AAPC Minutes

Friday, December 2, 2005; 1:35 – 3:20 p.m.

Present: Sandy Burr, Gloria Clocklin, Gerri Daniels,James Drosen, Chris Greer, Keith Kendall, Jeanne Lorentzen, Kevin McDonough, Barbara Rhyneer, David Switzer, Lena Throlson

Absent: Mary Etchison, Jim Gadzinski, Mary Raymond

The meeting was called to order at 1:35 by Chairperson Jim Drosen.

  1. Approval of Agenda
  2. amended (under New Business, announcement of new student member);
  3. approved as amended, by consensus
  1. Approval of Minutes of October 28, 2005 meeting: Switzer moved, Greer seconded to approve; passed
  1. New Business: New student member: Mary Raymond (ASNMU appointed)
  1. Old Business: General University Studiesstudents, their admit status (CT1 code) and the support services required for them (see
  2. handout by Daniels: “General University Studies” [see end of these minutes]
  3. purposes of this policy, as explained by Daniels:

A)Tech & Applied Science dean wanted something general

  1. general associate degree

B)population that needed to start associate program

  1. esp. TIP program applicants (MI fin. aid program)
  • question at time of policy development: was this program comparable to associate degrees within College of Technology or was it comparable to degrees beyond the College of Technology (the broader university)?

A)CUP and AAPC decided that is was comparable to the broader university

  • Daniels issue: admissions requirements exist for programs across the university, some of which requirements do not require interventions – inconsistent
  • question / suggestion from this committee: could the 3rd bullet of the handout (“will receive interventions”) be enforced as requirement but students not called CTP

A)i.e., CTP = CT1 in terms of services provided

  • Kendall moved, Lorentzen seconded, that – subject to approval of Gadzinski (Daniels will discuss this with him – the interpretation of “will receive interventions” be enforced as a requirement for CT1 students without reclassifying them as CTP students. Passed.

A)our understanding is that this is not a change of policy, but an administrative reinterpretation of enforcement of current policy

  1. Appeals – Lena Throlson
  2. submitted: 7
  3. approved: 3
  4. approved with conditions: 3
  5. denied: 1
  1. Good of the order – none

Adjournment at 3:20 p.m. moved by Switzer, seconded by Daniels. Passed.

Respectfully submitted,

Keith H. Kendall

Faculty Secretary, AAPC