St. Cloud State University
Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
February 27, 2004, 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. Lady Slipper Room, Atwood Center

Download minutes [PDF: 4 pages]

Members Present: Debra Carlson, David DeGroote, Theresia Fisher, Sara Grachek, Bonnie Hedin, Judith Kilborn, Steve Klepetar, Pat Krueger, Guihua Li, Susan Motin, John Palmer, Mahmoud Saffari, Addie Turkowski, Brenda Wentworth.

Members Absent: Edward Addo, Diana Burlison, John Burgeson, Lisa Foss, Kvame Johnson, Balsy Kasi, David Sikes, Mary Soroko, Karen Thoms, Phil Thorson.

Start meeting as a subcommittee and wait for quorum. (Theresia/Debra, MSP)

Call for new agenda items:

  • Announcements
  • Service Community KPIs

With arrival of several members, a quorum was achieved.

Approval of January 23, 2004 Minutes:
Minutes were approved with one correction. The last bullet on page 4, 1) should read, "students do not question the substance of our general education requirement."

Approval of February 13, 2004 Minutes:
Minutes were approved with the following corrections:

  • The motion on the top of page 2 was withdrawn by Brenda Wentworth.
    Substitute motion: That the Strategic Planning Committee request that the General Education Committee hold an open forum to discuss general education issues. (Brenda/Theresia), MSP)
  • The second motion on page 2 was by consensus of the Strategic Planning Committee and not moved or seconded by individuals.

Announcements:
The Strategic Planning Committee will meet weekly for the next couple of weeks. Technology KPIs will be discussed March 5; Diversity and Social Justice KPIs will be discussed March 12.
Judy expressed appreciation to the subcommittees for their hard work.

Debra passed around a copy of a PowerPoint profile of SCSU students compiled by Student Life and Development.

Steve said the General Education forum will take place March 10 from 2-4 pm in CH-100.

Service Community KPIs:
Judy noted that the question of timelines was not resolved in earlier discussion and asked the SPC if they were okay with, "to be determined by responsible parties"?

The following timelines be specified for Service Community KPIs: KPI 1 - annual; KPI 2- annual; KPI 3 - 3 years; KPI 4 - 3 years; annually for the remaining three KPIs. (Steve/Theresia)

Discussion -- Theresia suggested "at least annually" so as not to be viewed as restrictive for certain surveys. Mahmoud suggested that some surveys be done every two years rather than every year.

Motion amended from "annual" for the first of the last three KPIs to "every 1 to 2 years." Motion passed.

Academic Distinction KPIs:
Page 3, Rationale under C. - Change "plethora of" to "many." (Steve/Susan, MSP)

Judy noted that because so much of academic distinction involves departments and programs, the sub-committee used the timeline "to be determined by responsible parties." David suggested that timelines may also be driven by NCA accreditation.

Page 4, change FCTE to CETL. (Motion by Theresia) Motion passed by consensus of committee.

This motion was made in response to an announcement at Meet and Confer yesterday regarding reorganization.

Judy pointed out that the Academic Distinction sub-committee included on page 6 a KPI for diversity even though there will be something like that in the Diversity and Social Justice KPIs. On page 7, the Academic Distinction sub-committee included the KPI, "The University will increase retention and graduation rates to meet the capacity in major programs" even though there is a KPI related to that in Service Community.

Diversity and social justice and conflict resolutions are concerns that keep popping up across KPIs. On March 12, when the SPC can view all of the KPIs, it can then decide if it wants duplications to stay in to show the seriousness of the committee's concern about these.

That the Academic Distinction KPIs be approved reserving the right to make editorial changes at the end as needed. (Motion by Steve)

Friendly amendment by John: KPI 1 to read, "Faculty, departments and programs will evaluate traditional courses and non-course activities to determine the presence and quality of student opportunities that enrich their understanding of diverse and global perspectives."

Motion passed by consensus of the committee.

Judy said that the academic distinction sub-committee focused on the diversity and global perspective in KPI 1. KPI 2 looks at general education and B. looks at majors and minors and upper division.

John stated he noticed only 2 KPIs were not high impact. With a preponderance of KPIs being high, can we defend those not labeled high to the next review process? David stated his concern that if everything were listed high, no one will choose where we start. As a committee we are making a decision about having the greatest influence in the shortest amount of time. The KPI on page 5 listed as medium impact asks programs to show how they meet community needs and how they strengthen undergraduate programs.

Regarding KPI 2 which focuses on general education, Susan suggested that core values in the future include information literacy. Judy responded that currently information literacy would be covered in the majors. Judy also stated that KPI 1 on page 2 addresses this in the action plan, "Students should be able to use technology appropriate to their disciplines. More specific content or skills competency would be required based on the discipline." Susan responded that the broader definition of information literacy is not just technology.

That the General Education Committee be directed by the Strategic Planning Committee to look at adding a core value in terms of information literacy. (Susan/Bonnie)

Discussion:

  • Before coming to the General Education Committee, Steve suggested that Susan contact the state and have the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum deal with this.
  • Theresia stated that as Faculty Association President she could not vote for a motion that would direct a committee to a particular outcome.
  • Brenda said that we do not have an assessment of what programs are doing with technology or information literacy so how can we be sure that programs are or are not offering information literacy consistently and appropriately.
  • Addie noted that the National Association of Colleges and Employers always lists information literacy in the top six areas of what they look for in college graduates.
  • Theresia reaffirmed that the SPC is an advisory committee. The curriculum is under the purview of faculty. The curriculum process is an agreement between the administration and the Faculty Association .
  • Guihua also questioned whether the SPC had the power to direct the General Education Committee or to change the core.
  • Steve said he felt all of the SPC are sympathetic to the importance of information literacy. The General Education Committee does not create curriculum. Faculty create curriculum. Susan would be welcome to come talk to the General Education Committee, but Steve could not say where that would go. The General Education Committee currently has other fish to fry.
  • Susan said as a professional, if she were to have her child graduate from a university, she would want to make sure that the institution would have information literacy in their general education program.
  • Judy said the Academic Distinction Committee put technology under majors because programs preparing students will provide technology competence as part of what they look at. Judy felt the technology piece could come through technology goals.
  • Susan again stated that it is just not technology alone. She sees a discipline having so much material it needs to cover that information literacy gets shortchanged in the mix.
  • Judy expressed resource issues as a concern if we have another core. SCSU cannot afford the core it now has.

Susan removed the motion from the table. Judy again asked that Susan look at folding information literacy under technology goals.

University Community Relations KPIs:
Under KPI 4, Judy suggested moving "Faculty outreach and service-learning survey and CCT will need to be developed before use as data source" under Definition/Strategies/Action Plan because it is a note about process.

Editorial Changes made by consensus of the SPC:
It was recommended that on page 3, KPI 1, Responsible Parties, "Music/Theatre" be replaced with "Departments/Units Sponsoring Programs and Events."

John suggested KPI 1 on page 1 read as follows: "The University will develop, implement and evaluate programs for faculty and staff designed to strengthen internal trust, confidence and good will."

Steve recommended Goal 1 be rewritten as follows: " St. Cloud State University will support and recognize practices that actively promote open dialogue and understanding within its internal community.

Theresia asked that the CODAS Committee be added to the responsible parties list under KPI 1.

David noted that there were no Definition/Strategies/Action Plans written.

Pat was asked to take the request back to the University-Community Relations Committee and come back in two weeks with Definitions/Strategies/Action Plans completed.

By consensus, the SPC approved the University-Community Relations KPIs as amended.

Preliminary Planning for Forums on KPIs: Discussion of Dates and Venues:
Judy outlined the original plan for KPIs: KPIs completed by spring break, posted on the web, forums to take place in the colleges and KPIs taken to Student Government for input.

Judy sees the process as being fairly simple: A PowerPoint presentation on KPI information and process information - what happens once KPIs are approved, listen heavily to what people say at the forums and have SPC members at each of the forums taking notes.

Theresia suggested the forums take place in conjunction with the Provost to get higher faculty attendance.

Forums would need to take place after spring break and finish no later than April 1 so that there could be Senate action before the last Senate meeting on May 4.

Discussion continued on whether there should be college forums or open forums on a university-wide basis. It will be important to have other units, besides faculty, have an opportunity for input. Responsible parties are not just faculty-all are stakeholders. Too often there is the tendency to place heavy concentration on what is good for individual colleges and not the institution as a whole. Also, if different people present in the colleges, there will not be the same look and feel to the presentation. It was also stated that the Academic Distinction KPIs form a model for departments to generate specific KPIs in their discipline. Maybe the forums should be separated according to different times and according to different sets of KPIs. It was then noted that the amount of time remaining does not lend itself to that arrangement.

That there be four forums (Monday, Wednesday and Thursday during the day; Tuesday at night) (John/David, MSP)

Forums will take place March 29, 30, 31, April 1. Judy asked for volunteers for presenters, discussion facilitators and note takers. Brenda Wentworth volunteered to present. Susan and Pat also volunteered. Judy will work with Lisa to schedule specific times and places and e-mail SPC members when that information is available. Sara was asked to provide a web reply form for people who are more comfortable expressing their ideas in that manner. It was noted that it will be important for Student Government to fire up the interest of students.

Upcoming SPC meeting dates and locations:
Mar. 5, 1-3, Miller Center 114/115
Mar. 12, 1-3, Voyageurs North
Apr. 2, 1-3, Miller Center 114/115
Apr. 16, 1-3, Miller Center 114/115
Apr. 30, 1-3, Miller Center 11/4115

Notes by Jackie Zieglmeier

 

Untitled Document