St. Cloud State University
Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
November 18, 2004
Download minutes [PDF: 5 pages]
Members Present: Judith Kilborn, Brenda Wentworth, John Palmer, Bonnie Hedin, Donella Westphal, Sara Grachek, David DeGroote, John Burgeson, Neal Voelz, Guihua Li, Mahmoud Saffari, Annette Schoenberger, Diana Burlison, Addie Turkowski , Debra Carlson, Frankie Condon, Edward Addo, Theresia Fisher, Phil Thorson
Members Absent:Ben Baliga, Susan Motin, Pat Krueger, David Sikes, Joe Opatz, Balsy Kasi
1. Approval of minutes for October 28 th, 2004:
Motion to accept minutes from October 28 th (Hedin/Voelz). Motion passed.
- Meeting schedule for Spring 2005:
Kilborn: We need to schedule a regular meeting time for next year. After everyone turned in their schedules, we ended up with same time we’re meeting now for next year, even though it was not possible to find a time when everyone was available.
- Meeting for December 2, 2004:
Kilborn: Provost Spitzer has agreed to come in at beginning of the meeting to talk about charges for the year. If we could have a concrete plan in mind how we’ll get the information to the groups that will be working on the KPIs by then, it would be helpful. In the long term we need to figure out ways to coordinate our work with the various entities as a whole.
- Request for Proposals for Spending
Budget Surplus: Due December 17 th:
Kilborn: President Saigo sent out a call for proposals for fund allocation – we can make proposals for Strategic Planning. The proposals will go to the VP’s; they will be prioritized, then sent back out to campus community for campus comment. A decision will be made in spring. I suggest we take the opportunity and make a proposal. One of our subcommittees could work on coming up with a proposal. Phil Thorson and Guihua Li have been asked to be on this committee, and Guihua had suggested Neal Voelz should be on it.
- Process for completing
tasks this year:
Kilborn: In the short term we need to be moving into subcommittee work, not getting KPIs done, but doing the work that will lead up to getting them to the groups that will be working with them. We have suggested that Judy Litterst be on the committee to help with the coordination between this committee and General Education.
- Faculty Senate Action
Kilborn: The Faculty Senate approved the Balanced Scorecard initiative, but some of the same reservations came up that have come up before.
- Request to SPC from Faculty Senate.
Kilborn: There was a motion from the Faculty Senate that the Strategic Planning Committee take care of the motion from general education committee. The following request was referred to the Strategic Planning Committee for their recommendations:
That the Faculty Senate, for the General Education Committee, articulate the connections and modes of coordination between these components of planning and assessment:
- Strategic Planning
- University Assessment under the Director of Assessment
- College Assessment Committees
- General Education assessment and accreditation processes
- First Year Experience assessment
- The “College Student in 2010” initiative
3. Call for new agenda items
- Palmer: Citizen League. David DeGroote will send the web site to members.
- Addie Turkowski distributed a handout entitled “Do Employers
and Colleges See Eye to Eye?” which deals with assessment. It
will be put on the agenda for next meeting.
4. St. Cloud State University Annual Work Plan, Fiscal Year 2005:
Kilborn asked for discussion on the work plan.
Burgeson: Is it finalized?
DeGroote: The report is due Dec. 13. It won’t really be final until it’s submitted, but this is what it’s based on now.
Kilborn: Any discussion?
DeGroote: As we talk about things we can find them in the work plan.
Kilborn: We should set up a process for getting new things into the draft.
DeGroote: That’s difficult because MnSCU never comes out with format till after school’s out. Lisa wanted to get MnSCU’s take on it by Feb. or March, but she’s been unsuccessful so far.
5. Process for completing tasks this year:
Kilborn: As a large group it’s difficult to get tasks done. In
the past we had subcommittees for each of the themes. We need to refigure
those subcommittees to address our work for the year. We should focus
this semester on getting all the way up to the KPIs. That would mean
that we would be in groups on the different areas, maybe have subcommittees
on each of our current KPIs who would work through the worksheets, and
figure out who strategic planning needs to work with to complete each
one. Part of it would be figuring out the appropriate people to do the
KPIs. Maybe we could have one group looking at what infrastructure we
need to set up Balanced Scorecard. Any discussion?
DeGroote: I have a structural question. We have three KPIs. Are we talking about three subcommittees to look at those three KPIs ?
Kilborn: We’re looking at those three KPIs and we need to ask if we need to have a subcommittee for each.
Palmer: The specialized language can be problematic. Is our goal A1 really strategy A1? Would our starting point for a blank sheet would be A1 in the oval? If a subgroup would work on answering the questions, then would we have the KPIs?
DeGroote: No, it would lead us to the point that KPIs could be written.
Palmer: The summary notes indicate we have 5 goals, or 5 strategies – A1, A2, B1, B2 and B3. Do we want a subcommittee for each strategy?
Kilborn: Maybe we need to decide if that’s what we want to do. I wonder whether B1 and B2 should be done by the same group.
Schoenberger and DeGroote: Yes, they should be.
DeGroote: A1 and A2 should be done together also.
Kilborn and Schoenberger: Yes.
DeGroote: Someone needs to be outside of the groups to oversee what the groups are doing.
Kilborn: We would bring results back to the larger committee. If we’re doing work on all these sections, we’re also going to be looking at how we make connections. If the groups come up with ideas about a proposal, they could communicate that to the proposal people.
DeGroote: The work plans from the subcommittees need to be aggregated into one document or one work plan. The last thing we want to do is send a work plan from each subcommittee to each department.
Palmer: I like the way Judy formed these. Each subcommittee should take into consideration the issues about linkages between the groups.
Schoenberger: The General Ed committee pointed out how many groups were working on the same thing.
Kilborn: Do we need a motion?
Motion to divide into 5 subcommittees: Infrastructure Proposal, General Education, Majors and Minors, Graduate Programs, and Enrichment beyond the Curriculum. (Wentworth/DeGroote). Motion passed.
- Infrastructure Proposal: Li, Voelz, Schoenberger, Thorson. Thorson will ask Rubin Stenseng to be involved, also. (Foss added later.)
- General Education: Wentworth, Litterst, Burgeson, Kilborn (will also be a floater to pull things together), Nook.
- Majors and Minors: Fisher, Palmer, Addo, Hedin, Voelz
- Graduate Programs: DeGroote, Kilborn, Kasi (Chair of Graduate Committee will be asked to assist, also.)
- Enrichment beyond the Curriculum: Westphal, Condon, Grachek, Turkowski, DeGroote, Carlson
Kilborn: Are there other ideas for the process – should we set
Carlson: There is not consonance between the two documents that have been produced. What were previously called goals are now called goal A1, A2, etc. Are the goals still fluid?
DeGroote: We’re closer to what we were doing last year.
Carlson: This first group that we’ve identified – the infrastructure group – where is it on the plan?
Kilborn: We need an infrastructure – people, resources, etc. They’ll be looking at things other than academic distinction, like what we need to do to do this plan. One key question from Faculty Senate is how we’re going to pay for this. So it’s the infrastructure committee’s job to look at how we’ll get the Balanced Scorecard implemented.
Condon: Can you do the same for the other subcommittees – lay out their tasks?
Kilborn: The General Ed committee would look at goal A1 and A2 and try to get the preparatory work done up to doing the KPIs using what we’ve already generated. The Major & Minor committee would work on goals B1 and B2. Graduate programs – B3. Enrichment beyond the Curriculum – E/D1. How do we move stuff that we’ve already done to the point where we know who’s going to be doing the KPIs?
Fisher: The General Ed and Major & Minor committees will have a close relationship with assessment – Neal is already on two committees – how will we do that? Each college has an assessment director, and Academic Affairs has Lin Holder and Sharon Cogdill – has that group met?
Fisher: Should groups 2, 3 and 4 also meet with that group?
Voelz: Yes, eventually. That’s part of the coordination part.
Schoenberger: We now have Judy Litterst, and if we make sure Neal and Judy are on different committees, that could help.
Kilborn: Lisa Foss needs to be on infrastructure committee. All the groups could talk about how they will connect with assessment.
Carlson: Will each group work through the objectives, and then will it go to some other entity who will write the KPIs?
Carlson: Then we need to make sure those people won’t question what has been done before.
Kilborn: They’ll all come back to the committee for approval, and it will be approved by Faculty Senate. We’ll also have representatives from some of the areas on the subcommittees.
Palmer: We set as a goal to have the process done by the end of the semester –
DeGroote: Last year during convocation we reported to the campus community. We could do that again.
Palmer: It’s different for Excluded Managers who are paid during that time.
DeGroote: We don’t want to surprise the campus community with how much they’re going to be asked to do.
Palmer: We have only 45 minutes now, and Provost Spitzer will be coming next time. And we want to say we’ll have the proposals done by the end of the semester?
Kilborn: We don’t know how much time it will take for each group. It might take only one more meeting plus a subcommittee meeting.
Fisher: We won’t be able to think about a deadline until we get into it and see how it flows. I recommend having the subcommittees meet now, and getting back together 10 minutes before the end of the meeting and then address the deadline issue.
(Subcommittee meetings were held)
DeGroote: The Enrichment beyond the Curriculum committee will be ready
by Jan. 15.
Schoenberger: We need to be ready by Dec. 2 for the proposals.
Wentworth: I like David DeGroote’s suggestion of Jan. 15.
Fisher: Some of us believe we’re very close; others believe we’ll want to get into several departments and get their ideas. We need to check some more.
Wentworth: We said we thought we could get departments to get us data, and let them know that this would constitute part of their assessment. It might be helpful in motivating them to get data to us.
Kilborn: It might be helpful to ask Michael to talk about learning outcomes.
Fisher: One of the trainers said they spent a lot of time talking to departments first; we don’t want to create a lot of infrastructure that departments may resent.
Kilborn: We may want to say that the General Ed committee can be done early, but the Majors & Minors committee may take longer.
Palmer: I don’t object to getting work done but I do object to not being paid for doing it. I’m not paid after the last day of the semester. If we want to do this work properly we should pay the committee members to do it.
DeGroote: We might think about a short-term budget initiative.
Wentworth: If learning outcomes are what this committee wants, our college is in pretty good shape for that. It would help if majors and minors programs know that this is not something new, but something that they’ve been working on for a long time.
DeGroote: There’s a feeling that assessment is something that’s coming down from on high. Learning outcomes are being seen as something people were “told” to do.
Kilborn: I’ll try to get the worksheets out to everyone electronically. I’ll protect an hour of our time next time .
Meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.