategic plan and incorporate physical resources into the cycle for planning and assessment.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee is concerned that the information provided to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board was not developed and is not related to the other institutional planning efforts. Without evidence of this linkage it is not possible to determine if the University is involved in an orderly process of reviewing, evaluating, and planning related to its physical facilities.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

  • Sam Houston State University developed a campus master plan in 1982 and updated it in 1988. This plan is now nearing completion. The $4.2 million renovation of the Administration Building is the last of thirty-six major renovation and construction projects. This renovation is scheduled for completion in August 2000. A master planner will be engaged during the spring of 2000 to work with the institution to develop a new twenty-year campus master plan.

  • Connected to the institutional master plan and flowing from it, Sam Houston State annually prepares a "Maintenance Renovation and Construction Plan" which provides a moving five-year plan of maintenance, renovation, and construction activities. A copy of the fiscal year 1999 document for review is contained under Exhibit 15-1. It is a five-year (FY 1999 through FY 2003) planning document. In October of each year, information from the MRC plan is transferred to the Coordinating Board in the required format known as the Master Plan Data Management System (MP1, MP2, MP3, MP4). A copy of the fiscal year 1999 SHSU submission is contained for review as Exhibit 15-2.

    •

    The visiting committee accurately brought to our attention that the prioritizing of these projects and the allocation of budget for them had not yet been fully integrated into the newly developed strategic planning process. To complete that process the following changes have been made:

  • Beginning August 1, 1999, all requests for maintenance, renovation, and construction from individuals or departments will be forwarded through the appropriate dean and vice president rather than directly to the University Physical Plant as has been the case in the past.

  • Within each division requests will be prioritized by the division vice president in consultation with appropriate advisors and consistent with the goals and objectives of that division as specified in the divisional strategic plan.

  • Institutional prioritization of these divisional priorities will be integrated into the deliberations of the Strategic Planning Committee and approved by the Budget Committee which allocates funds for meeting strategic planning priorities.

    •

    Sam Houston State is in the seventeenth year of a twenty-year master plan which has been very effective in leading to a beautiful and functional campus. As a result of this recommendation, we have integrated the master planning process with the institutional strategic planning process. Further, we have begun the development of a new master plan, which will flow from the existing plan and be in place before the existing plan's scheduled completion in 2002.

     

     

    6.5 Externally Funded Grants and Contracts

     

    Recommendation #16:

    The Committee recommends that the University must develop, implement, and communicate a written institutional policy regarding the appropriate balance between grant and contract activity and instruction.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee is concerned that there is no institutional policy in place regarding the appropriate balance between grant and contract activity and instruction.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

  • Section 1.02 of Academic Policy Statement 820317 says, "each of these criteria [teaching, scholarship, development, service] will be assigned a weight [for the Sam Houston State University’s faculty evaluation system specified in this policy statement] in accordance with the ranges delineated in Table 1." Thus, a specific written university policy currently exists (implemented in 1982 and revised most recently in 1999) regarding the balance between contract and grant activity and instruction. A copy of the policy, including Table 1, is attached (Exhibit 16-1). This policy makes clear that there is institution-wide specification regarding the appropriate balance between scholarly, instructional, and service activities. In its report, the committee apparently overlooked these materials and we failed to comment on this at earlier stages in the process.

  • Because the academic offerings of the departments vary from those offering the Ph.D. to those offering only the baccalaureate, it is appropriate that the balance between instructional and grant activity is different between these departments within the parameters specified in Table 1 of Academic Policy Statement 820317. Each department has merit, promotion, and tenure documents which provide direction about the appropriate balance for that department. (See Exhibit 16-2 for examples.)

  • It is apparent from the fact that the visiting team missed this document and the fact that we failed to note the oversight earlier in the process that this policy needs to be more widely and fully communicated. Our response to recommendation 17 indicates how we plan to accomplish this.

    •

     

    6.5 Externally Funded Grants and Contracts

     

    Recommendation #17:

    The Committee recommends that the University publish its policy concerning a faculty member's division of obligations between research and other academic activities in The Faculty Handbook and other appropriate documents and that this policy be made known to the faculty.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee was concerned that the University policy concerning a faculty member's division of obligations between research and other academic activities was not published in The Faculty Handbook.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

  • The Committee correctly notes that information regarding division of faculty obligations can be more fully communicated. The copy of Academic Policy Statement 820317, "The Faculty Evaluation System" (Exhibit 16-1), which contains the desired detail (see response to Recommendation 16), is available for all faculty in The Faculty Handbook section of the University's web page through a hyperlink. However, it has not been included in the hard copy provided to new faculty members in recent years. Beginning fall 1999, it will be included in the packet of materials and hard copy Faculty Handbook provided annually to new faculty members. In addition, all new faculty will receive, beginning fall 1999, a hard copy of their departmental promotion and tenure documents.

    •  

  • During the 1998-1999 academic year, Sam Houston State University initiated a series of new faculty orientation breakfasts. As a result of this recommendation, one of these sessions (November 16, 1999) will be devoted to informing new faculty about university and departmental standards for promotion and tenure and the related research, teaching, and service obligations. This session will be conducted each year by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

    •

     

    6.6 Related Corporate Entities

     

    Recommendation #18:

    The Committee recommends that the University must maintain and provide documentation outlining the mutual relationship and benefits maintained by the institution for the Former Letterman's Association, the Sam Houston Foundation, and any other related entities. These documents must include: (1) a description of each entity; (2) a statement demonstrating the manner in which the activities relate to the purpose of the institution; (3) a current roster of board members of the unit, including institutional personnel and board members who have responsibilities with both the institution and the related entity, whether they are additionally compensated by the entity or not; (4) a copy of the separately incorporated entity's annual financial audit report for the most recent completed year; and (5) copies of the charter and bylaws, if any.

     

     

    Visiting Committee Concern(s):

    The visiting committee is concerned that, based upon discussions with various members of the administration and staff, the Former Letterman's Association was organized for athletic fund raising activities and to provide support for athletic events. Stated earlier in Section 5.5.3 of the SACS report, "Financial Control," the NCAA peer review team also expressed concern over this issue.

    Specifically in the case of the Sam Houston Foundation, the 1997 tax documents of this organization indicated that its non-profit status is solely dependent upon the fact that it exists for the benefit of the University. The State Auditor's Review Report also identified the Sam Houston Foundation as a related entity. Therefore the Committee concludes that the Sam Houston Foundation is a related entity and that the Former Letterman's Association is a related entity.

     

     

    Response by Institution:

    The following information is documented and has been filed with the Office of the Vice President for Finance and Operations at Sam Houston State University regarding the Sam Houston Foundation:

     

    1. Description

    The Sam Houston Foundation was created in April 1967 by a trust agreement (Exhibit 18-1). The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that the Sam Houston Foundation is a 509(1)(3) exempt organization (Exhibit 18-2). It is a legal entity (trust), separate and apart from Sam Houston State University.

    2. Statement of Purpose

    The purposes of the Sam Houston Foundation Trust are to provide a legal entity to accept, receive, manage, control, administer, and invest real, personal, or mixed property, given, granted, donated, or bequeathed for the benefit of Sam Houston State College (now University) for educational purposes, student loan, or scholarship fund, or any other trust or specified purposes.

    3. Roster of Trustees

    A current roster of the Trustees of the Sam Houston Foundation is found in Part V of the tax returns, form 990, filed with the IRS, and a copy has been provided to SHSU. The tax return for 1997 is Exhibit 18-3 and for 1998 is Exhibit 18-4. The current Trustees of the Sam Houston Foundation are as follows:

  • Mr. Charles Davis, Attorney

  • Dr. Ferol Robinson, Retired

  • Mr. Robert Bruner, Rancher and Personal Investments

  • Mr. Frank Dobbs, Movie Director and Producer

  • Mr. Thomas Randle, Retired

    •

    None of the Trustees are members of the SHSU personnel, staff, or faculty and none have responsibilities with both SHSU and the Foundation. No Trustee receives any form of compensation and totally donates his time, energy, and resources.

    4. Annual Financial Reports

    The financial report for calendar year 1998 is Exhibit 18-5 and for 1997 is Exhibit 18-6. The Trustees have advised that they do not have an annual audit conducted. The annual income and deposits and the expenditures (five to ten checks) are reviewed by the Trustees at their annual meeting.

    5. Charter and Bylaws

    No separate charter or bylaws exist for the Sam Houston Foundation.

     

    6. Summary

    The Sam Houston Foundation has provided and will provide annually to Sam Houston State University the documentation as outlined in Recommendation 18.

    The following is documented and has been filed with the Office of the Vice President for Student Services and forwarded to the Office of the Vice President for Finance and Operations at Sam Houston State University regarding the Sam Houston State University Lettermen Association:

    1. Description

    The SHSU Lettermen Association was created in October 1974 with a constitution and bylaws (Exhibit 18-7). The SHSU Lettermen Association is designed to support the University's athletic programs through fund-raising, donations, attendance at athletic events, attendance at Lettermen's events, and to provide encouragement to the coaches, staff, and student-athletes. The Association monitors all past records of former lettermen and coordinates the nomination and induction of former lettermen into the Hall of Fame.

    2. Statement of Purpose

    The SHSU Lettermen Association encourages the mission of the University through its promotion of student-athlete education by providing funding for academic advisement and strength training. The Association's assistance promotes the technological advancement of student-athletes through the use of the athletic Learning Enhancement Center, computers, and tutors. The stated purpose of the Association is to "provide a means for the former students of Sam Houston State University who won varsity letters in any of the sports recognized by the Conference to gather from time to time for certain fraternal beneficiary society purposes and to encourage support of the athletic staff and athletic programs of Sam Houston State University through the efforts of its members, including donations to Sam Houston State University for use by such educational institution."

    3. Roster of Trustees

    A current roster of the trustees of the SHSU Lettermen Association is found at the end of the SHSU Lettermen Association bylaws (Exhibit 18-7). The current trustees are as follows:

  • Mr. Eugene E. Steinmeyer, President

  • Mr. Charles D. Williams, First Vice President

  • Mr. Thomas F. Patterson, Second Vice President

  • Mr. Jack D. Kyle, Secretary Treasurer

  • Mr. Herbert C. Muckleroy, Past President

    •

    None of the Trustees are members of the Sam Houston State University personnel, staff, or faculty and none have responsibilities with both the SHSU Lettermen Association and Sam Houston State University. No Trustee receives any form of compensation and totally donates his time, energy, and resources.

    4. Annual Financial Reports

    The financial reports for 1997-98 and 1998-99 are Exhibit 18-8 and Exhibit 18-9 respectively. The University recognizes the need to include the SHSU Lettermen Association under the umbrella of the University community. The University's NCAA and SACS self-study discovered this area of concern and made the recommendation to correct the issue. The Faculty Athletic Representative and the Director of Athletics have discussed with the leadership of the Lettermen Association the need for its finances to be coordinated through the University. The implementation plan requires the Association to submit an independent audit to the University no later than September 1, 1999. Upon receipt of the audit the University will review and approve the Association's financial activities. The University will continue to audit, review, and approve the activities on an annual basis no later than September 1 of each year. The leadership of the Lettermen Association has agreed to comply with this plan.

    5. Charter and Bylaws

    The Constitution and Bylaws of the SHSU Lettermen Association are included as Exhibit 18-7.

    Sam Houston State University is the sole beneficiary of financial support from the Sam Houston Foundation. The support averages approximately $6,000 annually and it is very much appreciated. The Foundation is pleased to provide and will continue to provide the requested documentation to the University.