Annual Report

Academic Advising Council (AAC)

2015-2016 Academic Year

The University of Texas at San Antonio

ii

Table of Contents

I. Academic Advising Council Membership 2015-2016 3 II. Executive Summary 4 III. Academic Advising Council Mission, Vision, & Goals 5 IV. Activities & Involvement 6 V. Interest Groups Initiative 11 VI. Accomplishments & Relationships 14 VII. Recommendations for the 2016-2017 Academic Advising Council 15 VIII. Recommendations for the Executive Director of Advising 17 IX. Budget Overview 2015-2016 18 X. Budget Proposal 2016-2017 19

3

I. Academic Advising Council Membership 2015-2016

Executive Committee Matt Keneson Arts & Humanities Academic Advisor I Chair Brandy Barksdale Student Placement Academic Advisor I Chair-elect Miranda Swain Arts & Humanities Academic Advisor I Secretary Leah Stoddard1 Life & Health Sciences Academic Advisor I Parliamentarian

Representatives Michelle Baland2 Mathematical & Physical Sciences Academic Advisor I John Bonner Student Placement Academic Advisor I Lisa Buentello3 Institute for Law & Public Affairs Director Joanna Caballero Business Studies Academic Advisor I Jaimie Carrington Downtown Academic Advisor I Phillip Casarez

4 Life & Health Sciences Academic Advisor III

Stephen Cheney Honors Academic Advisor III Melinda Estrada

5 Life & Health Sciences Academic Advisor I

Karl Fisher Interdisciplinary Education Academic Advisor I Amy Flack Business Studies Academic Advisor I Manuel Flores 6 Mathematical & Physical Sciences Academic Advisor I

Amanda Garcia7 USSTS Program Coordinator

Laura Garcia Interdisciplinary Education Academic Advisor I Margaret Garcia8 Life & Health Sciences Academic Advisor I Sara Gothelf Athletics Academic Coordinator I Tracy Hunt University Health Professions Health Professions Advisor I Johanna Krienke Engineering Academic Advisor III Leticia Longoria Tomás Rivera Center Assistant Director Chad McFadon Social Sciences Academic Advisor I Lisa Merritt Social Sciences Academic Advisor I Susie Saucedo Downtown Academic Advisor I Adrianna Solis 9 Mathematical & Physical Sciences Academic Advisor I

Jessica Williams10 Mathematical & Physical Sciences Academic Advisor IV

1. Left AAC 6/6/16. Replaced by Margaret Garcia as backup member.

2. Joined AAC 4/4/16. Filled vacant voting member position.

3. Joined AAC 12/7/15. Office was a new addition to the AAC.

4. Left AAC 2/1/16. Replaced by Melinda Estrada as voting member.

5. Joined AAC 3/7/16. Filled vacant voting member position.

6. Became voting member effective 1/4/16. Left AAC 3/22/16. Replaced by Michelle Baland.

7. Joined AAC 5/2/16. Filled vacant position.

8. Joined AAC 6/6/16. Filled vacant backup position.

9. Joined AAC 1/4/16. Filled vacant backup member position.

10. Left AAC 1/4/16. Manuel Flores became voting member.

4

II. Executive Summary

This report is designed to provide the UTSA advising community with a full account of the

membership, activities, achievements, and budget of the 2015-2016 Academic Advising Council

(AAC). It also provides recommendations and a proposed budget for the 2016-2017 AAC. A copy

of this and previous annual reports can be found on the Reports page of the AAC’s website and

in the AAC folder located in the shared Academic Advising folder on the I:drive.

The 2015-2016 academic year marked the fifth year of existence for the AAC and the second

year under the new advising structure. By the end of the year, fifteen offices were represented

by the AAC. Two offices, the Tomás Rivera Center (ACE program) and the Institute for Law and

Public Affairs (pre-law advising), were added to the AAC. A member from Undergraduate

Studies Support and Technology Services (USSTS) was also once again part of the AAC. The

position had been vacant since some time during the 2013-2014 year.

The AAC held its first meeting of the 2015-2016 year on September 14, 2015. Meetings were

held the first Monday of each month unless work demands or the academic calendar

necessitated a different date. The Chair and Chair-elect of the AAC also held monthly meetings

with the Executive Director of Advising and attended the GRIP Cross-Campus Team meetings to

enhance communication between the AAC and UTSA leadership. The Chair also attended the

advising center directors meetings throughout the year.

Goals for the year included improving communication and transparency, improving the

transition from one council year to the next, strengthening ties between advising and other

campus areas, and creating both social and professional development opportunities for

advisors. Major discussion topics for the AAC meetings included advisor caseloads, the career

ladder, transparency, advisor availability, standard calendars and scheduling, updates to the

AAC by-laws, and university events and initiatives (e.g. the new orientation structure, the Early

Bird program, and the DegreeWorks planner mandate). Additional concerns for the AAC were

related to how the new Ad Hoc Advising Group would affect the advising community.

The AAC’s activities for the 2015-2016 year included managing the new Interest Groups

program, conducting the 3rd AAC Advisor Survey, completing the 2016 AAC Report on Advising,

planning and hosting the December All-Advisor Appreciation Ceremony, hosting the 3rd annual

advisor potluck, scheduling several Advisor Social Hours, and participating in the fall and spring

Stress Down Days. Further details of the AAC’s activities can be found in the Meeting Minutes

posted on the AAC’s website.

5

III. Academic Advising Council Mission, Vision, & Goals

Mission: The mission of the UTSA Academic Advising Council (AAC) is to provide support and

professional growth opportunities for advisors by acting as a forum for discussion, debate, and

exchange of ideas regarding academic advising at UTSA.

Vision: To continue to serve the UTSA community with effective and efficient academic

advising.

Goals: These goals will be assessed each August to determine if they are being accomplished:

To increase communication within and among academic advising centers

To streamline policies and procedures

To share best practices

In Spring 2016, the By-laws committee suggested that a formal review of the Mission, Vision,

and Goals be conducted. They believe that the changing role of the AAC warrants a review of

the Mission statement. It was also noted that the Vision statement seems more appropriate for

UTSA Advising than the AAC. It says little about what the AAC hopes to achieve going forward.

There was also discussion of whether the Goals should be updated, incorporated into the Vision

statement, or eliminated altogether to allow the AAC to set goals as needed.

It is recommended that the 2016-2017 AAC conduct the official review of the Mission, Vision,

and Goals. It has been suggested that the AAC involve the advising community in this discussion

by asking them what role they see the AAC serving going forward.

6

IV. Activities & Involvement

In the 2015-2016 year, the AAC continued their support and advocacy for advising in several

ways. AAC-sponsored activities supported collaboration, problem-solving, recognition, and

social interaction. The AAC also continued to represent advising in campus-wide groups and

participated in events and initiatives hosted by other offices. The major activities of the AAC are

outlined chronologically in this section.

A starting focus for the 2015-2016 AAC was on improving communication and transparency.

Even before holding their first meeting of the year, the AAC created an official AAC email

account (AAC@utsa.edu) and developed an anonymous suggestion form that directs comments

to the AAC email. It was hoped that these channels of communication would encourage

feedback from the advising community on a more regular basis. While not heavily used, the

AAC did receive numerous messages through the email and anonymous suggestion form. The

creation of these resources was announced on both the advising listserve and at the September

all-advisor meeting. Additional updates were shared in these forums throughout the year.

Further efforts to improve communication and transparency included updating the AAC

website and creating an AAC folder in the common Academic Advising folder on the I:drive.

Monthly reminders were sent to the advising listserve summarizing any additions or

modifications to either the website or the I:drive. Steps were also taken to ensure that the AAC

website was easy to find. Previously, users had to type in the exact website address

(utsa.edu/aac) to access the website. New keywords were added to each page of the website to

ensure that they could be easily found when using common search engines. For instance, a

simple search for “UTSA AAC” or “UTSA Advising Council” will now result in the website being

the top result.

To improve communication between advising and the university, the Chair and Chair-elect

continued to attend the monthly GRIP Cross-Campus Team meetings. The Chair also continued

to attend the advising center directors meetings every two weeks. The AAC continued to build

relationships and improve communication with those outside of advising by inviting guests to

attend AAC meetings. Dr. Frederick attended an AAC meeting for the second time and was

scheduled to meet with the AAC again before announcing that he would be stepping down as

Provost. This was also the first year that the AAC met with representatives of the Student

Government Association (SGA). SGA representatives attended two AAC meetings and held a

third meeting with the AAC officers. Advisor availability and preventing no-shows were main

topics of discussion. The two groups plan to continue these meetings at least once a semester.

As this was the start of the second year under the new advising structure, many topics of focus

were related to lingering issues with the changes. A primary concern for the AAC and the

advising community was the inequity in caseloads between centers. The AAC began looking into

the issue early in the year by examining the basic caseload numbers between centers. The issue

was revisited in January, but no action was taken since many centers needed time to train new

7

hires before determining whether workload would be more manageable with a full staff.

Furthermore, in February it was announced that 3 advisor positions would be reassigned in

order to make caseloads more even across centers. This review process will be conducted each

spring to determine if further reassignments are needed. The AAC had several concerns

regarding this process. One basic concern was that some centers do not have enough physical

space to house additional advisors in the event that they are assigned additional staff. Also,

new advisors may be the most likely to be reassigned if there are no volunteers. This could

result in a staff member having to restart the process of learning the content knowledge

needed for advising their assigned students.

Another topic of interest to the AAC was the career ladder. Although the salary adjustments in

the spring of 2015 were greatly appreciated by advisors, opportunities for advancement remain

rare. The AAC has discussed the issue with leadership, and the Executive Director and center

directors have continued to explore options for reinstating the career ladder.

With the creation of the monthly all-advisor meetings and the need to schedule several training

sessions regarding the new Student Success Collaborative, the AAC decided that there was less

of a need to host their own training events throughout the year. The monthly meetings

provided the AAC with an opportunity to share updates and information, but advisors were not

heavily involved in planning the topics for each month. Going forward, the AAC hopes to

restore their involvement in supporting advisors’ professional development by including the

Professional Development committee in planning these monthly meetings.

One role the AAC maintained was promoting social interaction between advisors. The AAC held

the 3rd annual potluck in November. Based on advisor feedback from the previous year, it was

decided not to include a training component and instead promote the potluck as simply a social

event. Because of this, the AAC was not able to use their funds toward the event. Members of

the AAC also continued to plan Rowdy Advisor Social Hour events. These events occurred every

2-4 weeks for most of the year.

The AAC also continued to take the lead in planning the December All-Advisor Appreciation

event in collaboration with the Executive Director’s office. The Associate Dean of University

College, Tammy Wyatt, and the Executive Director of Advising, Barbara Smith, both spoke at

the event. A guest speaker was initially booked by the Executive Director, but they had to

cancel due to a conflicting obligation. The resulting event was shorter than in recent years, but

attendees gave the shorter length and faster pace favorable ratings in the evaluations. Several

groups were recognized during the course of the event including the 2014-2015 AAC, the 2015

UTSA Conference Committee, the Digital Initiatives Team (DIT), and the Interest Groups.

Important milestones, such as the completion of a degree and promotions, were also

recognized, as was the retirement of Lisa Talcott. Three advising awards were presented: Most

Valuable Advisor (Matt Keneson - AHUM), Newcomer Advisor (Shunverie Barrientez - HON),

and the George Bergquist Spirit Award (Karl Fisher - IDED). Raffle items were donated by

members of the AAC and were the most mentioned topic that advisors liked in the event’s

8

evaluation results. Attendees also indicated the informal socializing, group pictures, and

“kudos” wall as positive features of the event. Suggestions for improving the event included

having more activities, introducing new staff members by name, having the center directors

speak, having the Interest Groups and DIT provide updates on their activities, and hosting the

event during the time that Banner is down for grades to roll.

The AAC continued to support the Tomás Rivera Center’s Stress Down Day events in both the

fall and spring semesters. The AAC contributed $100 each semester toward the event, and

volunteers staffed both the sign-in table and advising table. Based on feedback from the past

few years, the AAC has preliminarily decided to discontinue their involvement with the event.

The advising table does not receive much traffic at the event, and many of the students’

questions often require them to follow-up with their assigned advisor for more specific

information. Also, the nature of the event is less about providing services and more about

helping students de-stress for finals, so advising’s continued involvement would be dependent

upon rethinking their role in the event. The AAC has discussed the possibility of hosting an

alternative event closer to midterms as a way of supporting students during a different time of

year and as a way to maintain a presence on campus outside of the advising centers.

The spring semester began with the development and implementation of the 3rd AAC Advisor

Survey. The survey is conducted every two years in order to assess the environment in

academic advising from the advising community’s perspective. It is the only means by which the

needs, concerns, and ideas of the entire advising community are collected in a systematic and

comprehensive way. The AAC utilized the new Qualtrics Survey System to conduct the survey.

The results of the survey showed positive trends in most areas compared to the results of the

2014 AAC Survey, however, there were still some topics that received predominantly poor or

negative ratings. The results of the survey and additional information compiled by the survey

team were released in June 2016 as the 2016 Report on Undergraduate Academic Advising. This

report contains recommendations for several groups including the AAC, the advising

community, and university leadership. The feedback and recommendations will be especially

helpful for guiding the activities of the AAC going forward.

A major topic of interest during the spring and summer semesters was the possibility of

standardizing schedules across advising centers. The focus on advisor schedules is linked to

student concerns regarding advisor availability, but it is also due in part to the adoption of the

Student Success Collaborative (SSC). The scheduling component of SSC favors standardized

appointment duration and appointment start time. The AAC and the advising community as a

whole have voiced several suggestions regarding standardization. For instance, while all centers

may agree to designate a certain percentage of their time for in-person contact, they would like

to retain the ability to determine how that time is split between appointments and walk-ins.

The needs of various student groups may dictate that a higher percentage of walk-ins or

appointments are needed. While this topic and other issues with SSC can be controlled or

overcome by the practices of the advising centers, the same solutions will not address the

9

issues for the self-scheduling feature that will eventually be released to students. As the

advising community becomes more familiar with SSC, they plan to work with EAB and campus

staff to address as many of these concerns as possible.

Several university events and initiatives were of focus during the spring and summer semesters.

These included the Early Bird program, the DegreeWorks locked plans mandate, the push for an

increase in summer enrollment, and the March Into Your Major event. Discussions of these

topics were often related to the time required to complete the tasks versus the limited

outcomes produced. Advisors also had several concerns regarding these mandates, many of

which have remained unanswered despite efforts to engage with those overseeing these

initiatives. While the AAC has improved direct communication with certain groups on campus,

namely the Provost and Student Government Association, they would like to further their

interaction with other campus leaders on issues such as these. This is especially important to

advisors in light of the increased attention being placed on advisor schedules and availability.

Throughout the spring semester, the AAC conducted an extensive review of its by-laws. Several

changes involved modifying the language of the by-laws for better clarity. Other changes

improved the organization of content. For instance, the previous article on “Membership &

Voting” was split to give voting its own article. Voting was also mentioned in several other areas

of the by-laws, so these references were moved to the new article. Additionally, formal

procedures were outlined for both verbal and secret ballot votes to ensure that each office is

included in votes but receives no more than one vote. Further discussion will need to focus on

establishing a procedure in case there is a tie. Suggestions included having the Chair or

Parliamentarian abstain from voting in order to act as a tie-breaker. If this process is approved,

then a second representative from their office could act as the voting member. In the event

that their office does not have a second AAC representative, a process for including their center

in the initial voting would need to be created.

Other changes were more significant. For example, the AAC changed the number of offices that

need to be present in order for official votes to take place. Previously, 75% of offices needed to

be present in order for there to be a quorum. This number was reduced to two-thirds. This will

give the AAC a greater chance of meeting quorum at each meeting. For instance, during the

2015-2016 year, the 75% representation of offices needed for a quorum was not met only once.

Under the new two-thirds rule, the requirements would have been met at all meetings.

Several changes were also made to better reflect the practices of the AAC in recent years. For

instance, “back-up” members have always been encouraged to participate in AAC activities

alongside the “voting” members, however, the term “back-up” meant that some were under

the impression that they could only participate in the absence of the “voting” member. In

reality, the only restriction placed on “back-up” members was that they were only allowed to

vote on official matters in the absence of their center’s “voting” member. The decision was

made to change the term “back-up” to “non-voting” in order to combat this perception. Also,

“non-voting” members have previously held officer positions despite the by-laws specifying

10

that officers would be elected from the “voting” members. This policy was changed to allow

officers to be elected from both the “voting” and “non-voting” members of the AAC.

It was also decided to change the two-year terms for members to one-year terms. The goal of

the two-year terms was to promote continuity within council by having at least half of the AAC

remain static from year to year. Turnover in advising and/or the need to resign a position with

the AAC meant that some members did not complete the entire two-year term. Most members

were also unaware of their term dates, and the turnover of members and lack of records

concerning member terms made it difficult to track their expiration. A move to one-year terms

will eliminate the need to track this information. Also, many members have served more than

one two-year term, so the AAC anticipates that some members will continue to serve multiple

terms which will still provide the AAC with a reasonable amount of stability from year to year.

Those serving the first year of a two-year term in the 2015-2016 year will be allowed to finish

the second year of their term in the 2016-2017 year. All new members for the 2016-2017 year

will be given one-year terms, and all members will be on one-year terms beginning with the

2017-2018 year.

Due to the changes in term length, language was added specifying that the person elected

Chair-elect each year will automatically be given a second one-year term in which to fulfill the

duties of the Chair. Previously, the Chair-elect was supposed to be elected only if they were in

the first year of a two-year term, but this practice had not always been followed. Barbara Smith

recommended that members have at least one year of membership in the AAC before being

eligible for the Chair-elect position. The AAC agreed that new members are not likely to take on

such a position anyway, but they decided to stipulate that a member must have served at least

one year within the last five years to maintain some flexibility for those who may have to take

time away from the AAC but then return.

Further changes to the by-laws will need to be made for committee descriptions and officer

responsibilities. As mentioned previously, the AAC may also want to revisit the mission, vision,

and goals listed in the by-laws.

Throughout the entire 2015-2016 year, the Chair and Chair-elect took steps to improve the

transition process from year to year. One such step taken was including the Chair-elect in the

monthly meetings between the Executive Director of Advising and the Chair. The Chair-elect

also began attending advising center directors meetings in July. The Chair and Chair-elect also

met monthly to discuss AAC activities. Further efforts consisted of creating written records or

converting existing documents into electronic format. New documents included records of

previous membership, member terms, previous budgets, a yearly timeline outlining the AAC’s

usual activities, and a manual describing how to gain access to and update the AAC website.

These and other documents were often added to the AAC website or the AAC I:drive folder. A

Sharepoint site was created in recent months for the purpose of storing editable or sensitive

information, but the process of transferring documents to it will need to be completed in the

2016-2017 year.

11

V. Interest Groups Initiative

A major AAC project that spanned the entire academic year was the new Interest Groups

initiative. The idea for the program originated in April 2015. A group of AAC representatives

further developed the idea during the summer, and the groups were officially launched in

September 2015. The purpose of the program is to increase advisor collaboration across

centers and to empower advisors to make positive changes to advising through solution-

focused discussions. Various ad hoc committees have sought to improve advising, but they often

involve only a handful of advisors and are temporary in nature. By involving more advisors, the

Interest Groups are also able to examine more topics than could be done by the AAC alone.

The inspiration for the program came from advisor requests in the 2014 AAC Advisor Survey

and from university documents, such as the GRIP, that call for increased collaboration among

staff. The program is referred to as the Interest Groups as it is modeled after the National

Academic Advising Association (NACADA) interest groups system.

Based on feedback from the advising community, five groups were initially created:

Advisor Experience

Communication & Outreach

Policies & Procedures

Special Populations

Technology

Each group is charged with assessing the current state of their topic, creating a vision of their ideal

future, and brainstorming ways to move advising closer to that vision. Instead of stopping at the

brainstorming stage, the groups are also charged with proposing and implementing solutions.

While not all groups made significant progress on their topics during the 2015-2016 year, the

proactive, solution-oriented approach of the program did result in several positive results. For

instance, the groups convinced the Associate Deans to agree to a common electronic process

for submitting Core/University Requirement petitions. This process reduces confusion and

increases consistency across centers. The groups also clarified and recommended changes to

the 75-hour major change policy that were ultimately approved for the 2016-2017 catalog.

Progress was also made toward developing a survey to determine, and then address, the

reasons why advisors choose to leave UTSA Advising. From the very beginning, the program

also accomplished its goal of allowing advisors to interact and discuss best practices related to

technology, office processes, and strategies for promoting student success.

Forty-three advisors from twelve different offices volunteered to participate in the Interest

Groups program for the 2015-2016 year. Advisors reported joining the groups in order to

collaborate with advisors from other centers, increase their influence over their own work, and

make positive changes for advising and our students. Each advisor was able to participate in

12

either their first or second choice group even after the AAC did their best to balance the size

and center representation of each group.

One to two facilitators were responsible for guiding the discussion of each group. An

orientation meeting for the facilitators was held in September prior to the program’s launch in

order to discuss their role in the groups and to determine what support they needed from the

AAC. Several resources, such as reports on advising, information on strategic planning and goal

setting, and resources on managing meetings, were placed on the shared Interest Groups folder

on the I:drive. Judy Verdon, Lead Training and Development Specialist for UTSA Human

Resources, also conducted a modified version of the “Meetings That Get Results” training for

the facilitators in November. A kickoff event for all participants was held in late September. The

kickoff event outlined the goals and expectations of the groups. Groups were then expected to

schedule meetings roughly once per month.

In January, a short survey was sent to all participants in order to assess the effectiveness of the

program. A meeting was held in February to discuss the results of the survey and potential

solutions to some of the issues identified. A chief theme that emerged from the meeting was

that more structure and guidance would be beneficial. The Interest Groups had purposefully

been given a loose set of expectations to allow them to structure their activities as they saw fit,

but this flexibility resulted in uncertainty in several areas.

For instance, there were issues with clarity of purpose in some of the groups. Several of the

groups had discussed some of the same topics which created confusion. Little communication

between the groups further contributed to this issue. Groups were supposed to share their

meeting notes in the shared space on the I:drive, but it was suggested that a more concise list

of topics be created. As a result, the AAC added a page to their website that listed the current

topics of focus for each group. Groups were then able to more easily avoid duplicating efforts.

It was also suggested that the groups share regular updates about their activities in emails or at

the monthly all-advisor meetings.

There was also disagreement within some of the groups about which topics to focus on first,

since each advising center has different priorities based on their unique circumstances. One

group shared the process that they used to find common ground and organize their topics of

interest. Each member brought their office’s top five priorities to a meeting, and the group

began with the topics that were mentioned the most. Topics were also categorized by area of

concern and urgency. It was also mentioned that the upcoming 2016 AAC Advisor Survey would

include a question that would allow the entire advising community to list the top five issues

that they would like for the AAC or Interest Groups to focus on going forward. Strategies for

remaining on task in meetings were also discussed.

There were also some logistical issues that needed to be addressed. Some groups found it

difficult to find a common time for all members to meet. To resolve this issue, the AAC gained

13

approval from the Executive Director and center directors to have all groups meet after the

monthly all-advisor meetings.

The group members ended the February meeting by agreeing on a set of next steps to take in

the following months. Namely, the groups agreed to organize their efforts by establishing

written “current state” and “vision” statements and by using the template provided by one

group to prioritize topics.

The Interest Groups lost several members throughout the year for various reasons, and the

Communication & Outreach group decided to discontinue their involvement completely. The

AAC has gathered feedback from the previous group members and has decided that there is

enough interest to continue the program in the 2016-2017 year. The number of groups offered

will ultimately depend on the interest and support from the advising community. Each year the

AAC will assess the need for and interest in the program, including whether or not the same

groups will continue. For instance, the Communications & Outreach group will not be offered

for the 2016-2017 year. The program will once again be launched with an initial kickoff event

for all participants. The kickoff event will again outline the goals and expectations of the groups,

but further details and structure will be provided based on the feedback from the January

survey and February meeting. Steps will also be taken to ensure that the groups identify their

purpose and priorities early so that they can then move into the brainstorming and

implementation phases.

14

VI. Accomplishments & Relationships

Accomplishments

Designed and administered the 2016 AAC Advisor survey.

Authored the 2016 AAC Report on Undergraduate Academic Advising.

Implemented and oversaw the new Interest Groups program.

Improved communication and transparency of AAC activities by creating an AAC email

account, creating an anonymous suggestion form, creating a shared AAC folder on the

I:drive, and updating the AAC website.

Improved the transition process from year to year through the creation of several

documents and the development of electronic storage systems.

Suggested that the gateway petition process mirror that of early reinstatement requests

by going through the College Deans’ offices instead of advising (approved by Deans).

Held the first meetings between the AAC and the Student Government Association.

Met with the Provost during an AAC meeting for the second time.

Organized, planned, and hosted the December All-Advisor Appreciation Ceremony in

collaboration with the Executive Director of Advising.

Hosted the third AAC potluck.

Developed a consistent process across colleges for submitting Core/University

Requirement petitions. (Interest Group)

Clarified the 75-hour major change policy and suggested changes to the language of the

policy that were ultimately adopted for the Information Bulletin. (Interest Group)

Clarified the process regarding tracking, exiting, and petitioning the Gateway attempt

limit. (Interest Group)

Relationships

Executive Director of Advising, Barbara Smith

Advising Center Directors Council

Associate Director of USSTS, James “Jimmy” Adair

Administrative Manager USSTS, Catarina Rodriguez

GRIP Cross-Campus Team (lead by Sandy Welch)

Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, John Frederick

Student Government Association Representatives

Tomás Rivera Center Learning Assistance, Heather Frazer

Office of Institutional Research, Brian Cordeau

Associate Deans’ Council

Registrar’s Office, Daniel Garcia and Alejandra “Alex” Perez

15

VII. Recommendations for the 2016-2017 Academic Advising Council

Monthly Meetings

Continue to hold the monthly meetings on the first Monday of each month from 10:30 AM

– 12:00 PM (use the second Monday of the month as needed due to conflicts).

Continue to send monthly reminders to the advising listserve once the meeting minutes

are placed on the I:drive and on the AAC website.

Continue to invite administrators, staff, faculty, and students to meetings to discuss issues

related to advising and to strengthen communication with other areas. Potential guests

could include the interim Provost, members of the Ad Hoc Advising Group, and the SGA.

Potential topics of focus:

o Address issues with appreciation award nominations (form, process, & eligibility).

o Review the mission, vision, and goals of the AAC and involve the advising community

in the process.

o Consult the 2016 AAC Report on Advising for recommendations on which topics the

advising community would like the AAC to focus on going forward.

General Activities

Continue the Interest Groups program based on advisor interest.

Consult with advising groups at other schools (e.g. UT-Austin, Texas A&M, UT-Arlington)

on advisor involvement, advising practices, etc.

Consider creating an event to replace advising’s involvement in Stress Down Day

(potentially focused around midterms).

December All-Advisor Appreciation Ceremony

Consider holding the event during the time that Banner is down for grades to roll.

Keep the shorter time and faster pace by not having a guest speaker.

Include raffle items again.

Provide time for networking and informal socializing.

Continue activities like the kudos wall and photo area.

Continue to recognize those who have earned promotions or degrees within the past year.

Consider having the directors, faculty, or others speak.

Consider recognizing new advisors by name.

Consider having various groups (centers, interest groups, DIT, etc.) provide updates on

their activities and accomplishments.

16

Future AAC Surveys and Reports

Continue to administer a survey every two years.

Conduct the survey in early spring so that the results can be compiled before fall

registration and summer orientation.

Place the survey results as an appendix to the report in order to avoid confusion as to why

information from the results are also included in the “Discussion & Recommendations.”

Training & Professional Development

Work closely with the Executive Director and center directors to set topics for the

monthly, all-advisor meetings with a special emphasis on advisor collaboration and

communication between centers.

Consider reinstituting “Advisor Swap” under the management of the AAC. This program

would help advisors and staff from other areas gain a better understanding of the roles

and responsibilities of each office.

Consider hosting “brown bag” trainings or open-forum/town-hall events.

Advising Social Events

Continue to host at least one potluck per year without a training component.

Bring back the Advisor Social Hour events.

Officers

Continue to have the Chair and Chair-elect meet monthly to discuss AAC activities and

improve the transition from one year to the next.

Post meeting minutes within two weeks of meetings.

Maintain electronic documents and complete the process of adding them to the

Sharepoint site.

Add the history of the AAC to the AAC website (a history can be found in the 2012-2013

annual report).

Continue to take officer nominations for the following year in the July meeting and hold

elections in the August meeting.

17

VIII. Recommendations for the Executive Director of Advising

Continue to keep an open and collaborative dialogue with the AAC by meeting monthly

with the Chair and Chair-elect.

Utilize the AAC to help advocate for advising.

Utilize the AAC to disseminate relevant information and maintain lines of communication

among advising centers.

Continue the practice of inviting the AAC Chair to attend directors meetings and to

represent the advising community in advising-related meetings or groups.

Work with the AAC to address the concerns and recommendations found in the 2016 AAC

Report on Advising.

18

XI. Budget Overview 2015-2016

Proposed 2015-2016 Budget

Study Days/Potluck Trainings (food) $400.00 December All-Advisor Appreciation Ceremony (food, awards, decorations, etc.) $400.00 Recognition Plaques for 2014-2015 AAC Officers $100.00 TRC Stress Down Day (Fall & Spring) $200.00 Retirement Plaques (estimated 3) $150.00 George Bergquist Award Plaque $50.00

TOTAL $1300.00

Approved 2015-2016 Budget

Study Days/Potluck Trainings (food) $400.00 December All-Advisor Appreciation Ceremony (food, awards, decorations, etc.) $400.00 Recognition Plaques for 2014-2015 AAC Officers $100.00 TRC Stress Down Day (Fall & Spring) $200.00 Retirement Plaques (estimated 3) $150.00 George Bergquist Award Plaque $50.00

TOTAL $1300.00

Actual 2015-2016 Expenses

TRC Stress Down Day (Fall & Spring) $200.00 December All-Advisor Appreciation Ceremony (decorations) $233.13

Candy canes & supplies (Walmart – $14.44) Ornaments & wrapping (At Home – $97.82 & $110.87)

December All-Advisor Appreciation Ceremony (awards) $43.00 Most Valuable Advisor plaque (Monarch Trophy - $21.50) Newcomer plaque (Monarch Trophy - $21.50)

December All-Advisor Appreciation Ceremony (additional awards) $171.46 Recognition plaques for 2014-2015 AAC Officers (Monarch Trophy - ~$55.80) George Bergquist plaque (Monarch Trophy - ~$57.83) Retirement plaque – Lisa Talcott (~$57.83)

Administrative Associates Appreciation $61.33 Summer Appreciation Items (water bottles) $579.76 Contribution toward September All-Advisor Training Coffee $11.32

TOTAL $1300.00

19

X. Budget Proposal 2016-2017

Proposed 2016-2017 Budget

Training and Professional Development (food/drinks for events) $400.00 December All-Advisor Appreciation Ceremony (food, awards, decorations, etc.) $500.00

MVA, Newcomer, & George Bergquist award plaques (~$100.00) Recognition Paperweights for 2015-2016 Officers (~$60.00) Decorations and other items (~$340.00)

Retirement Plaques (estimated 3 @ $50.00/each) $150.00 Staff Appreciation (food and items) $100.00 Student outreach events $150.00

TOTAL $1300.00