St. Cloud State University
Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
October 8, 2003, 10:00 a.m. Mississippi Room, Atwood Center

Download minutes [PDF:3 pages]

Members Present: Edward Addo, Ben Baliga, John Burgeson, Debra Carlson, David DeGroote, Theresia Fisher, Lisa Foss, Sara Grachek, Bonnie Hedin, Pat Krueger, Judith Kilborn, Steve Klepetar, Guihua Li, Susan Motin, John Palmer, Mahmoud Saffari, Mary Soroko, Phil Thorson, Addie Turkowski, Brenda Wentworth

Members Absent: Diana Burlison, Joe Opatz, Karen Thoms

Approval of minutes:

Moved by Klepetar, seconded by Palmer, to approve the minutes of September 10, 2003. Motion passed.
Moved by Palmer, seconded by Klepetar, to approve the minutes of September 24, 2003. Motion passed.

Introduction of new Strategic Planning Committee member:

Debra Carlson, Director, Lindgren Child Care Center, was introduced as the representative from Student Life and Development.

Brief report from Chair:

  • Status of Strategic Planning Committee Membership - replacement members will be requested through the FA for College of Business and College of Education representatives.
  • Volunteers – Margaret Villanueva from the CODE committee has volunteered to work with the Social Justice and Diversity subcommittee to provide input. CODA will also name someone to provide input. Judy will follow-up on the request to Student Government. Discussion of Social Justice and Diversity KPIs will be moved to November 5.
  • Status of Priority Strategic Goals in Faculty Senate - The FA Senate approved Academic Distinction Priority Strategic Goals with the suggestions previously discussed. The rest of the Priority Strategic Goals are on the agenda for the next Senate meeting.
  • Meeting with Provost Spitzer - Judy said her meeting with Provost Spitzer centered on KPIs. He suggested:
    • The SPC may want to do 2 lists of KPIs:
      • What could be done now to what should be done in the long-term
      • KPIs listed according to priority
    • The Provost offered the assistance of Mike Mundis who could do data collection for the SPC after he finishes his current assignment on workload.
    • Understanding that the SPC may not have the authority to ask units for data collection, if SPC believes the data is important, ask for it, and the Provost will request units to provide the information.
    • Clarify who is responsible for KPIs. The SPC can say that they don’t know, if that is case.
    • The SPC should bring questions to him whenever they have them.

The SPC asked Judy if there would be money available to do assessment. And, if assessment finds that there needs to be a corrective action, will there be resources to do that? Without resources, what is the motivation to do assessment? There was consensus that assessment needs to be done as close to the unit as possible. Also, if something is listed as a top priority, enough resources need to be provided to do the job. The SPC also noted that the NCHEMS report states that there needs to be a link between budget and KPIs.

Judy replied that the Provost is aware that resources are needed for assessment.

Call for new agenda items:

  • Technology KPIs
  • Accountability for KPIs

Collection of schedules for next semester :

Forward schedules to Jackie.

Completion of list of subcommittees:

The list was passed around the table so that members not present at the last meeting could indicate on which subcommittee(s) they serve. Judy will bring provide copies of the final list at the next SPC meeting.

Discussion of presence of “international” in the Academic Distinction and Diversity and Social Justice goals:

Judy said that she has been contacted multiple times by the FORL Department Chair, members of the Faculty Senate and now Dean Specht-Jarvis all expressing concern about the omission of the term global and the international aspect from the Academic Distinction and Diversity and Social Justice goals.

Discussion points from the SPC:

  • SPC addressed Dean Specht-Jarvis’ statement that efforts need to be made to increase participation in SCSU study abroad programs .
    • Students may choose not to study abroad because sometimes courses do not count toward Gen Ed, majors, or minors. Often, study abroad credits only fit into University electives. For some, studying abroad means graduating later. We could encourage study abroad by addressing these issues.
    • Student may elect to participate in other universities’ study abroad programs.
    • The impact of the MN Transfer Curriculum and SCSU general education program on study abroad courses and foreign language courses. Will the university continue to run two parallel general education programs?
  • There was some discussion of the need to address the relationship between the MN Transfer agreement and SCSU's Gen Ed Program.
  • SPC discussed the presence of the word "diversity" under goal A and the potential to specify KPIs that include incorporation of global/borderless/international in the curriculum.
  • Members of FA Senate believe “global” was initially included in the Academic Distinction goal and then removed. They ask what the rationale is for the removal of the term “global.”
    • SPC members in looking back at past versions of the Academic Distinction goal did not see the term global used in the May 2003 or May 2002 versions.
      • Noted that members of Senate served on previous SP committees and remember references to globalization in earlier drafts.
    • SPC members also questioned why comments were not raised during the open forums last year if the omission of “global” was a concern.
      • Noted that the college forums were not the total container of feedback—the strategic planning process is dynamic—ongoing.
    • SPC members remember discussion at the first SPC meeting this year where SPC members felt the spirit of the word “global” was there in the term “diverse.” SPC members suggested defining the term “diverse” to include the global aspect.
  • Noted that the vision and mission statement talk about global education.
    • Is there a disconnect between the vision and mission statement and the strategic goals? If we step back and look at the environment of the campus and the experiences students have while they are here—do we think there should be more international/global experiences at this time?
  • A concern was expressed that curriculum not be inflated by particular agendas but that globalization be inserted in the current curriculum. Should goal A. under Academic Distinction be changed to reflect this?
  • The reality is that it is easy to graduate from SCSU without any exposure to global courses. We need to face what we are and what we want to be. If the university has a desire to have a strong global education role, then this needs to be addressed. What do we want SCSU to be? 1) a university where all students get a global experience or 2) that we create the opportunity for a global experience and students participate if they want to. The current situation is that few students take advantage of the opportunity.
  • With finite resources, KPIs will help determine what the university’s priorities are.
  • Is the appropriate response that the SPC has had a serious discussion of the concerns raised and there will be movement to address concerns through the writing of KPIs?

The consensus of the SPC was that the SPC needs to press on. Susan Motin read from the NCHEMS report:

Our recommendations are:

1. Publish and promote the strategic plan. These five strategic themes have been scrutinized by the University community to such an extent that further debate about them would not be productive…..

2. Allocate resources toward these themes in ways that communicate to the University community that they have meaning. Your administrative team has made preliminary attempts to outline what KPIs seem relevant. This debate needs to be concluded soon and specific action taken to lend meaning to your commitment to hold the various officers accountable for their performance.

Moved by Palmer, seconded by DeGroote, to consider agreed-upon goals and mission after completing all of the KPI process. Motion passed.

Moved by Burgeson, seconded by Wentworth, that the committee intends to take up the issue of globalization of the curriculum in the context of KPIs. Motion passed with 11 members in favor of this motion and 5 opposed.

Continued discussion:

  • Some of the SPC members who opposed the motion were not sure what the motion meant in practical terms.
  • Some SPC members believed ambiguity would exist until KPIs are written.
  • Other SPC members felt that there needs to be a definition of what is meant by "diversity" and "global."
  • Some SPC members felt the concerns brought to the SPC served to heighten awareness and illustrated the need to be clear in writing KPIs to address diversity and globalization.

Moved by Motin, seconded by Grachek, that the SPC discussed the use of the term "diversity" for a long time last year. In the committee’s view, diversity included global issues. The committee felt the list was getting too long; therefore, the use of the term “diversity” is inclusive.

Discussion followed. Some SPC members felt the above motion was more of a defensive statement and would not satisfy concerns raised. Motion was withdrawn.

University Community Relations KPIs:

Moved by Foss, seconded by Krueger, to approve University Community Relations KPIs.

Discussion:

SPC members acknowledged that they were still struggling with what a KPI is.

  • An operational definition is needed. What are the objective standards to be measured?
  • Can Brenda Wentworth talk to the committee about writing quantifiable KPIs? Brenda agreed to do this next meeting.

Long discussion over the past several years has demonstrated that there should be a mixture of qualitative and quantitative KPIs for each goal.

What about the idea of who is responsible for the KPI? Does the SPC need to revisit and talk about that?

Is the committee moving from strategic planning to tactical planning?

Some of the KPIs listed for University Community Relations seem almost like goals and not KPIs.

KPIs should have the feel of a more precise measure.

Should a baseline be established for comparison?

  • What should that baseline be?
    • What we ourselves want to be at some future period of time?
    • Compared to some institution we admire?

Motion was withdrawn. University Community Relations KPIs will go back to the subcommittee for more work.

Items to be carried over to the October 22 agenda:

Technology KPIs
Brainstorming about university-wide discussion for this year
Discussion of other SP goals for this year
Accountability for KPIs.

Items for November 5 agenda:

Academic Distinction KPIs
Social Justice and Diversity KPI

Meeting adjourned.

Notes by Jackie Zieglmeier

Untitled Document