1. SACS Reaffirmation: The Visit ASERL Spring Membership Meeting, April 2009 John E. Ulmschneider Virginia Commonwealth University

2. Step One: Off-Site Review Institutional Compliance Certification document Off-Site Peer Review Committee Some or no reservations about Core Requirements, Comprehensive Standards, or Federal Requirements

3. Step Two: On-Site Review Investigation of any reservations about compliance from Off- Site Peer Review Committee (includes Focused Report response by institution) Consult on and evaluate acceptability of Core Requirement 2.12 – the QEP Report of the Reaffirmation Committee AND Institutional response to remaining areas found non- compliance

4. Compliance elements involving libraries  Specific library elements are Core Requirement 2.9 and Comprehensive Standards 3.8.1, 3.8.2, and 3.8.3.  Library may contribute in other areas: 3.2.14; 3.3.1; 3.4.12.  Core Requirement 2.9 is foundational, broad, and focuses on institutional commitment.  Comprehensive Standard 3.8 is more specific to the operation of the library system at the institution.

5. Library considerations for showing compliance  Remember: there are no quantitative or qualitative standards. The institution makes the case with the data and argument it considers appropriate.  Comprehensive profile of library system is essential to showing compliance: fullest possible description showing all library assets that support and advance the institution, including collaborative arrangements, expenditures, etc.  Benchmarking data might be useful for 2.9 – but it is only one element and may have a minor presence in the overall statement for 2.9.  LibQUAL+ and (underscore “and”) other assessment metrics and processes are indispensable for in 3.8. This includes mechanisms to get regular input from constituencies.

6. Library considerations for QEP  Beware: libraries are often overlooked in the QEP development process.  The consequence: libraries may end up with little visibility in the QEP.  Seek involvement. Be alert to opportunities for participation. Institutional commitment and resource allocation to QEP can be large.  Where can the library system contribute to the QEP?  Where can the library system strengthen the QEP?  Remember, there may not be a librarian on the On-Site Peer Review Committee to raise questions about the library system in the QEP. Or the librarian may perceive such questions as crossing the line into advocacy – a major league no-no.