St. Cloud State University
Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
March 12, 2004
Download minutes [PDF: 6 pages]
Members Present: David DeGroote, Theresia Fisher, Lisa Foss, Sara Grachek, Bonnie Hedin, Judith Kilborn, Balsy Kasi, Steve Klepetar, Pat Krueger, Guihua Li, Susan Motin, John Palmer, Mahmoud Saffari, David Sikes, Karen Thoms, Brenda Wentworth.
Members Absent: Edward Addo, Diana Burlison, John Burgeson, Debra Carlson, Kvame Johnson, Mary Soroko, Phil Thorson, Addie Turkowski
Approval of March 5, 2004, Minutes:
Minutes of March 5, 2004 be approved (Theresia/Karen, MSP)
- April 2, Friday, 9-11 a.m. in CH-202D replaces the March 29th forum date which was a conflict for Provost Spitzer.
Call for new agenda items:
Discussion of University-Community Relations KPI’s (additions to Definitions/Strategies/Action Plan):
Judy asked the SPC to keep in mind these KPIs have already been approved. The subcommittee has added Definition/Strategies/Action Plans as requested by the SPC.
Editorial changes were made by the committee:
- KPI 1 Definition/Strategies/Action Plan, the last line now reads: See Diversity and Social Justice KPI B5. The cross-reference to Academic Distinction was removed.
- KPI 4 Definition/Strategies/Action Plan, the last line now reads: See Diversity and Social Justice KPI B2.
- Modifiers were moved next to the verb in KPIs 1-4 on pages 3-4.
- For consistency of style, a comma will be placed before the conjunction within a series.
Moved to accept the document as revised, including the editorial comments and the Definition/Strategies/Action Plan addition. Motion passed by consensus of the committee.
Discussion of Diversity and Social Justice KPIs:
Judy listed the members of the diversity and social justice subcommittee: a young woman from the Student Government Diversity Committee, Edward Addo, Mary Soroko, and Margaret Villanueva who is active in CODE and CODAS. Feedback has been received from Student Disability Services and GLBTA. Judy apologized for the length of the document.
Judy also noted Mary Soroko has tried to put in the Definition/Strategies/Action Plan how much of the data is already being collected. Examples of work already being done:
- The CARE leadership team (Lisa and Theresia are members) has recently been commissioned by President Saigo. One of their charges is to do the kind of policy analysis and review of campus climate scans listed in KPI 3 and training as listed in KPI 1.
- KPI 6 on page 15 - the Racial Issues Colloquium is already doing a lot of this assessment of curriculum.
- Disability Services was asked what they would like to have in the Diversity and Social Justice KPI. What is listed as their responsibility is work they are already doing.
Discussion turned to KPI 5.
- The idea of diversity education is controversial, especially in light of the recent settlement of the anti-Semitism lawsuit. It is believed that the state attorney general has called SCSU to task because it has not implemented mandatory training for faculty on diversity including anti-Semitism.
- Many people on campus, including the Faculty Association, are against mandatory training. Mandatory training is likely to produce conflict and results opposite to the intent. Research shows that mandatory programming makes people worse. There is nothing in the KPI 5 statement that indicates the training will be mandatory, but nothing that indicates it will not.
- Steve felt that the word programming would be more powerful than the word education. Programming could feature diversity of all sorts—speakers, films, programs that people can voluntarily attend.
- Theresia said that the CODE Committee’s recommendation to Senate and to President’s Council was for the MCARI training, which is now the CARE initiative. There is nothing mandatory associated with the CARE initiative. With the anti-Semitism lawsuit settlement, there is mandatory diversity education with an anti-Semitism component. The administration has an obligation to make the training mandatory but what training is another issue. The FA is working with the administration to de-emphasize the mandatory nature. Theresia was not sure how she felt about substituting the word programming for the word education because diversity education is what the CARE initiative is. Because of the complexity of the different processes coming together, there is not a simple answer.
- David suggested that the KPI use “education/programming.”
- Judy felt both programming and education are needed. There are some people on campus who see that we have programming events but no systemic training. Judy expressed concern about downplaying education too much because Faculty Senate has already agreed to this.
- Steve said that Provost Spitzer and Joseph Edelheit are considering trying to persuade the judge to change the language of the settlement because mandatory training does not satisfy the people most involved—they didn’t ask for it and it creates problems.
- SPC members involved in mandatory training following the Craik Case settlement in the 1980’s remember the training as confrontational.
- Theresia felt that the attorney general’s office and MnSCU were pressuring for mandatory training. Local administration, the FA and the IFO feel that having mandatory education is not a good thing and will cause a lot of resentment. If local administration wants to talk with the judge, Theresia has informed the provost that the IFO will also show support.
That the language be softened in the first sentence of KPI 5 on page 15 to read, “The institution will improve the campus cultural climate by providing meaningful diversity education for faculty…” Secondly that a sentence be added to the Definitions/Strategies/Action Plan: “Voluntary participation in such diversity education is essential to its success.” (Steve/Theresia, MSP)
- Susan felt strongly that the word voluntary should also be placed before Diversity Education Plan. The task force needs to recognize the education is voluntary.
- Judy felt this is already covered by adding the last sentence as described in the motion above and that the strategic plan if approved becomes something that the university will stand by. MCARI training has always been seen as voluntary so maybe we are trying to correct something that does not need to be corrected.
- Susan felt that the strategic plan could be used in a court to build a legal case.
- Lisa stated that the minutes of this meeting are a public document, which could also be used in court, to explain the discussion around the intent.
- Steve suggested that Susan make a motion to move her position forward.
- Susan declined.
Judy called for other input. Brenda felt the length of the document puts a value on diversity and social justice.Moved to accept the document as drafted and amended. Motion passed by consensus of the committee.
Treatment of overlapping KPIs in the Plan:
Judy distributed a brief handout showing the duplication that occurs in the KPIs. The duplication is not verbatim but does get at the same issues. Diversity training is duplicated in University-Community Relations and Diversity and Social Justice and is crossed-referenced. Diversity in the population shows up in three areas, conflict resolution shows up in three areas, and policies show up in two areas. Judy asked the SPC if they wanted to cross-reference all areas. Did the SPC want to let the duplication stay to point out the importance of the issue? Does the SPC want to pull out some of the KPIs? The SPC could also let the duplications stay and get reaction from the university community during the forums.
That cross-references be put in for all of the KPIs that appear to be duplicative and that the SPC wait for feedback during the forums. (David/Balsy, MSP)
Updating KPIs with Changes from Restructuring:
Mahmoud suggested that Service Community KPIs A 1, 2, 3, 4 and KPI B1 and 2 be updated to include the Dean of Undergraduate Studies under “Responsible Parties.” The consensus of the SPC was that the Undergraduate Dean would not be involved in KPI A2 since the primary focus of that KPI was on upper-division courses and KPI B2 because it would blur the focus of the Undergraduate Dean position. Mahmoud felt there was overlap in KPI A2 because if there are not enough courses available at upper division, there will be an impact from a retention point of view.
Lisa asked about the status of the job description for Undergraduate Dean and felt it is premature to assign responsibilities to this position before approval of the position is obtained.
There should be nothing to add to Diversity and Social Justice because the subcommittee was thinking about changes brought about from restructuring as they wrote the KPIs.
Action: Judy will check with Provost Spitzer to get his input regarding the responsibilities of the Undergraduate Dean. Amendments to the KPIs will be made after that conversation. Judy will email the SPC after talking with Provost Spitzer.
Action: The SPC decided not to amend now the KPIs incorporating changes brought about by restructuring (CETL for FCTE, the Undergraduate Dean, and General Education Assessment Director, the Advisory Council for Student Diversity and Social Justice) but will make those changes as information is obtained and certainly before the KPIs are sent to the Provost and Faculty Senate.
Planning for Forums on KPIs:
The SPC updated the times SPC members would be available to participate in the forums:
KPIs to be discussed
SPC members who indicated they would be available (should have at least 2 people from each subcommittee)
Tuesday, March 30
11 am – 1 pm
Diversity and Social Justice,
University and Community Relations, Service Community
John Palmer, Judy Kilborn, Steve Klepetar, Guihua Li, Karen Thoms, Pat Krueger
Wednesday, March 31
Academic Distinction & Technology
John Burgeson, David DeGroote, Theresia Fisher, John Palmer, Susan Motin Theresia will do PowerPoint. John & David will take the lead to facilitate discussion.
Thursday, April 1
(FA/Adm meet and confer conflict)
Diversity and Social Justice,
University and Community Relations, Service Community
John Palmer, Judy Kilborn, Steve Klepetar, Pat Krueger, Guihua Li, Karen Thoms
Friday, April 2
Academic Distinction & Technology
John Palmer, Judy Kilborn, Bonnie Hedin (first 50 minutes), David DeGroote (Judy will check last e-mail from David), Susan Motin (can do 9-10), Brenda Wentworth (can do 9-10) Judy will do PowerPoint.
Other SPC members are encouraged to attend any or all of the sessions. Those listed above will help facilitate conversations and take notes.
Discussion turned to what the brief PowerPoint presentation would contain.
- Redrawing the Strategic Planning Cycle to show what happens when the strategic plan is approved.
- Definition of a KPI
- Illustration of one of the tables and explanation of how to read it
Questions about KPIs were listed:
- Should any KPIs be omitted?
- Are there KPIs missing?
- Are KPIs ranked appropriately?
- If you could only have x number of KPIs, which ones would you choose and why?
- What do departments do? How do things get reported? Reported to whom? How often?
What happens with the information reported? How are the KPIs tied to budget?
Action: Judy will ask Provost Spitzer to speak to the reporting and budgeting questions.
David cautioned that if the discussion focuses on reporting and budgeting, it will not turn to KPIs. Maybe the Provost could say that there will be a separate forum on reporting and budgeting.
Mahmoud said that if he were attending the forum, he would ask the SPC what their top priorities were for KPIs since the SPC has been working with KPIs so closely.
David said some of the above questions would be good questions for the website.
Lisa told the SPC about a web-based survey instrument she has been working on for President Saigo. The survey is ready to launch. It is data-base driven and will be analyzed by Steve Frank, Steve Wagner and Michelle Hammes from the SCSU Survey Office. The plan is that the survey would be used regularly—every month or so with questions for which we want campus feedback. Participants are anonymous. The first survey on campus communication will be conducted right after break. The next survey could be on KPIs after the forums. We could ask people to spend some time thinking about KPIs and rank them.
Theresia felt that there needs to be discussion before the forums on the listserv or other mechanism. The listserv may be the way to go to seed some questions, let the discussion ripple and then seed more questions to have a real engagement. It was noted that there is a limited audience on the listserv discuss list. Theresia said that she has an account for all faculty. There is also an account for all students.
Judy suggested that there could be a subcommittee to look at a survey, a subcommittee to look at the idea of starting discussion before the forum, a subcommittee to formulate questions for the forum.
Judy said her goal for the forum is to have enough campus conversation so that when the KPIs come up for vote at Faculty Senate, there will have been enough conversation so there is thoughtful consideration and buy-in by the campus community.
There will be a joint e-mail message coming from Provost Spitzer and Judy alerting people that the KPIs are on a website and provide a brief list of questions to be discussed at the forum.
Brenda talked about the overwhelming information that the average faculty would need to read to be prepared to discuss KPIs.
David Sikes volunteered his office to do a campus mailing of the KPIs and have the mailing list a website where complete information is available.
Mahmoud suggested sitting down with one or two well-respected faculty from each of the colleges to explain the purpose of the forum and get their ideas for the best way to conduct the forum. The SPC felt that, unfortunately, there is not enough time for that now.
Judy said that she was hearing from the SPC that they felt a few basic questions should be asked at the forum. She asked the SPC what the main goals were for the forums and how can we get there with a few basic questions.
Sara will do a form on the website so that people can e-mail questions to the Strategic Planning mailbox.
Jackie reported that there were few or no e-mails previously received in the Strategic Planning mailbox.
Brenda said that she did not see a link between the list of KPIs and the proposed questions.
Judy reminded the SPC that the KPIs will be on the computer at the forums and will be able to be brought up if there are questions.
Susan asked if a cover letter would refer to the website and ask those who attend the forums to be prepared to answer the selected questions.
Balsy asked if the forums would address how KPIs would be tied to resource allocation. Judy replied those decisions would be up to the president and provost and that would be a topic for another forum.
Committee members felt that people attending the forums will be overwhelmed with information. The cover letter should urge people to look at the information ahead of time and stress that what will be discussed at the forums is significant to everyone’s working life at SCSU.
It was suggested that people be encouraged to focus on pieces of the strategic plan that they are most concerned about.
Suggested that SPC focus on the following questions:
- Should any KPIs be omitted?
- Are KPIs missing
- Are KPIs ranked appropriately?
- Which KPI is liked most?
Lisa felt the list of KPIs alone was too little information and the total packet of themes with goals, rationale, KPIs, responsible parties and timeline too much information. She offered to prepare a “hybrid” hard copy document that would be mailed to everyone, noting that some of the SCSU population is without computers.
Action: Lisa: Prepare document and e-mail to Judy and committee.
Balsy suggested posting the KPIs on the wall at the forums and inviting those who attend to “vote” on the KPIs by giving each participant 5 red sticker dots to place next to the KPIs they like most. Other committee members have seen this technique work well. It was noted that while this would give instant feedback, it would take too much time and would not be practical for large groups.
Action: Try this at March 29 th forum and see how it goes.
Another way to do this is to place the KPIs on standard 8 ½ x 11 sheets and ask people to rate the KPIs and leave the sheets behind after the forum.
Mahmoud advised the SPC to select prior to the forums 4-8 KPIs that they would rate a high priority. Fewer KPIs would make discussion more manageable.
Lisa volunteered to set up a follow-up web-survey to ask questions to get at the priorities.
Judy noted that the SPC has resisted rank-ordering KPIs or eliminating KPIs.
David said maybe the way to look for priority KPIs is to ask what priorities produce the greatest influence and the most change on campus. The SPC knows we can’t do all of the KPIs.
Judy said we will receive input from those who attend the forums and those who complete a follow-up survey which will help in the long run to reduce the KPIs to a manageable number for reallocating resources.
It was suggested that the most interest should be in the KPIs that have the most effect on the budget.
Judy turned discussion to how to divide the time for each theme during the forums. Consensus was that 15-20 minutes would be allocated for the opening presentation, 1/2 hour for Technology, and the remaining hour or so for Academic Distinction. For the other forum: 15-20 minutes for the opening presentation; 25 minutes maximum for Service Community and University-Community Relations, the remaining hour for Diversity and Social Justice.
Action: Those who have volunteered to facilitate the forums were asked to meet early in a small group the day of the forum to coordinate about who will lead the discussion.
Action: Jackie: e-mail the final versions of KPIs to Sara and Lisa.
Upcoming SPC meeting dates and locations:
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