Present: Burtis, Caffey, Donnelly, Erpelding, Foster, Hillier, Roberts, Rowlett, Selfridge

Introductions/Welcome
Selfridge opened the meeting at 9:10 a.m. with a brief explanation of why the committee was formed. The committee members introduced themselves. Erpelding introduced Kevin Donnelly as the developer of the electronic data processing model used in the College of Agriculture. Erpelding suggested Donnelly be considered as another member to the committee. The committee agreed.  Roberts suggested that the committee membership be reviewed to ensure appropriate representation such as including the chairs of the course and curriculum committees from each college.

Committee Web Site
A packet of information was distributed which included a copy of the official committee web site (http://www.ksu.edu/committees/ccits). The web site includes a membership list, agendas, and minutes. The Fenton Report to Faculty Senate on approval, routing and notification policy was also distributed.  This report can be accessed at http://www.ksu.edu/facsen/policies/APPROVAL.HTM.

Current Policy and Procedure
Discussion was held regarding current policy and the flow of course and curriculum revisions through the present approval process. Several pitfalls and problems were cited. It was decided that the committee members would develop specifications with a list of goals and objectives for an electronic system.  It was suggested that the goals and objectives be posted on the website. Some of the objectives noted were:

1. Decrease the time to process proposals
2. Enhance the accuracy of the reporting
3. Interface with other course databases
4. Reduce duplication of efforts
5. Enable the system to compile data
6. Increase the participation of input from stakeholders

Agriculture/Electronic Data Processing Model
Donnelly described the electronic system being tested in the College of Agriculture in lieu of a college faculty meeting. When greensheets are posted on a website with a discussion board, faculty are notified and asked to post comments on the discussion board and to vote. He reported that approximately 38% (71 of 185 faculty with at least 1/10 teaching appointment) responded which in some cases is better than the percent of faculty who attend faculty meetings. However, discussion was limited. Several ideas were suggested about how a similar system might be improved upon for use campus-wide.

Next Meeting
The next meeting time was discussed. Thursdays at 8:30 seemed to be an acceptable time. A notice will be sent when the next meeting is scheduled. Selfridge asked the members to forward to the chairs lists of issues, problems, and suggestions regarding a tracking system as part of the initial effort to develop specifications for such a system. These will be grouped and distributed for "thinking" in advance of the next meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 10:10.

Kansas State University | Course and Curriculum Information Tracking System