St. Cloud State University
Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
January 31, 2002, 7:45 a.m. Mississippi

Members Present: Edward Addo, John Burgeson, Diane Decker, Bonnie Hedin, Jeanne Hites, Balsy Kasi, Andrew Larkin, John Palmer, Mohammad Mahroof-Tahir, Aspasia Rigopoulov-Melcher, Karen Thoms, and Jay Vora

Members Absent: Bassey Eyo, Pat Krueger, Glen Palm, Mary Soroko, Addie Turkowski, Fred Walker, and representative of the Assessment Office (currently vacant)

Support Staff: Subimal Chopra and Lucie Schwartzkopf

Guest: Diana Burlison

I. January 17, 2002, minutes approved with revisions.

II. It was stated that NCHEMS will be back on February 21, 2002, to give the interpretation of the data collected by them. A copy of the data collected will be available next month. Committee members were asked to share what they would like to see as the priorities. One member noted that SCSU SPL does not take advantage of SCSU surveys, and expressed this is especially too bad since they are systematically and scientifically carried out. Jeanne agreed to pursue the cost of placing one question on the survey to possibly plot trends in future years.

III. A discussion of data collection transpired. One option given would be to hook up to the Internet during the SPL retreat to access data online. Reasons why data are not collected were also discussed. It was stated that the 90 indicators need to be narrowed down to five items. Faculty workload and release time were discussed as examples of difficulty in collecting data. Some examples include: Information is interpreted differently, scholarly activities are not reflected in teaching statistics, it can be vague whether reassign time includes administrative work, and responsibilities are not listed in a manner that are consistent across the board. It was expressed that what is done nationally should serve as a benchmark. Since many of the responsibilities must be submitted to the IFO every year, it was suggested to gather some information from them. It was suggested that several questions must be asked and answered to determine priorities and how SCSU wants to be measured and perceived.

IV. Questions were posed: “What percentage of funds is allocated to administration?” and “Does that number include reassigned faculty carrying out administrative assignments?” It was suggested those answers can be found, but for now, the focus needs to be on prioritizing.


V. The SCSU Fact Book 2001-2002 was distributed and discussed. The omission of Continuing Studies Grants and a typo were noted.

VI. The goals for growth were discussed. It was stated that there has not been an increase in FTE for faculty. It was stated that the focus should be on growth in new markets due in large part because there is a two-year lag in funds received that are based on enrollment figures. It was stated that if SCSU does not capture the appropriate part of the market, there will be fewer students at the point the increased dollars would be appropriated. Therefore, strategizing is vital.

VII. It was stated that the statistics listed on the inside flap of the fact book could suggest that the facts SCSU deems most important to SCSU appear on that page. It was noted that rather than rely on the department that gathers facts to determine which facts are most important, SPL must let others know what SPL considers to be facts to highlight.

VIII. It was mentioned that SPL members should request any information that they felt is not included in this book. It was stated that national information was included for comparison.

IX. It was suggested that the meeting with NCHEMS on February 21, 2002, should be a four-hour meeting.

X. It was proposed that the committee should determine chief goals for the next 10 years and incorporate the KPI’s into these goals. Questions regarding setting priorities, schedules, and persons to be invited were discussed. It was agreed that new members will be sent the KPI's.

XI. It was announced that Diana Burlison will now be an advisor as an ad hoc attendee.

XII. It was suggested the agenda for the retreat include asking the deans to attend the meeting for one hour and discuss their top three goals for their colleges and then break into discussion groups. Voting could commence afterward similar to the process of the vision/mission. It was stated that significant groundwork needs to be done in this area.

XIII. It was agreed that Jay Vora would work on setting the agenda. It was stated the committee needs to distinguish whether it wants to work on setting priorities in relation to what SCSU wants as a university, or setting them in terms of work as a committee. It was felt that the focus should be narrowed down to five instead of 33 items that can be ultimately presented to the president. One member suggested the president write a new charge in his own words, or even more preferred, if he would come and tell SPL about his new charge. It was felt that some of the 33 points are tactical and not strategic. The process of approval and notification of the determined goals to the campus community, meet and confer, the public, etc., was discussed. The thought was shared that then the president could share the goals with the legislature and others.

XIV. The chair expressed openness to ideas for the retreat. It was suggested that Diana, NCHEMS, deans, and other unit heads could be asked for their top priorities prior to the retreat.

Planned meeting times

Thursday, February 7, 2002, 7:45 a.m. - 9:00 a.m., Mississippi
Thursday, February 21, 2002, 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m., TBA
Thursday, March 7, 2002, 7:45 a.m. - 9:00 a.m., Mississippi
Thursday, March 21, 2002, 7:45 a.m. - 9:00 a.m., Mississippi
Thursday, April 4, 2002, 7:45 a.m. - 9:00 a.m., Mississippi
Thursday, April 18, 2002, 7:45 a.m. - 9:00 a.m., Mississippi
Thursday, May 2, 2002, 7:45 a.m. - 9:00 a.m., Mississippi

Untitled Document