McNeese State University

Section 2:
Core Requirements
2.1	2.2	2.3
2.4	2.5	2.6
2.7.1	2.7.2	2.7.3
2.7.4	2.8	2.9
2.10	2.11	2.12
Section 3:
Comprehensive Standards
3.1.1	3.2.1
3.2.2.1	3.2.2.2	3.2.2.3
3.2.2.4	3.2.3	3.2.4
3.2.5	3.2.6	3.2.7
3.2.8	3.2.9	3.2.10
3.2.11	3.2.12	3.2.13
3.2.14	3.3.1	3.4.1
3.4.2	3.4.3	3.4.4
3.4.5	3.4.6	3.4.7
3.4.8	3.4.9	3.4.10
3.4.11	3.4.12	3.4.13
3.4.14	3.5.1	3.5.2
3.6.1	3.6.2	3.6.3
3.7.1	3.7.2	3.7.3
3.7.4	3.7.5	3.8.1
3.8.2	3.8.3	3.9.1
3.9.2	3.9.3	3.10.1
3.10.2	3.10.3	3.10.4
3.10.5	3.10.6	3.10.7
Section 4:
Federal Requirements
4.1	4.2	4.3
4.4	4.5	4.6
4.7	4.8

McNeese State University
Compliance Plan for Reaffirmation

Section 3.2.6: Governance and Administration

Judgment of Compliance

Compliance

Partial Compliance

Non-compliance

Requirement

There is a clear and appropriate distinction, in writing and practice, between the policy-making functions of the governing board and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy.

Narrative

McNeese State University is in compliance with Comprehensive Standard 3.2.6.

A clear distinction is made, in writing and in practice, between the policy-making functions of the Louisiana Board of Regents and the University of Louisiana Board of Supervisors and the responsibility of the administration and faculty to administer and implement policy. The University is in compliance with this item.

An example of the distinction, in writing and practice, between the Board's policy-making function and the role of campus administrators and faculty in implementing policy is found in the recent revision of the University's mission statement.

The Louisiana Board of Regents possesses ultimate statutory oversight over public higher education throughout the state (Louisiana Constitution of 1974). While the Master Plan for Public Post Secondary Education: 2001, a comprehensive planning directive impacting all public colleges and universities throughout Louisiana, originated with the Louisiana Board of Regents and calls for sweeping changes in public higher education, responsibility for administration and implementation of the initiatives set forth within this document rests largely with the individual institutions referenced within it.

For example, the Master Plan sets forth an "admissions criteria framework [ . . . ] developed by the Board of Regents to maximize the probability of student success by linking the expectation of institutions to the aspirations and level of preparedness of entering students" (26) and further sets forth minimum admission criteria and institutional admission types (27).

Responsiblity for "implementation of specific admissions policies" lies with "the administration and faculty of the institution with concurrence of the respective Board of Supervisors.”(26) Derminations about whether or not individual institutions will exceed the minimum standards set forth within the plan is vested in "administration and faculty, in

conjunction with their respective management boards" in view of "the institution's role, scope and mission" (27).

The University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors supported the University's efforts to become a selective admission institution in response to the Board of Regents' plan and approved the University's request for appropriate revision of its mission statement (Board of Supervisors, April 29, 2005, Meeting Minutes).

The University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors, while maintaining primary management control over all eight institutions contained within the system, functions primarily as the policy-making oversight board (UL Board of Supervisors, Bylaws, Section I. Definitions, A.). Administration and implementation of policy collectively affecting all institutions within the System is delegated to the System President (UL Board of Supervisors Bylaws, Section VI, Staff, System President, 1-15).

Board of Supervisors policies specifically affecting McNeese State University are delegated to the University President who, along with his executive staff, mid-level administrators, and the faculty, retain ultimate responsibility for administration and implementation (UL Board of Supervisor Bylaws, Chapter III, Faculty and Staff, Section IV, A. The President's Role, 1-15).

The President, as chief executive officer of the institution, assumes broad oversight for daily operations of the University and vests substantial authority to executive and mid-level administrators and the faculty to carry out the University's daily operations in support of its mission (Organizational Chart). The faculty of McNeese State University, working under the executive leadership of the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, is charged with the administration and implementation of policy relating to curriculum, instruction, and degree offerings.

The Academic Advisory Council, chaired by the Provost (Provost Position Description, Paragraph 3) serves "in advisory capacity to the President on matters related to academic programs and procedures". Consisting primarily of deans and directors from academic affairs and a representative of the faculty senate, the Academic Advisory Council reports to the President (Faculty/Staff Handbook, 601, Academic Advisory Council).

Another example of the distinction between board policy-making authority and campus administration and faculty implementation of policy is reflected in the University's mission statement review. The Academic Advisory Council reviewed drafts of proposed changes to the mission statement prior to its circulation to key constituent groups of the University prior to its approval by the President's Executive Staff and prior to its adoption by the University of Louisiana System Board of Supervisors (UL System Board of Supervisor, Meeting Minutes, April 29, 2005).

Another example of the distinction between the Board's policy-making role and administration and implementation of policy at the campus level is found in a case involving a student appeal of disciplinary action by the University. The University's Code of Student Conduct provides for appeals of "sanctions of suspension for one or more years or dismissal from the University" to the University President and, if upheld by the President, to the Board of Supervisors of the University of Louisiana System (Code of Student Conduct, Section 16, Appeal Procedure, Section 16.2 Chain of Command). Both University policy (Code of Student Conduct, 16.2, 16.8) and Board of Supervisors policy (Board Rules, Chapter II, Students, Section XIX, Student Conduct and Appeal Procedures) limit such appeals to procedural review only. Accordingly, the Board of Supervisors does not attempt to determine the guilt or innocence of the parties in question, but seeks only to determine whether or not campus officials acting in accordance with the terms of their disciplinary policies and procedures. In such instances where the Board is satisfied that campus officials have properly implemented and applied their policies, University disciplinary sanctions are upheld (Board of Supervisors, Meeting Minutes, April 29, 2005, I. 2.).

Yet another example of the distinction in writing and practice between Board policy-making authority and implementation duties of campus administrators and faculty is demonstrated in the appointment of employees to the University's faculty and administrative staff. On June 27, 2003, acting upon the recommendation of the University President, the Board of Supervisors approved the appointment of the dean of the Burton College of Business. This appointment grew out of a campus-based recruitment and selection process based on the University's Hiring Plan and culminated with Board action to confirm the candidate deemed best qualified for the position by campus officials (Hiring Plan).

A final example of the distinction in writing and practice between the Board's responsbility to make policy and campus officials to administer policy is found in curriculum and degree program changes. On October 27, 2000, the Board of Supervisors, acting on the recommendation of the University President, approved termination of associate degree programs in electronics technology, instrumentation technology, and process plant technology and their subsequent conversion to concentrations within a new associate of science program in engineering technology.

The Board of Supervisors, also acting on the recommendation of campus officials, changed the baccalaureate program in electrical/electronics technology to a baccalaureate program in engineering technology with concentrations in electronics, instrumentation and process plant technology and further approved the University's request to terminate its associate of science degree programs in design/drafting technology, office administration and word processing effective Spring 2001 (Board of Supervisors, Meeting Minutes, October 27, 2000, Page 6, Items E.1 and E.2).