Chosen

During my annual review, my supervisor informed me that I would most likely chair the CAS review of the Student Conduct office. They were still working out the exact committee members, but it was all but announced that I would be chair.

For another competency, 710, I researched student learning, particularly CAS, so I felt confident that I would have the attitude needed from a review committee chair. I knew and embraced the philosophies and goals of CAS, so I would be happy to serve. In addition, my understanding would help me begin because I had knowledge of the philosophies, goals, reasoning, and process for the review. I had read the Blue Book from cover to cover between the summer of 2007 to the summer of 2008. The things I learned in my research on student learning led me to alter the course of my graduate studies, even changing the title of my focus area from "Administering University Programs to Promote Physical Acitivity" to "Administering University Programs to Promote Student Learning through Physical Activity and Employment."

Our university announced in fall 2007 that we would be doing a CAS review of all Student Affairs offices. We had meetings explaining the content and the general process. I felt this was a smart move that would bring Student Affairs together as a department and move us towards integrating in- and out-of-the-classroom learning.

While I was confident in the importance and content of CAS, when I heard the news that I would be charing a committee, I realized I knew very little about the exact process. My supervisor talked of choosing the committee. He said he would be on the committee as he chaired the last committee, so he would be there to give me guidance when necessary. Then he said the CAS Review committee was still making decisions on the other members. There would be a faculty member, but he didn't know who that would be; a well-recognized member of the University Police, someone I had met but did not know well; two students whom he knew nothing about; and a staff member from Student Conduct - they were deciding between a woman who had been there for over twenty years, so would be knowledgeable but also possibly defensive and dominating during the review and a woman who had been hired within six months and had no Student Conduct background, but seemed very competent. I was already overwhelemed by the process of just selecting the committee.

I read through the CAS review materials my supervisor showed me, and still I did not know where to begin. I had to have yet another meeting with him to discuss what should be done at our first meeting and what I should have prepared. It was difficult because the meeting was called at the end of November, with finals and the winter break approaching. With only a few days left, my supervisor told me I should create a binder for each member of the committee, including the materials he gave me, a contact list, and any other relevant information.

Some specific information he gave me was that 1) we should expect to meet twice a week for an hour and a half at a time unless we find we are making quick progress and can meet less often... or just as often and finish our review quicker and 2) his committee found a more effective way of evaluating documents. The CAS process is to give everyone a copy at one meeting, have them take it home, evaluate it as individuals on a four-point scale, return to the next meeting with the rating, and then discuss the ratings, especially the discrepencies, as a group. He said this process is time consuming, feelings like homework, and falls apart when even one group member fails to review the materials. Instead, he recommended reviewing each document as a group during the meetings, coming to a concensus, and then noting any discrepencies. I wondered what other processes would need tweaking.

During our first meeting, only my supervisor, one student (who turned out to be a graduate who still worked on campus, not actually a student), and I were on time. That worried me as the twice-a -week, hour-and-a-half meetings were already an overwhelming time commitment without factoring in lateness. While people trickled in (up to thirty minutes late), we discussed Thanksgiving food.

When I asked who had a knowledge of CAS, only my supervisor and I really had a good grasp on it. The faculty member, a professor of Library Sciences, had been through a CAS review before it had been overhauled. I am very nervous about the lack of CAS knowledge and how in depth I will have to go just explaining the content, which took me a year to fully understand and embrace.

We ended the meeting having decided that the Student Conduct committee member, who ended up being the less experienced staff member, would gather as many documents as possible for our first meeting in January, in the order that we would review. We suggested she use the time in between meetings to have a student help her compile the documents. We decided we only needed two copies of everything, one for the staff member to keep and one for me to carry from meeting to meeting so the group could review it. We decided we would try to squeeze in one meeting before the break just to tour the Student Conduct office, meet the staff, and get a general feel for the conduct process.

That meeting has already been postponed as we were not able to coordinate our schedules, even during a time when no classes or meetings are taking place, which makes me very nervous to coordinate twice-a-week meetings! I have not received anyone's availability for January. However, I am optimistic as the group seems to be very positive and engaged in the process. They seem to have been chosen for their attitudes rather than their knowledge of the process or content of CAS.