standard IV – governance, regional accreditation, administration, and finances

 

 

Summary

The School has a governance structure with clear authority and responsibility; has appropriate governance policies; is conducted and organized to assure open communication among its constituencies; is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS); has a CEO with an O.D. degree and is responsible for the fiscal management of the program; has clearly defined relationships and performance expectations for all administrators; and, possesses the financial resources to fulfill its mission.

 

The subcommittee that reviewed Standard IV made the following conclusions:

·       An appropriate and efficient governance/administrative structure is in place to direct the formulation of policy at both the School and University levels.

·       Responsible fiscal management is being practiced as evidenced by a broad array of financial indicators.  A review of available financial resources indicates broadly based, excellent financial health for all areas of the School.

 

4.1           The governance structure of the program must clearly assign authority and responsibility for the formulation and implementation of policies that enable the program to fulfill its mission.       

            Examples of Evidence:

·        Appointment Letter (Dean’s Letter of Appointment, June 2003)

·        Organizational chart (UABSO Organizational Chart 2008-2009)

·        Position descriptions of  key administrators

 

Dr. John Amos was appointed as Interim Dean and began in this capacity on October 16, 2000.  On his selection as Dean, authority for the School’s professional program was given to Dr. Amos in the official letter of appointment dated June 4, 2003.  Signed by UAB Provost Eli I. Capilouto and President Carol Z. Garrison, the letter clearly defines the scope of the Dean’s responsibility and charge to fulfill the program’s mission.

 

4.1.1       There must be policies concerning governance issues including, but not limited to, conflict of interest, due process, disclosure, non-discrimination, confidentiality of records and fiscal accountability.

                           

Policies concerning issues including, but not limited to those referenced above are contained in the UAB Faculty Handbook or the UAB Policies and Procedures Manual.

 

·       Conflict of Interest is covered in the UAB Faculty Handbook Sections 3.5.3 and 8, and in the UAB Policies and Procedures Manual; Policy # 614 – Conflicts of Interest (4/05) http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=44516

·       Due process is covered in the UAB Faculty Handbook Sections 2.6.11 and 2.9 as well as Appendix A

·       Non-discrimination is covered in UAB’s Equal Opportunity Policy in Section 8 of the UAB Faculty Handbook and in the Policy and Procedures Manual http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=44383

·       Disclosure and confidentiality of records is covered in the UAB Policies and Procedures manual; Policy # 408 – Confidentiality of Records (12/02) http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=44457

·       Fiscal accountability is addressed in the Dean’s Letter of Appointment dated June 4, 2003 and signed by the University’s Provost and President.  As well as in the Dean’s Letter of Authority from the Provost dated August 15, 2008.

 

4.1.2    The program must be conducted and organized in such a way as to facilitate open communication among administrators, faculty, students, staff and other constituencies.

            Examples of Evidence:

·        Organizational chart (UABSO Organizational Chart 2008-2009)

·        Surveys of constituents

Student survey

Staff survey

Alumni survey

Faculty survey

As part of the self-study process, the School invested in a survey software system (Zoomerang). The Self-Study Committee then worked to compile a list of survey questions for each of the School’s constituents – faculty, students, staff and alumni.  Each survey was customized to address a specific target group.  On July 22nd an email was sent to all faculty, staff and students in the rising second, third and fourth year classes.  The email provided a link to their specific Zoomerang survey site, written instructions and a deadline of August 8th.  Alumni surveys were distributed in the same manner by the Office of Alumni Affairs on August 6th with a deadline of August 22nd.  Upon completion of the survey, anonymous responses were uploaded to the Zoomerang site for analysis.  With the exception of a limited number of demographic questions, no effort has been made to identify respondents.  The response rates are listed in the following table:

Constituents

# of Surveys Sent

# of Responses

% of Responses

Alumni

600*

207

35%

Faculty

54

41

76%

Staff

84

43

51%

Students

131

88

67%

             Total

869

379

44%

*The number of surveys that actually reached alumni has been estimated. The Alumni

   Association had email addresses for 754 alumni; however, over 150 were returned as “undelivered.”

Self Study 2008 School Survey Outcomes

 

For each survey question, the mean score is based on the following scale:

Strongly Agree = 5, Agree = 4, Neutral = 3, Disagree = 2, Strongly Disagree = 1, Cannot Make a Judgment = omitted.  % J = percentage of respondents who “could make a judgment” (that is, had the requisite knowledge or experience of the subject of the question to make an informed judgment).  This pertains only to question 7 below.  All percentage values rounded to the nearest whole number.   Not all questions have a “CMJ” option.  Raw data from all surveys are accessible from the links below.

 

1. “I am (alumni "was") familiar with the organizational structure of the School of Optometry”

 

 

Faculty

Alumni

Students

Staff

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Strongly Agree

18

44%

37

18%

8

9%

17

40%

Agree

20

49%

119

57%

37

42%

19

44%

Neutral

3

7%

30

14%

29

33%

7

16%

Disagree

0

0%

20

10%

11

12%

0

0%

Strongly Disagree

0

0%

1

0%

3

3%

0

0%

Cannot make judgment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

41

100%

207

100%

88

100%

43

100%

Mean Score

4.37

3.80

3.39

4.24

 

 

Alumni Responses by Graduation Date (7 year groupings)

Year

1973-1979

1980-1986

1987-1993

1994-2000

2001-2007

Mean Score

4.00

3.80

3.69

3.78

3.88

 

 

 

2. “There are clearly defined reporting relationships (chain of command) within the School.”

 

 

Faculty

Students

Staff

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

Strongly Agree

16

39%

13

15%

23

53%

Agree

19

46%

39

44%

17

40%

Neutral

3

7%

19

22%

3

7%

Disagree

3

7%

11

12%

0

0%

Strongly Disagree

0

0%

6

7%

0

0%

Cannot make judgment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

41

100%

88

100%

43

100%

Mean Score

4.14

3.48

4.46

 


3. “I know the person to whom I should go if I have a problem.”

 

 

Faculty

Students

Staff

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

Strongly Agree

17

41%

14

16%

34

79%

Agree

22

54%

51

58%

9

21%

Neutral

1

2%

9

10%

0

0%

Disagree

0

0%

10

11%

0

0%

Strongly Disagree

1

2%

4

5%

0

0%

Cannot make judgment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

41

100%

88

100%

43

100%

Mean Score

4.29

3.69

4.79

 

 

4. “The number of administrative positions is (alumni "was") appropriate for the size and complexity of the School.”

 

 

Faculty

Alumni

Staff

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

Strongly Agree

10

24%

30

14%

9

21%

Agree

18

44%

124

60%

23

53%

Neutral

11

27%

51

25%

9

21%

Disagree

2

5%

2

1%

2

5%

Strongly Disagree

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

Cannot make judgment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

41

100%

207

100%

43

100%

Mean Score

3.87

3.87

3.90

 

 

Alumni Responses by Graduation Date (7 year groupings)

Year

1973-1979

1980-1986

1987-1993

1994-2000

2001-2007

Mean Score

4.05

4.00

3.69

3.90

3.85

 

 

5. “The administration keeps me informed about issues that affect me.”

 

 

Faculty

Students

Staff

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

Strongly Agree

9

22%

11

12%

14

33%

Agree

19

46%

39

44%

22

51%

Neutral

7

17%

20

23%

5

12%

Disagree

6

15%

8

9%

2

5%

Strongly Disagree

0

0%

10

11%

0

0%

Cannot make judgment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

41

100%

88

100%

43

100%

Mean Score

3.75

3.34

4.15


 


6. “The administration of the School is responsive to my needs.”

 

 

Faculty

Students

Staff

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

Strongly Agree

8

20%

13

15%

13

30%

Agree

19

46%

38

43%

19

44%

Neutral

10

24%

20

23%

7

16%

Disagree

2

5%

8

9%

4

9%

Strongly Disagree

2

5%

9

10%

0

0%

Cannot make judgment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

41

100%

88

100%

43

100%

Mean Score

3.71

3.44

3.92

 

 

 

7. “The administration of the School is responsive to my concerns.”

 

 

Faculty

Students

Staff

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

Strongly Agree

7

17%

11

12%

12

28%

Agree

18

44%

29

33%

21

49%

Neutral

11

27%

28

32%

8

19%

Disagree

3

7%

7

8%

2

5%

Strongly Disagree

2

5%

13

15%

0

0%

Cannot make judgment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

41

100%

88

100%

43

100%

Mean Score

3.61

3.19

4.03

 

 

 

8. “My opinion is important to the School's administration.”

 

 

Faculty

Students

Staff

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

Strongly Agree

5

12%

7

8%

10

23%

Agree

18

44%

24

27%

17

40%

Neutral

12

29%

29

33%

14

33%

Disagree

5

12%

17

19%

1

2%

Strongly Disagree

1

2%

11

12%

1

2%

Cannot make judgment

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

41

100%

88

100%

43

100%

Mean Score

3.49

2.97

3.80

 

 

Questions 9, 10 and 11 list means scores (out of 5) only for each surveyed group regarding their opinions of the effectiveness of key administrators (Q9) and of key committees (Q10) and of their own roles on committees.

 

9. “In their administrative roles, the following are meeting their responsibilities:”

 

 

Faculty

Students

Staff

Dean

4.07

3.74

4.58

Department Chair (also Director of Professional Program)

3.93

 

4.56

Clinic Chief of Staff

4.07

3.94

4.11

Director of Student Affairs

4.16

3.80

4.37

Director of Administration and Finance

4.00

3.62

4.33

Director of the Professional Program

 

3.86

 

 

 

 

10. “The following committees meet their specific objectives:”

 

 

Faculty

Students

Staff

Executive Committee

4.16

3.64

4.34

Curriculum Committee

4.28

3.72

4.44

Academic Review Committee

4.14

3.66

 

Strategic Planning Committee

3.49

3.55

4.23

School of Optometry Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC)

3.92

 

 

Departmental FACs

3.92

 

 

Admissions Committee

4.26

3.88

4.33

Clinic Council

3.90

3.65

3.71

Honor Council

3.19

3.33

3.53

Student/Faculty Liaison Committee

3.82

3.54

4.00

 

11. “Role” on school committees:

 

 

Faculty

Students

Staff

The school committees I serve on are productive

4.13

3.72

4.13

The school committees I serve on are appropriate for my position

4.13

3.76

4.18

My committee assignments do not interfere with my other responsibilities/commitments

3.47

3.69

4.12

 

 

12. “The optometric program is conducted in such a way as to encourage open communication throughout the school”.  (Staff – “The administration encourages open communication within the school.”)

 

 

Faculty

Students

Staff

 

N

%

n

%J

n

%

Strongly Agree

6

15%

9

11%

13

30%

Agree

13

32%

30

35%

18

42%

Neutral

11

27%

25

29%

10

23%

Disagree

10

24%

12

14%

1

2%

Strongly Disagree

1

2%

9

11%

1

2%

Cannot make judgment

 

 

3

 

 

 

Total

41

100%

88

100%

43

100%

Mean Score

3.34

3.21

3.93

 

 

Faculty, staff, students, and alumni responded to survey questions relating to the organizational structure within UABSO, the communication between them and the school’s administrators, the efficiency of the school’s administrators, and the efficiency of the various school committees.  Staff, students, and alumni agreed by 84%, 51%, and 75%, respectively that they are/were familiar with the school’s organizational structure and chain of command.  Although 93% of faculty are satisfied with the organizational structure and chain of command of the school, only 47% of the faculty agrees that UABSO encourages open communication between its administration and faculty.  This is also evident in the survey (questions 4-7 in the Faculty survey).  Less than 70% of the faculty agree: (1) that the administration keeps them well informed about the issues that affect them, (2) that the administration is responsive to their needs and concerns, and (3) that their opinions are important to the administration of UABSO.  A similar concern from the faculty regarding open communication was also reported in the 2001 Self-Study.  This continues to suggest that the effects of communication from the faculty to administration may not be effectively reflected back to the faculty to the degree that they influence the program. However, presently 72% of the staff agrees that there exists open communication between them and the administration of UABSO.

 

Efforts have been made on an ongoing basis by the UABSO Dean and Administration to provide communication with all stakeholders since the last site visit by the ACOE. Likewise, communication, being a two way process, is strongly encouraged of faculty, staff and students.  Their collective input and perspective are highly valued by the School’s Administration.

 

Beginning in 2003 the Dean has presented an annual “State-of-the-School” report to faculty, staff and students.  For the past three years this report has been presented in early to mid-February during the lunch hour.  Lunch is provided to all attendees and approximately 175 faculty, staff and students have attended this presentation.  This report is also made available on the School’s web-site.  In this manner this information may be reviewed by those unable to attend the presentation.

 

Information is also provided to the Department Chairs, Chief-of-Staff and Center Directors, by the Dean, during the monthly Executive Committee meetings.  Much of the information discussed during these meetings is available for the chairs, chief-of-staff or center directors to share as they deem appropriate with their respective faculty, staff and students.

 

A monthly meeting is held with the Dean and senior staff representing all programmatic or administrative elements of the School, to hear activity reports given by each representative.  This meeting of senior staff is known as the Dean’s Work Circle.  The minutes of this meeting are distributed to all faculty and staff.  Of those distributed, these minutes are among the most carefully reviewed by the faculty.

 

Three times a year (October, January and April) the Student/Faculty Liaison Committee meets.  During these lunch time meetings, the Dean, Director of the Professional Program, Director of Clinical Programs, Director of Student Affairs, Program Manager of Student Affairs and faculty representatives meet with the class presidents and the UABSO-AOSA President, to communicate information regarding programs/activities and to learn of class/student issues/concerns.  This setting allows for discussion related to student issues/concerns and provides information related to rationale for decisions made or for gathering student perspective on forthcoming issues.  This is a very valuable meeting for addressing student issues/concerns in a timely manner.

 

The Director of Clinical Programs meets on a monthly basis with the Directors of the Clinical Services.  This meeting, known as the Clinic Council, provides a venue for discussion of topics related to the general operation of UAB Eye Care or other affiliated clinics, regarding specific issues/concerns of the various services.  These service areas include:  Ocular Disease/Low Vision, Primary Eye Care, Cornea and Contact Lenses, Pediatric Optometry, Community Eye Care and Optical Services. The minutes of this meeting are provided to each director to share with faculty who serve as attending clinicians in the services or others as deemed appropriate.

 

The Chair of each department holds quarterly department meetings with an agenda.  This is distributed prior to the meeting and an e-mail message is sent as well to faculty for possible agenda items.  The Dean attends many of these department meetings to provide updates or answer questions.  Joint department meetings are held once or twice a year, to address issues of interest or concern to all faculty, or to hear messages from university administration.  In addition, the faculty advisory committees of each department (OFAC and VSFAC) serve as a “bridge” for communication between faculty and the chairs.

 

The Office of Student Affairs sends an e-newsletter Eye Witness News approximately once each month, depending on the amount of material submitted, to faculty, staff and students.  This newsletter contains news from each class, announcements, information about residency programs, as well as scholarship availability.

 

Three times each year, the Dean writes a “From the Dean” message to alumni in the UAB Optometry news magazine.  These messages are on a variety of topics.  Each issue of this news magazine attempts to communicate to faculty, staff, students, alumni, the university community, friends and vendors/corporate partners, articles of interest regarding programs and activities, as well as interviews with faculty, students, alumni and members of the Dean’s Community Advisory Committee.  Alumni also receive a number of publications from the UAB National Alumni Society and other UAB entities that have articles on the School of Optometry.

 

As a result of financial considerations, the number of issues of UAB Optometry news magazine is being decreased from three to two, beginning in 2009.  An e-mail newsletter is being investigated for possible annual or semi-annual distribution.

 

The Dean also writes a “Dean’s Report” for each of the three issues of Alabama Insight  (available on site) that are published on an annual basis by the Alabama Optometric Association (ALOA).  This publication is mailed to every member or student member of the ALOA.  A majority of members of the ALOA are also UABSO.

 

Finally, the Dean, Chairs, Clinic and Center Directors maintain an open door policy in which faculty, staff and students are free to stop by the office or schedule an appointment, if they desire, to discuss issues or concerns they may have.

 

A portion of the survey addressed whether the administrators of the school have been meeting their responsibilities.  The Dean, Director of Professional Program, Clinical Chief of Staff, Director of Student Affairs, and Director of Administration and Finance were evaluated. Over 70% of the faculty agreed that the Dean, Director of the Professional Program, and the Director of Student Affairs were effectively meeting their administrative responsibilities. The largest proportion of faculty felt that they could not make a judgment about the effectiveness of the Clinic Chief of Staff or the Director of Administration and Finance.  However, of the remaining respondents, the two positions scored 4.07 and 4.00 respectively.  A much larger percentage of both staff and students answered this portion of the survey with a not applicable response, making the value of the remaining responses less informative.

 

A critical function of faculty and others involves serving on school committees.  Eight committees were evaluated as to whether or not they meet their objectives.  Generally, the faculty agrees strongly the committees they serve on are productive and appropriate for each faculty member’s interests.  However, 26% feel their various committee assignments interfere with their other responsibilities. Over 70% of the faculty agree that the objectives of the Executive, Curriculum, Admissions, and Academic Review Committee are being met.  However, only 29% agree that the Honor Council meets its objectives.  A review of the Honor Code is presently ongoing by the chair of the Honor Council with assistance from the Office of Student Affairs.

 

4.1.3    The institutional structure must clearly assign authority and responsibility for the hiring, evaluation, retention and discharge of the program’s chief executive officer.

            Examples of Evidence:

·        Appropriate Document (Dean’s Letter of Authority, August 2008)

·        UAB Organizational chart (UABSO Organizational Chart 2008-2009)

 

The institutional structure is clearly defined by the UAB Organization Chart and further outlined in the Dean’s Letter of Authority from the Provost, dated August 15, 2008.  The University’s retention policy is addressed in the UAB Faculty Handbook as follows:

 

“Members of the faculty also may hold administrative or other non-faculty appointments at UAB. Administrative appointments are for no specific term but continue at the discretion of the appointing administrator.” (Section 2.3.5.3 Non-academic Appointments)

 

 

4.2           The program must be conducted at an institution accredited by a regional accrediting body recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or is  recognized by another authority deemed appropriate by the Council.

Examples of institutional accreditation:

Available at the SACS website:  www.sacscoc.org

 

As of 2005, the official language describing the University’s accreditation status is as follows:

 

“The University of Alabama at Birmingham is accredited by the

Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and

Schools to award degrees at the baccalaureate, masters, specialist,

and doctoral levels

 

The above statement is available for review at http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=699

The next university review of accreditation by SACS is scheduled for 2015.

 

4.3     The program’s chief executive officer or chief academic officer must have a professional optometric degree, and both must be qualified to provide leadership in optometric education, scholarly activity, and patient care.

Examples of Evidence:

·        Curriculum vitae

·        Copy of transcripts(on site)

·        Copy of diplomas (on site)

 

Dr. John F. Amos as Dean is the program’s chief executive officer.  Dr. Jimmy Bartlett, Chair of the Department of Optometry and Director of the Professional Program is the program’s chief academic officer.  Dr. Rodney W. Nowakowski as the Chief of Staff oversees the clinical programs.  Each of these administrators has a Doctor of Optometry degree and a long and distinguished history of successful academic administration.  Their curriculum vitae are included.  Also included is the CV of Dr. Gerald Simon, Director of the Office of Student Affairs.  Dr. Simon assumed this role in 2004.

 

The credentials for each administrator have been verified through transcripts from the academic institutions from which they received their terminal degrees.  Copies of these transcripts are contained in their personnel files on site.

 

 

4.4     The program’s chief executive officer must have the authority and responsibility for fiscal management of the program.

            Examples of Evidence:

·        Appropriate Documents:

o    Dean’s Letter of Appointment, June 2003

o    Dean’s Letter of Authority, August 2008

·        Position description

 

Fiscal responsibility is specifically addressed on page three of the June 4, 2003, Letter of Appointment to Dr. Amos from the University’s Provost and President and also in the Letter of Authority from the Provost dated August 15, 2008.

 

 

4.5     There must be clearly defined reporting relationships, performance expectations, and assessment procedures for all administrators.

Examples of Evidence:

·        Organizational chart (UABSO Organizational Chart 2008-2009)

 

The reporting relationship within the School of Optometry is identified by the UAB School of Optometry Organizational Chart and the School’s standing committee structure.

 

The performance expectations are stated in the UAB Faculty Handbook Sections 2.2 - 2.5. The Dean receives an annual performance evaluation from the Provost. The School’s Department Chairs and Chief of Staff are given annual performance reviews by the Dean. In addition, the Faculty Senate utilizes a process to assess all administrators (President, Provost, Deans and Department Chairs) every two years at the University level.  Drs. Adam Gordon and Michael Loop are the School of Optometry’s elected representatives on the University Faculty Senate. Alternate representatives are Drs. John Classé and Melanie Sivley.  


4.6     The program must possess the financial resources necessary to fulfill its mission.

            Examples of Evidence:

·        Applicable financial and/or budgetary documents

·        Analysis of historical financial resources

·        Projection of financial resources

 

The UABSO possesses sufficient financial resources to develop and sustain the program on a continuing basis.  UABSO revenues and expenses have increased by 32% and 26% respectively between fiscal years 2002-03 and 2007-08.  During this 6-year period the state appropriation represented the largest source of revenue (46%) followed by tuition and fees (19%), IER/indirect cost recovery (16%) and clinic patient revenue (14%). These percentages, as a proportion of total UABSO revenues, have remained relatively constant over this time period. State support increased 55%, tuition and fees increased 53%, and clinic patient revenue increased 43%. IER decreased by 28% due to sharply reduced federal funding for research along with a change in NIH priorities with regard to support of optometric research. While some of the reduction in NIH funding has been offset by foundation and industry sponsored awards, the indirect cost rate for these awards is only 19% versus 45% for NIH projects. The School is forecasting a turnaround in the trend towards reduced IER revenue and believes it is currently at a plateau with modest increases anticipated in the next five fiscal years. This is entirely due to the dedication and perseverance of UABSO research scientists who aggressively pursue funding opportunities.  New sponsored projects totaling $10, 276,342 have been awarded during calendar year 2008, and an official NIH award notice for $1,818,750 was issued on September 18, 2008 for a 5-year proposal submitted by Dr. Alecia Gross. These awards will greatly impact IER income to the UABSO over the next several years.

               

The primary optometry teaching clinic, UAB Eye Care, was re-opened for patient care on September 7, 2004 and officially dedicated on November 13, 2004 after being completely renovated at a cost of approximately $5 million.  Additionally, $1 million was spent on new furnishings and ophthalmic equipment.  The 14-month project was funded 80% by the UABSO and 20% by the UAB Provost’s Office. The renovation expense was paid from current resources and private fund raising and did not involve debt financing.    

 

The 6-year period from FY2002-03 through FY2007-08 has been remarkable in the fiscal history of the School.  During this time, 27 new scholarships were established and over $12.1 million in gifts was received.  New resources have allowed the School to recruit, develop and retain outstanding faculty and staff, attract outstanding students to the program, and develop and maintain state-of-the-art infrastructure.

 

The UABSO has never experienced a fiscal year where revenues did not exceed expenses.  Decisions regarding the allocation of financial resources are made by the collective UABSO leadership after thoughtful prioritization of programs, opportunities and activities that will facilitate fulfillment of the School’s mission.  

4.6.1    The program must utilize sound and generally accepted financial management procedures to assure effective monitoring, control and accountability of its fiscal resources.

Examples of Evidence:

·        Most recent audited financial statement  (on site)

·        Administrative policies and procedures (on site)

 

The UAB School of Optometry utilizes sound, generally accepted, financial management procedures to assure effective monitoring, control and accountability of its financial resources.  The UABSO, as part of the larger University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), must comply with established institutional, state and federal financial management policies and procedures.   The Financial Accounting System (FAS) that had been UAB's primary recordkeeping and reporting system since October 1983 was replaced in 2004 with the Oracle accounting application.  This web-based system has virtually eliminated manual financial transactions and has several checks and balances that ensure accuracy of data, along with a variety of reporting options for the timely dissemination of financial information.

 


Standard IV: List of Hyperlinked Documents and Pages

 

Document/Page

Hyperlink

Reference in Report

Dean’s Letter of Appointment

Dean’s Letter of Appointment, June 2003

 

 

4.1, 4.1.1,  4.4

Dean’s Letter of

Authority

Dean’s Letter of Authority, August 2008

4.1.1, 4.1.3, 4.4

UABSO Organizational Chart

UABSO Organizational Chart 2008-2009

4.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.5

Key Administrative Personnel

Position descriptions of key administrators

4.1, 4.4

UAB Faculty Handbook

http://main.uab.edu/Sites/provost/facultyresources/facultyhandbook/

4.1.1, 4.5

UAB Policy and Procedures Manual

http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=44370

4.1.1

UABSO Website

School’s web-site

4.1.2

UABSO Eye Witness News

Eye Witness News

4.1.2

UAB Optometry Magazine

UAB Optometry

4.1.2

Dean’s Community Advisory Committee

Dean’s Community Advisory Committee

4.1.2

Southern Association of Colleges and Schools

www.sacscoc.org

4.2

“About UAB”

http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=699

4.2

CVs for Drs. Amos, Bartlett, Nowakowski and Simon

curriculum vitae

4.3

2008 Self Study Survey Data

Faculty Survey Alumni Survey Student Survey Staff Survey

4.1

2008 Self Study Alumni Survey Data by Grad. Year

2008 Self Study Alumni Survey Data Grouped by Graduation Year

4.1