March 11 MOCC call draft minutes.
Present: Ranny Jones, Don Ticknor, Rosie Jamison, Rose Hansen, Veronica Paulson, Barb Dolan, Sandy Anderson, Rick Davis. Carla Reihe and Marilyn Halgerson joined the call for the commitment update.
AGENDA:
- MCR 10 – Commitment Updates – Marilyn and Carla will join us for this portion of the call – 6 attachments
I am sending (3/2/05) all the updated documents (reflecting our 2/25 MOCC discussions) that reference MCR 10, Commitment Process. Please review these documents carefully with your module group members and appropriate university personnel and be prepared to finalize these documents on our March 11 MOCC call. MOCC agreed that the revised documents were acceptable.
1.Procedural Documents, as revised by Marilyn and Carla, to reflect February 25 MOCC discussions(attached)
a. Revised Commitment Process (one attachment)
Marilyn spoke with Carla about the questions from the last MOCC call.
The changes Marilyn made for commitment are in red. The questions to Carla are in red bold and the responses to the questions from Carla are in blue bold.
Marilyn will add the CM codes for the new year in production sometime in March or early April.
The codes will not be added to test. Marilyn will add them to production in early April so the commitment process can start on May 10.
The last section Central Processing still needs to be refined and Carla and the ASCC group will work through that. We will probably need to put some dates on the system processing calendar to run home location.
b. Home Location Update Program – emails that reflect ASCC discussions – one attachment.
2.Copies of Letters and Decision Form (Three attachments)
3.Summary of Dates – see Subcommittee Minutes (attached).
4.The Commitment people for each campus will meet and review the process for communicating between campuses. Michelle Kuebler, SDSU, will initiate a conference call – a tentative date of April 20th was set.
Rick stated that Michelle has an interest in some new reports. She will add reporting to the agenda for the April meeting.
- MCR 4- Standard vs. Non Standard Courses and Late Fees – 4 attachments
MOCC reviewed Ranny's email to Dr. Perry, Dr. Alley, and Monte Kramer. Veronica stated Ranny's email accurately reflects the AR module concerns. It was agreed the 19th Day only applies if the student was billed. The AR module would like to add a 3rd "or" to the 19th day of class options. Current procedures are if a billed student does not pay charges in full by the 19th day of classes, they must be administratively withdrawn OR be given an arrangement to pay tracking restriction. The AR module would like to add OR be given a CAR restriction. One reason for this is because CAR holds registration, transcripts . . . Don and Rick indicated USD and SDSU support the AR module recommendation.
The following documents (reflecting MOCC discussions/Module Coordinator suggestions in red print) are being sent to you (03/02/05) to facilitate further discussions with your module group members and appropriate university staff. Please be prepared to discuss these items on our March 11 MOCC Conference Call. We will limit our discussions on March 11 to:
a. Standard/Non-Standard Payment Dates/Definitions
b. Late Fees.
Veronica sent an email on 3/10 with suggestions from the AR group. The AR module suggests we should be able to charge the late fee more than once. They also suggested some changes to the amount of the late fee. Rick felt the late fees were too high and could have a negative impact on the perception of the system, retention, public relations, and recruitment. Rosie was concerned that the late fees were too high. Veronica responded that currently a student with a large bill isn't concerned about paying on time when the late fee is only $30. She asked what the benefit was of retaining a student that couldn't pay their bill. If we don't collect the Fall bill until late in the semester how will the student be able to pay the Spring bill? She also felt that the PR might be worse if we don't collect up front and have to turn the student over to a collection agency. She also said campuses can waive the late fee.
If a student adds a class after fee payment, a late payment fee may apply to a partially paid balance if the student received a bill and missed the due date. Each campus tracks who they sent bills to and the due dates. The late fee is applied if the student was billed, did not pay by the due date, and does not have a deferral. These are issues whether we have a flat fee or a graduated fee.
No one suggested a specific counter proposal but Rick asked that we consider the possible PR problems. Rosie still felt the fees were too high, and said the student's financial aid award could not be used to pay non-standard charges. Don thought the financial aid award letter that was signed by the student allowed us to use financial aid to pay misc. expenses. Rosie indicated that the Dept of Ed policy doesn't allow us to collect the fee unless the student solicits us to pay it. Veronica suggested we could comply with the policy if we worded the name of the fee correctly.
Each MOCC member should communicate with their campus AR rep. Veronica indicated the AR group had been in contact with their BAC reps to discuss this issue.By the next MOCC call weneed to research using FA to pay the late fee and talk to our campus AR rep.It was noted that online payment is coming and that students can see their AR balance on WebAdvisor.
c. Common Message to Students on XRST
Rosie informed MOCC that the FA module supports putting a new message on the bill explaining when payment is due for students that have only classes beginning after the census date. Veronica said the AR module was unanimously against putting this message on the bill. They felt the current message that payment is due by the 3rd day of classes was sufficient. Students are free to call and make other payment arrangements. Don said adding this message on the bill would be confusing. Rick also agreed. Rosie said the FA module based their response on the existing MCR 4 and BAC requirements. Ranny said changes could be made to policy and MCR 4. Rosie agreed that if these were changed FA could support not putting this message on the bill. Ranny will make the changes to MCR #4.
Please send your suggestions for change to the documents to the MOCC prior to our March 11 call so MOCC members can review these suggestions prior to the call.
Documents:
1.MCR #4 – Revised 3/2/05 (attached)
2.MCR #4 Relevant Data Definitions – Revised 3/2/05 (attached)
3.Common Business Practices – All Students – Revised 3/2/05 (attached)
4.BOR Policy 5:5 – Revised 3/2/05 (attached)
3.IASU cleanup for TS students – one attachment. Don and Rick expressed concern with the workload associated with retroactive cleanups.
4.Recoding of HS Information – one attachment This will be reviewed again on the 3/25 MOCC call.
5.Tech/UDA report – DonSetup has begun for pre-registration. The registration priority flag was set in Colleague, the correct terms were entered on the WebAdvisor screens, and registration priorities have been assigned. The UDAs agreed to make some changes to the timing of running minimum progression for future terms. The WebAdvisor restriction workflow has been moved to production. The Admissions Application Import should be available to test by the end of March. Prod was copied to test last week.
6.Other:Ranny will be out 4-6 weeks beginning 3/21. Dr Lee Alley or his designee will chair MOCC during her absence.
The next MOCC meeting will be from 10:00 to 12:00 on Friday, March 25. The number to call is 605-773-6140.Other topics for the next call will be double/multiple majors and programs/certificates.
Thanks, Ranny
Ranny B. Jones
Administrative Policy and Operations Consultant
South Dakota Board of Regents
Brookings, SD57007
Office Phone 605-692-8117; Cell Phone (605) 651-3775