MOCC Agenda
March 25, 2005 * 10:00 to 12:00 CT * 605-773-6140
Minutes recorded by Mark Lee
MCR Discussion items:
MCR #4 – Information/fact gathering/recommendation for issues first identified in PCR 21 summer of 2003 (Administrative Withdrawals)
- Decisions on:
- BOR Policy 5:5
- BOR Policy 5:7
- Common Business Practices
- Relevant Data Definitions
- E-mail 3/11/05 / 2nd Email 3/11/05 / FA Module comments 3/11/05
MCR #26 – Coding of Certificates and Certifications
- Discussions on:
- MOCC members review and take back to campuses for discussion of the differences between Certificates (BOR Degree) and Certifications (Group of Courses).
- Current Certificate Programs
- Content Certifications
- Degree Type Codes Identify the differences and the coding.
MCR #27–Coding of Double Majors
Discussion items:
UDA discussion item
- IASU cleanup – reporting of high school data
- CEEB codes for all high schools (national)
BOR Policy 2:24- Enrollment Reporting
- Review for updating of policy to reflect current reporting needs
Open Discussion items:
The next MOCC meeting is April 8, 2005 from 10:00-12:00 CT, call 605-773-6140. Minutes recorded by Veronica Paulson.
Minutes:
Present: Rosie Jamison, Rose Hanson, Veronica Paulson, Don Ticknor, Rick Davis, Mark Lee, Lee Alley, Bill Jones, Carla Reihe and Sandy Anderson.
MCR 4
Veronica sent out a new proposal. It is summarized as follows:
B. Due and Payable
1. Students with at least one standard term course will be required to pay their full
tuition and fee bill or make other financial arrangements no later than the third day of
classes for the standard term. Examples of other financial arrangements may include
payment plans, deferments for financial aid, or third party payments. Students who
owe a balance after the end of the add/drop period due to changes in class schedules
are required to pay in full or to make other financial arrangements by the 19th class
day of the term.
a) If no payment, or financial arrangement to pay, is received by the end of the
business day on the third day of the standard semester, the student’s
enrollment may be cancelled if they did not attend classes.
b) A late paymentfeewill be assessedbeginning the fourth day of theterm. (deleteon all accounts with a balance due of
more than $100 at the end of the third day of classes for the term:)
- Account balance of $55 - $100 – a $30.00 late fee3/24/05 revision$30 late fee on balances of$100 - $1,000
- Account balance of $101 - $1,000 – a $50.00 late fee3/24/05 revision$50 late fee on balancesgreater than $1,000
- Account balance greater than $1,000 – a $100.00 late fee3/24/05 revisiondelete this line
c) A $10.00 late fee may be assessedon balances of $0 to $54.3/24/05 revisionbalances of$0 - $99
d)A late fee may be assessed each timepayment is not received by the established due date.
e) Students are expected to make full payment or make an arrangement to pay
or the student’s enrollment will be:
i. Cancelled if they never attended a class or classes within the term as
verified by the faculty prior to the census date extract freeze date, or
ii. Administratively withdrawn if they did attend a class or classes
within the term as verified by the faculty with a last date of academic
activity by the end of the 19th day of classes for the term.
iii. If a student’s course enrollment for a term consists of all courses that have a begin date
after the census date of the term, the university will not cancel the student’s enrollment or
assess a late fee until the end of the add/drop period of the course with the earliest start date. (delete student’s course enrollments.)
2) Students enrolled in only non-standard term courses will be billed and have a
payment deadline established. A late fee will be assessed if payment is not received
by the established deadline or if payment is not received by the end of the add/drop
period for the non-standard term course with the earliest start date.
------
Discussion on Late Fees -
This would be “automatically” assessed to students who have been billed and have missed their payment date. Students who have not had a bill (e.g. registered the first day of classes), would not be assessed until after the 19th day when their bill is due.
Is this tracked in a common way across the six institutions? Not yet, but AR is looking into it.
This is a new process so some of the things will need to be ironed out.
A late payment fee may be assessed each time a student misses a due date. Billings are done regularly. Thus, a student who misses the first date will get a late fee. They will get another bill and another due date. If they miss it, they will be assessed another late fee amount.
If the student account is at $0, but they add a class, they have to pay by the next due date to avoid a late fee.
How are due dates set? By campus.
Item d. - Can we clean this up to eliminate any potential ambiguity? AR can word-craft it.
Would a student be assessed a late fee if they have made a down payment, but a balance persists? The answer is “yes” under the recommendation.
Can a fee that kicks them up to the next level, do they pay the fee at the next level ($30 v. $50)? Initial answer = “no”. It is based on the amount they owe from tuition, fees, room, board, and standard charges. That was the intent.
However, should we go with the amount due regardless of what is included in the amount due? There seems to be consensuses that “yes” this would be better than trying to exclude certain charges.
Consensus – go with the amount due to determine the amount of the late fee regardless of what type of charge, fee, etc. is included to accumulate to the AR balance due.
This will go to BAC for their April 6 meeting.
Will e-commerce issues affect this such that maybe we should wait on changes until e-commerce is up and running? It does not appear that the two are coupled in a way that would require us to wait.
Should we have an electronic notification of the late fee prior to the late fee being assessed? Yes, to the extent we can, but that may not be part of this discussion. Billing and notification is key.
Should this be percentage of amount owed versus a flat rate late fee? Datatel makes it extremely difficult to do the percentage.
Even in an automated process, campuses will have the discretion of removing the late fee.
Financial Aid module expressed concern on the late fee relative to the amount due. For example, $30 is more punitive relative to a $100 bill than is $50 relative to a $1,100 bill.
The policy is good, then there needs to be an implementation plan, etc. plus identify any other issues we would like to have reconsidered.
For Future MOCC Agenda:
1.Procedures for forewarning students of coming billing statement
2.Compare SDBOR 4th day due date policy with surrounding states
MCR 26
Sandy asked, should we use new degree codes for any graduates beginning summer 2005 rather than spring 2005 due to the IPEDS reporting year?
Consensus is that this makes sense.
Certificates require BOR approval. Certification programs (re-certification for teachers for example) do not need to be approved. We need to ensure that the proper approvals are gained for any “certificate” program and that the phrases are not used interchangeably.
“Certificate” and “certification” mean different things in policy and practice. However, for students wanting to be teachers, the program name probably should include the word “certification” even if it meets the definition of a “certificate” program in BOR policy.
What is the MOCC recommendation?
Consensus –
- Degree codes should follow reporting year i.e. summer.
- In the certification for teacher education, we would note it on the transcript as a certification and not a certificate program.
Carla and/or Sandy will draft our consensus and it will be incorporated in the minutes.
MCR 27 – Coding of Double Majors
This should go back to module groups and put it on the agenda for the next call.
CEEB codes for all HS
Recording the CEEB code for all high schools, not the generic state HS code. This will aid in recruiting efforts.
Tech has the comprehensive CEEB code table from ACT. The CEEB is assigned by College Board.
Colleague’s institution table is currently maintained centrally for the system by RIS/ESC and needs to be set-up in Colleague before they can be used. As soon as RIS gets the remaining CEEBS loaded in Colleague , ESC and the universitiescan begin using them.
For the next meeting, Lee will be able to tell us how and when the CEEB codes would be available in Colleague.
IASU Date Cleanup
IASU cleanup – coding in-system transfers to help with identifying where the student is coming from as they transfer from Regental campus to campus. Can we have a policy change here that goes from here forward rather than have it retroactive to 2003?
The data as it exists today may make it difficult to actually determine where the student is coming from for 100% of the students.
Would it help to start with spring 2004 rather than fall 2003? The clean-up will take some time and this would help.
Consensus – Go back to Spring 2004 rather than 2003. Enter the Regental university and dates of attendance on IASU for those students that transferred within the system using the TS enrollment status code from the enrollment extracts. A list of students and recommended procedures were provided during the last MOCC call.
CEEB CODES
Recording the CEEB code for all high schools.
Tech has the comprehensive CEEB code table. Who is going to maintain the table? Who designates CEEB codes?
It seems it should be maintained centrally for the system by RIS and set-up in Colleague before they can be used. As soon as we get it set-up in Colleague we can begin using it.
For the next meeting, Lee will be able to tell us how and when the CEEB codes would be available in Colleague.
BOR Policy 2:24 – Enrollment Reporting
BOR policy conflicts with IPEDS reporting requirements.
For example IPEDS report would include courses that began the previous semester and are not yet concluded. Thus, they are not in the fall extract, but need to be in the report to IPEDS.
Also, if a student registers for the class and drops after the census date they are in the extract for enrollment reporting, but are not reported for IPEDS purposes.
Does this policy need review for revisions?
Carla willtake a look at this and propose a revision. Likewise, the rest of us will send in recommended edits and submit them to Robin Stambaugh.
Robin will prepare the MCR documents to get this into the regular process for review.
Commitment Letters
The logo for USD needs to be the current logo.
Everyone should take a look at the letter and make sure it accurate for each school.
Processing Calendar
Carla sent the newest version on March 24.
Send specific changes to Carla electronically.
MOCC Agenda & MinutesPage MOCC Agenda & MinutesPage 1 11/16/2018