Organizational Structure of Groups and Committees

Planning for the Self Study

The Steering Committee Co-chairs, and eight staff from the Provost’s Office and related offices participated in the Self-Study Institute. In addition, four members of the Office participated in the Middle States Annual Conference from Dec. 7-9, 2022. 

Four key questions drove UMB’s early considerations: 

• What does UMB want to gain from the self-study process? 

• How can UMB leverage robust historical strategic planning and professional accreditation to derive impactful self-study lines of inquiry? 

• How can UMB use the self-study process to strengthen the institution over the long term? 

• What design model is appropriate for UMB? 

On January 17, 2023, President Jarrell, in one of his “Letter(s) to the Community” announced the start of the planning process for UMB’s upcoming accreditation site visit in 2025. He appointed Dr. Roger Ward, EdD, JD, MSL, MPA, provost and dean, Graduate School, and Dr. Mark Reynolds, DDS, PhD, dean, School of Dentistry as the co-chairs of the Steering Committee. The makeup of the Steering Committee reflects a broad array of leaders from across the UMB community. 

In his letter of appointment to Steering Committee members, Dr. Jarrell relayed the following charge: 

• Select the self-study design most appropriate for UMB. The themes in the design should align with our Core Values and the priorities in our Strategic Plan. This task should be completed no later than April 25, 2023. 

• Design an inclusive and transparent self-study process that actively and deliberately seeks to engage members of the University community from every corner of campus. 

• Produce a self-study report that demonstrates our compliance with the Middle States Commission on Higher Education accreditation standards and that provides forward- looking recommendations to move the institution further along its quest for excellence in graduate and professional education, research, clinical activities, and service for the public good. 

Working Groups

On March 7, 2023, the Steering Committee met for the first time. At the meeting, President Jarrell presented his formal charge. Additionally, introductions were made amongst the Committee members. Immediately thereafter, Drs. Ward and Reynolds provided an orientation to Middle States accreditation and described the self-study process. Before the meeting concluded, Committee members were sorted into threes and each trio became the leadership of one of the seven Working Groups. The selection of the Working Group members is ongoing and comes from a broad cross-section of faculty, staff and students. 

At the April 25th meeting of the Steering Committee, each Working Group presented their Standard and the related Criteria followed by a general process discussion. The May meeting will offer an opportunity to share with the Committee a review of the manner in which they will engage with the Evidence Inventory. 

The Steering Committee and Working Groups are supported by the Logistics Committee, a ten-member team comprised primarily of Provost Office staff and led by Provost Roger Ward, one of the Steering Committee co-chairs. 

Working Groups

Standard I- Mission and Goals ▾
The institution’s mission defines its purpose within the context of higher education, the students it serves, and what it intends to accomplish. The institution’s stated goals are clearly linked to its mission and specify how the institution fulfills its mission.

The group will also be responsible for demonstrating compliance with: 

Requirement of Affiliation 7: The institution has a mission statement and related goals, approved by its governing board, that defines its purposes within the context of higher education. 

Working Group Leadership 

  • • Bill Joyner – Community Engagement - Office of the President 
  • • Andy Malinow – School of Medicine 
  • • Alexa Mayo – Health Sciences and Human Services Library 
  • • Victoria Meadows - Logistics Committee Liaison, Enterprise Risk Management 

 

Lines of inquiry through which to examine all criteria in the standard: 

1. To what extent do the aims of the UMB’s mission shape current strategic plan? 

 

2. To what extent should UMB’s current mission statement be reviewed and revised the reflect the post-pandemic shifts, especially as it relates to: design and delivery of graduate and professional education; research and scholarship; and equity, diversity, and inclusion? 

Standard II – Ethics and Integrity ▾
Ethics and integrity are central, indispensable, and defining hallmarks of effective higher education institutions. in all activities, whether internal or external, an institution must be faithful to its mission, honor its contracts and commitments, adhere to its policies, and represent itself truthfully.

The group will also be responsible for demonstrating compliance with: 

Requirement of Affiliation 5: The institution complies with all applicable government (usually Federal and state) laws and regulations.” (Working Group VII will also address Requirement.) 14 

University of Maryland, Baltimore 

 

Requirement of Affiliation 6: The institution complies with applicable Commission, interregional, and inter-institutional policies. 

Requirement of Affiliation 14: The institution and its governing body/bodies make freely available to the Commission accurate, fair, and complete information on all aspects of the institution and its operations. The governing body/bodies ensure that the institution describes itself in comparable and consistent terms to all of its accrediting and regulatory agencies, communicates any changes in accredited status, and agrees to disclose information ... required by the Commission to carry out its accrediting responsibilities. 

Working Group Leadership 

  • • Cherita Adams – School of Social Work 
  • • Susan Buskirk – Accountability and Compliance - Office of the Provost 
  • • Vanessa Harrington – UMB Police Department 
  • • Courtney Resnick - Logistics Committee Liaison – Office of the Provost and Graduate School 

 

Lines of inquiry through which to examine all criteria in the standard: 

1. To what extent are UMB’s infrastructure and policies related to ethics and integrity sufficient to support and promote responsible, compliant, and ethical conduct across each of the University’s mission areas? 

2. To what extent are policies and procedures for grievances and advancing ethical conduct effectively promoting an environment in which students, faculty, and staff feel that the institution is committed to upholding it Core Values? 

3. To what extent is are the effectiveness of the University’s policies, procedures, and programs that seek to promote ethics and integrity assessed? 

Standard III – Design and Delivery of the Student Learning Experience ▾
An institution provides students with learning experiences that are characterized by rigor and coherence at all program, certificate, and degree levels, regardless of instructional modality. All learning experiences, regardless of modality, program pace/schedule, level, and setting are consistent with higher education expectations.

The group will also be responsible for demonstrating compliance with: 

Requirement of Affiliation 9 (partial): The institution’s student learning programs and opportunities are characterized by rigor, [and] coherence ... throughout the educational offerings, regardless of certificate or degree level or delivery and instructional modality” [the assessment portion of this requirement will be covered by Working Group V]. 

Requirement of Affiliation 15: The institution has a core of faculty (full-time or part-time) 15 

University of Maryland, Baltimore 

 

and/or other appropriate professionals with sufficient responsibility to the institution to assure the continuity and coherence of the institution’s educational programs. 

Standard IV – Support of the Student Experience ▾
“An institution provides students with learning experiences that are characterized by rigor and coherence at all program, certificate, and degree levels, regardless of instructional modality. All learning experiences, regardless of modality, program pace/schedule, level, and setting are consistent with higher education expectations.”

The group will also be responsible for demonstrating compliance with: 

Requirement of Affiliation 9 (partial): The institution’s student learning programs and opportunities are characterized by rigor, [and] coherence ... throughout the educational offerings, regardless of certificate or degree level or delivery and instructional modality”[the assessment portion of this requirement will be covered by Working Group V]. 

Requirement of Affiliation 15: The institution has a core of faculty (full-time or part-time) and/or other appropriate professionals with sufficient responsibility to the institution to assure the continuity and coherence of the institution’s educational programs. 

Working Group Leadership 

  • • Patty Alvarez – Student Affairs – Office of the Provost 
  • • Greg Brightbill – Staff Senate / Campus Life Services - Office of the Provost 
  • Barbara Gontrum – Francis King Carey School of Law 
  • Kate Noonan - Logistics Committee Liaison - School of Dentistry 

 

Lines of inquiry through which to examine all criteria in the standard: 

1. How does UMB support the transition of new students at all levels to assure their success in and out of the classroom 

2. What strategies has UMB adopted and what resources have been allocated to assure the financial, physical, and mental wellness of enrolled students? 

3. What approaches has UMB adopted to promote an equitable and inclusive cocurricular learning environment? 

4. What support does UMB provide to promote the successful placement of graduates in appropriate careers and/or post-degree academic programs? 

Standard V – Educational Effectiveness Assessment ▾
Assessment of student learning and achievement demonstrates that the institution’s students have accomplished educational goals consistent with their program of study, degree level, the institution’s mission, and appropriate expectations for institutions of higher education.

The group will also be responsible for demonstrating compliance with: 

Requirement of Affiliation 8 (partial): The institution systematically evaluates its educational ... programs and makes public how well and in what ways it is accomplishing its purposes” [noneducational programs will be covered by Working Group IV]. 

Requirement of Affiliation 9 (partial): The institution’s student learning programs and opportunities are characterized by ... appropriate assessment of student achievement throughout the educational offerings, regardless of certificate or degree level or delivery and instructional modality [the portion of this requirement about the rigor and coherence of academic programs will be covered by Working Group III]. 

Working Group Leadership 

  • Lynn Chen – School of Nursing 
  • Mark Macek – School of Dentistry 
  • Greg Spengler – Logistics Committee Liaison, Office of Institutional Effectiveness 

Lines of inquiry through which to examine all criteria in the standard: 

1. How are student learning outcomes, including UMB’s Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILOs), assessed and to what extent are results used to make improvements? 

2. To what extent are assessment processes and practices evaluated through the lens of equity, diversity, and inclusion? 

3. To what extent are the many assessment efforts across the diverse academic units organized or systematized to encourage reflection and effective practices and sustainability? 

4. What additional steps could be taken to heighten visibility and influence at the institutional level of the assessment processes in each of the schools while maintaining a spirit of cooperation, accountability, and transparency. 

Standard VI – Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement ▾
The institution’s planning processes, resources, and structures are aligned with each other and are sufficient to fulfill its mission and goals, to continuously assess and improve its programs and services, and to respond effectively to opportunities and challenges.

The group will also be responsible for demonstrating compliance with: 

Requirement of Affiliation 10: Institutional planning integrates goals for academic and institutional effectiveness and improvement, student achievement of educational goals, student learning, and the results of academic and institutional assessments” and Requirement of Affiliation 11, “The institution has documented financial resources, funding base, and plans for financial development, including those from any related entities (including without limitation systems, religious sponsorship, and corporate ownership) adequate to support its educational purposes and programs and to ensure financial stability. The institution demonstrates a record of responsible fiscal management, has a prepared budget for the current year, and undergoes an external financial audit on an annual basis. 

Working Group Leadership 

  • Kevin Donegan – Administration and Finance 
  • Jill Frankenfield – Sponsored Programs Administration 
  • Peter Murray – Center for Information Technology Services 
  • Tricia O’Neill - Logistics Committee Liaison - Office of the Provost 

Lines of inquiry through which to examine all criteria in the standard: 

1. To what extent do UMB policies and procedures for planning, budgeting resources, and institutional improvement support institutional priorities? 

2. To what extent is UMB measuring and assessing the effectiveness of planning, resource allocation, and budgeting processes to ensure efficient utilization and financial sustainability? 

3. How does UMB assess the performance and effectiveness of the administrative programs, services, and offices that support the operational and academic functions of the institution. 

Standard VII – Governance, Leadership, and Administration ▾
The institution is governed and administered in a manner that allows it to realize its stated mission and goals in a way that effectively benefits the institution, its students, and the other constituencies it serves. Even when supported by or affiliated with governmental, corporate, religious, educational system, or other unaccredited organizations, the institution has education as its primary purpose, and it operates as an academic institution with appropriate autonomy.

The group will also be responsible for demonstrating compliance with: 

Requirement of Affiliation 12: The institution fully discloses its legally constituted governance structure(s) including any related entities (including without limitation systems, religious sponsorship, and corporate ownership). The institution’s governing body is responsible for the quality and integrity of the institution and for ensuring that the institution’s mission is being accomplished. 

Requirement of Affiliation 13: A majority of the institution’s governing body’s members have no employment, family, ownership, or other personal financial interest in the institution. The governing body adheres to a conflict of interest policy that assures that those interests are disclosed and that they do not interfere with the impartiality of governing body members or outweigh the greater duty to secure and ensure the academic and fiscal integrity of the institution. The institution’s district/system or other chief executive officer shall not serve as the chair of the governing body. 

Working Group Leadership 

  • Diane Forbes Berthoud – Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion 
  • Jon Kucskar – Enterprise Risk Management/Office of the President 
  • Monica Maggiano – Leadership Communications/Office of the President 
  • Michael Brown - Logistics Committee Liaison – Center for Information Technology Services 

Lines of inquiry through which to examine all criteria in the standard: 

1. To what extent are UMB’s governance, leadership, and administrative policies, procedures and structures assessed to determine their effectiveness? 

2. How does University System of Maryland Board of Regents evaluate the performance UMB’s leadership and assess the overall effectiveness of the institution? 

3. To what extent has UMB’s leadership cultivated a shared governance culture that encourages and promotes faculty, students, and staff engagement and participation?