St. Cloud State University
Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
April 14, 2005
Download minutes [PDF: 18 pages]
Present: Judith Kilborn, Edward Addo, Annette Schoenberger, Theresia Fisher, David DeGroote, Judy Litterst, Phil Thorson, Mark Nook, Mahmoud Saffari, Sara Grachek, Donella Westphal, Guihua Li, Debra Carlson, Addie Turkowski, Diana Burlison, Brenda Wentworth, Pat Krueger, Susan Motin, Frankie Condon
Absent: David Sikes, Lisa Foss, Michael Spitzer, John Palmer, Neal Voelz, John Burgeson, Debra Leigh, Ben Baliga, Bonnie Hedin, Balsy Kasi
Guest: Jeff LaFave-GA
Judy K: David will send us minutes Monday for March 17 and March 31
Judy K: The contract for the Center for Institutional Effectiveness will be discussed next meeting.
Judy K: I want to give you a heads up on what happened in Faculty Senate. Susan Motin made a motion that the Faculty Senate accept the position paper on general education. Actually she made a motion that we support it, but it was changed to accept. It was an interesting discussion. We're not going to be voting on that motion until next time. Why was it interesting? Because we got a lot of support for what we're suggesting, but we had some resistance. The hotspots in the discussion came up very loudly. When I say hot spots in the discussion, there were some statements read from the College of Business that essentially.
Annette: From one faculty member in the College of Business .
Judy K: Do you want to talk about it?
Annette: Yeah, I think it's important to know that it was one faculty member in the College of Business . It was very derogatory towards the Racial Issues and the Democratic Citizenship classes. But I think it's important to recognize that it really was one person.
Question: Was it against having racial issues classes?
Annette: Well, it was just snide remarks about it.
Judy K: And there were also snide remarks about the lack of basic skills of our students. Students come into the major not being able to write, not being able to do math, not being able to think critically. Those were the sour grapes. That doesn't mean the concerns aren't legitimate, but I think we need to really listen carefully to what people say and encourage a really positive debate and discussion. The issue of left column/right column was raised. Judy Litterst took careful notes, and one thing that was a concern was are we going to actually have a discussion about this and is everybody going to be able to talk. I hope people were reassured that they're going to be able to do it. And it's really clear to me that the General Education Committee is going to need some help in making sure that people are involved in the conversation. If you'd like to hear the conversation or be present for the vote as faculty members of this committee, that will come up at faculty senate next time, which is the 26 th of April.
Mahmoud: At the last Dean's Council, we did a presentation on the status of the DARS. We had five people, three from Records and Registration, one from Advising, and one from the College of Business , and they basically brought everybody up-to-date. Records and Registration has made a tremendous amount of progress since last September when the Chancellor said they need to make progress by all accounts by last December. We are at a crossroads at this point where not much can be done on the part of Records and Registration. We need to see some positive steps from the faculty side in terms of their decision. We highly recommend that a group of five people meet with all the department chairs. I've already asked to make appointments with all the deans to pull together their department chairs for about a half hour to discuss that. It was also highly recommended for that group to come and make a presentation at the SPC and also the Faculty Senate. Well, we've got the President of the Faculty Senate here and also the Chair of this committee. We'd like to see if it is possible to put it on your agenda
Annette: Not this year.
Judy K: I think one thing that's really important about this conversation is we have to encourage people to go through processes that we have for curriculum revision. Once the Faculty Senate reacts, the faculty need to take this on, assuming they decide to approve it. UCC, General Ed. and Assessment will all need to be involved in this.
Mahmoud: Once the Faculty hears this, especially the faculty who are involved in advising their majors, how much time it saves on their part, I'll think they'll respond positively. Right now, when a student interested in biology wants to change his or her major to chemistry, everything has to be done manually. First the student has to make an appointment to sit down with an academic advisor. It takes maybe a half an hour, 45 minutes to go through those things, when DARS just does it instantly. If they know about how much time they'll save, especially the faculty who have so many advisees besides doing teaching and research and other things that they're doing.
Judy K: I think people understand that advising is confusing. Students are confused. Faculty are confused by the program. I think there's a lot we want them to change, but one thing I would like other bargaining units and other constituents on campus to keep in mind is that the curriculum is where the faculty live, and so the change is a change in their work life. It's a change in what they teach. It really represents what they value. I think for many departments, they are worried that if we change Gen. Ed. they will lose staff or lose programs, so it's a really serious discussion for faculty, and we need to let faculty have that discussion. I'm really pleased with the results we've had or the responses we've had to that position paper, but I'm feeling at this point we could follow up on this next time and talk more about it if we want to. I'm feeling like we need to get to Academic Distinction things, and I've got a long list of announcements.
Judy K: I want you to know that on Tuesday the Infrastructure subcommittee of Strategic Planning, and you see many of the members of that committee sitting here, Annette was there, Theresia was there, Guihua was there, Phil Thorson was there, I was there, talked with President Saigo and the Provost about the proposal that we had made for long-term funds, the proposal in which we had proposed essentially a champion for strategic planning, a data person, and then some technological support. I wanted to just say a few things about that, and people who were there can add to that. One point I tried to make was that it's really impossible for this committee to be strategic if we don't have data infrastructure, if Institutional Research is way understaffed, and if we don't have a person whose main job is to do strategic planning. We're mired in all the details trying to figure what our data sources are. We don't even know. We need somebody whose there to champion that. We talked about the fact that although our proposal mentions Vice President for Strategic Planning, we simply wanted it to be a high profile job that they could put in relation to the Provost or to the President, but we wanted somebody who had some high level position so that he or she could go work with departments and programs in a way that would have some visibility. I do think that, and people who were there can add to what I'm saying for sure, I do think they're seriously considering both positions at this point. I think we'll hear more about it soon. They asked some really good questions. I want to ask Annette to talk about one element that we talked about at that meeting.
Annette: We talked about where that person fits with this committee. Would they be a co-chair of this committee with the faculty the way TLTR was? Would they serve ex-officio the way the Provost does right now? Would they wander in and out? Would they be a voting member? For those kinds of decisions, this committee could make recommendations, but the Strategic Planning Committee was created with a signed agreement between the President and the Faculty Association, so a major change, like making this person the co-chair of the committee, could involve a number of steps. With the Provost, but we still had to get the Senate's approval for that recommendation. So that kind of thing, if we think that's a good idea, we need to be thinking about getting started on that because it does involve a change in that document that created this body. It's not clear to me yet how to go about doing that. Who should the request come to first if this group decides we think it's a good idea? Should we recommend it to the faculty and the President at the same time? Sometime, we should set aside some discussion about that, or do we want to wait till this person comes?
Judy K: I don't think we want to wait till this person comes, and in our original proposal, we proposed an ex-officio person. There are two things I should say about what we proposed. We proposed an assistant or associate VP for strategic planning, but we do have a person who is an assistant VP for planning, Joe Opatz. He's 25%, and we would need a different sort of title. One of the suggestions was AVP for Institutional Effectiveness. What I would like to do is have a discussion about this. Obviously, we need to react to the Academic Distinction materials first. I would like to put the question of what would the relationship of the champion of strategic planning be with this committee on the agenda right under the subcommittee reports. We may not get to it today, but I'd like to get to it first thing next time if we don't get to it today.
Judy K: Also, on April 5, Theresia and I had a meeting with Nathan Church concerning a strategic plan that is being developed for Student Life & Development. They're looking at our Strategic Plan, the University's Strategic Plan, as they do that, but Nathan would like to come into this body to present what they have so far and to get some responses. He'd like to figure out what the relationship is between their strategic planning and our strategic planning formally, so I'm putting him on time definite next time at 11 o'clock, and he'll bring documents that they developed to the meeting.
Judy K: Also, the next item, SPC and core values. Actually Student Life and Development has core values. We don't. Did you know that? We don't have core values. I want to put that on the agenda for next time also. At one point a list of core values did come to Senate. I remember it was a while back. I remember that there were no definitions for the terms. I remember S rejected them, and said that they needed to be more developed, but it's kind of difficult having a Strategic Plan with no core values when everything is supposed to flow from the core values.
Guihua: Is it possible for Nathan to send us the materials before the meeting? Next meeting is going to be our last meeting. Rather than have him give us the materials that day. I just think it would give us a little more time to look at it, whatever he has developed already.
Judy K: I'll ask him to send that to me electronically, and I will send that to you electronically.
Judy K: The SPC conference committee met last Thursday and came up with a template for the subcommittee document, and what you see is the subcommittee documents folded into the template. I want to really thank everybody who really scurried and hurried together at the last minute to get materials into that subcommittee, and to go ahead and edit and revise it and so on. I think we're pretty close now. The one thing we didn't do, and I tried to do separately, but I feel like I need your input, is on the graduate piece, add some data sources. What I would like to do is take it piece by piece and look at what we've got on this form. I'd like the committees especially to double-check the work, so I'm going to ask you to spend just a few minutes looking through your section if you haven't had a chance to review it. It came out in the email yesterday. Then we'll start, and whatever we do from this point on can be official. We'll start with Enrichment-we'll go there first, then back up to Majors and Minors. Let's look first at Enrichment beyond the Curriculum. That starts on page 2.
Academic Distinction Performance Indicators
Annette: I was wondering if we could do something like change the background color when we move from one section to another or do something to indicate when we change sections. Or did we put this all together because we don't want people to realize there are sections?
Judy K: Right now, we folded everything into the template. We decided what the template would be and what the titles would be. The subcommittee representatives on the conference committee used the template with headings and stuff, so we sent them all to Lisa. She picked the colors. Let's talk about how we indicate subdivisions later. Let's get the content down here. Are there any corrections to Enrichment beyond the Curriculum?
Theresia-When we look at the performance indicator, and I'll just pick one, study abroad participation. Perhaps that is more of a data item than a measurement?
As opposed to if you go to the previous section on the same page, it says 70% of graduate students meet general education student learning outcomes, so that we actually have a measurement there. When I was chatting with Annette, she was saying that perhaps if it was to increase study abroad participation. Is that okay?
Brenda. So you're saying that the performance indicators in this section are not really performance indicators.
Annette: Look at page three. If you look at the tasks, it says "Determine the extent to which the departments currently meet the objectives in the Strategic Plan." The performance indicator is whether or not we got stuff back from the survey. Those performance indicators are essentially to find out the percentage of students who do this stuff. The task is to determine these things. The task is to find out what these values are. So the performance indicator is do you know those values or don't you. What they've written is what they want to know. It's just that they haven't written performance indicator to match the task.
Theresia: Once we find that out, what that item becomes switches to the data source.
Judy: We approved this piece already. We have definitions for all these terms at the top. We need to do a front piece that defines those terms and makes an explanation that will show why we're in different places with the PIs. Does that make sense?
Addie: Part of the assumption is that we know why we're using the NSSE data, and we have some expectations of that
Brenda: I was wondering if there's something else we can call these, because they're not performance indicators.
Theresia: Wasn't this the same conversation that we and whole group had in the last meeting. We had a series of questions for major/minors, and you all said that it wasn't really a performance indicator, and you were right. It wasn't. It was questions in order to get at a performance indicator. And that's kind of where we are with this.
Brenda: We're putting this out to the campus community, and these are not performance indicators in terms of the way we stated what performance indicators are. I'm afraid it may cause more confusion if we say these are performance indicators, and they don't match what we've said performance indicators are.
Judy: A lot of these aren't performance indicators. They're task and process measures. We could define what a true performance indicator is in the preface to this, and we can say, "We're not at that point where we have true performance indicators, and once we have the data, we'll replace it with true performance indicators."
Theresia: Could we change title to "performance indicators/process tasks?" I'm leery about the term process measure because I'm afraid faculty are going to react to that.
Judy K: The reason I'm wanting to edit is that we have a column called tasks.
Theresia: We do. Maybe process measure.
David: I agree with Judy here. The term "performance indicators" means multiple things depending on how far you are down the road. This can be a flexible term. As we garner new information, we'll have a better understanding of what represents a measurement of the quality of a program. If we start mixing terms, we've had enough trouble in here. We can all agree that it's okay, and then explain to folks that it's getting there.
Pat: Would it be accurate to say that they are progress indicators?
Theresia: Are we looking for a motion still this year to support this?
Judy K: Yes.
Theresia: Then I believe we do need to change the title of that column. I think progress indicators would be good in addition to performance indicators.
Motion: I move that we change the title of the column from performance indicator to performance indicator/progress indicator. (Fisher/Carlson)
Brenda: Just one friendly amendment. Could it possibly be performance/progress indicator?
Judy: So the motion reads that we change the heading of that particular column in this document from performance indicator to performance/progress indicator? The assumption is that these terms will be defined in an introduction that goes along with this.
No further discussion
Judy K: We passed already the Enrichment beyond the Curriculum section. Are there any corrections within that? That section of the document is acceptable as is?
Judy K: Let's go to Majors and Minors starting on top of page 3. Does the subcommittee on Majors and Minors have any corrections or anything they want to say?
Brenda: It says by the middle fall 2005, and it talks about currently meeting objectives. I'm getting confused here between objectives and learning outcomes. What objectives are we talking about? I'm just confused. If I got a survey that said to fill out the objectives of the major, I wouldn't know what you were talking about. Were you talking about the student learning outcomes that I'm measuring in the major, or what objectives are you talking about. I don't know what I would say for objectives, because I only have student learning outcomes for the major.
Theresia: The objectives were in the Strategic Plan regarding majors and minors and are explicitly listed in the list of questions, and so for each objective listed, there is a series of questions.
Judy K: Could we clarify that somehow?
Brenda: It says objectives in the Strategic Plan. We used the language there. If you think the language should be different.
Judy K: What I'm wondering is if we could put something simple in there that would clarify it for outsiders if she's having a question. Say where the objectives are within the Strategic Plan. Do we know where they are?
David: Brenda, are you asking about under the performance indicator or under the task?
Brenda: It's under the tasks. "Did you meet the objectives of the Strategic Plan?" And then it says the departments will fill out the objectives survey. Both of them say objectives.
David: I think we should revise it to say "Fill out the survey related to the objectives in the Strategic Plan" under performance indicators on page 3.
Judy K: That's a simple fix. By the middle of 2005, departments will fill out the survey related to the objectives in the Strategic Plan. Are we okay with that change? Would somebody like to make a motion to approve this piece of what we're calling the Academic Distinction Draft Performance Indicators, just the ones relating to majors and minors? We passed the original once before. I'd like an official motion to approve this piece for majors and minors.
Brenda: I'll move to approve the piece on Majors and Minors in this Academic Distinction Draft Performance Indicators document. (Wentworth/Fisher)
Guihua: I'm looking at page 3, the tasks column, the second box from the bottom "Determine the extent to which the department meets the performance indicators." Are we talking about common measures across all academic departments? Each program-we have common measures across programs and academic units. We're not talking about all performance indicators. But then you have other program specific performance indicators, for instance, "Students involved in your major," and "Degrees awarded in your major."
Judy K: This needs to be pretty transparent when we're looking at it from the outside. This is going to be a widely distributed thing, and if there's something simple we could change on this that could clarify for outside readers without their having to have that document that we've talked about a lot, that would be good.
Guihua: I'm just thinking that because of each program we have across the university in all colleges and academic units, we have common measures because we wanted to determine how successful your programs are. One of the measures is how many students you have in your program. Then you have other program-specific, for instance, nursing. Maybe their performance indicator is the percentage of students who by their senior year or before they graduate have so many internship hours with hospital or medical facilities. That can be a very different performance indicator from accounting. I don't know that the Institutional Research staff would have the expertise to be helpful for all the performance indicators. Maybe we should have Institutional Research look at common measures and then combine that with department assessment.
Judy K: That would make sense. Can you see a way to put that in here?
Guihua: Yes, I'm looking at the data source, Institutional Research, at the bottom of the section we're looking at now. In the same box together with Institutional Research add department assessment reports. They would complement one another and make it more complete.
Judy K: So we're adding to that last box next to "ask Institutional Research to supply information for PIs," we're adding "and department assessment reports."
David: Shouldn't it be in performance indicators too?
Annette: I suggest performance indicator should be: Ask Institutional Research and departments to provide information on performance indicators.
Guihua: To me, what we have here is the same as the data source. Your performance indicator is "ask."
Judy K: That's another progress indicator and then the data source. So I think it's okay to have progress indicator at the top.
Annette: The reason I wrote it that way was because I didn't know the timeframe. We're talking about things occurring beyond spring 2006. I could put a date in there.
Judy: Do we want to add dates?
Theresia: Just leave dates off. I think it's fine the way we were talking about it. Adding "and department" to the "performance/progress indicators" and the data source "department report" is fine.
Judy K: Any other discussion on the motion we have on the floor to approve the major and minor segment of this document with the revisions we've mentioned.
Annette: We're missing "during spring 2006," department and college assessments..
Judy K: Let's go to Graduate Programs because we have time definite on General Education, and the one piece that we didn't do in that section was data sources. I know I have jotted some ideas down, and David has jotted some ideas down too. Why don't we go ahead and add those in. Guihua and others, if you could help us if the data sources don't make sense, that would be great. Ok David, we're looking on page three, the first empty box under data sources that you see. What are you thinking there?
David: Departments in first empty box
Judy: Department reports in first one, second one would be department or college reports
Guihua: Do we have two different departments in one joint graduate program? I'm thinking of department or college.
David: That's true. It's the departments that require accreditation, but the College of Education and the College of Business are college accreditations. They should be able to figure that out. They know what they own for accreditation, whether it's department or college.
Judy K: The first one would be department reports, the second one would be department or college reports. What about "evaluate community interest and needs for applied professional programs for continuing education?" I was wondering if that would be the Graduate Dean's report or the Continuing Education report.
David: It's one of those things that depends. The college dean may be interested in promoting something. In the case of education, the college dean is frequently out there. That's the same case in the College of Business . On the other hand, the Mechanical Engineering Department has an advisory board. There's not a lot of coordination.
Judy K: I wondered if it shouldn't be coming out of the Graduate Dean report and the Graduate Dean would coordinate, or if it should come out of the graduate program committee, the Faculty Association Graduate Committee. We could put FA graduate committee or Graduate Dean's report for the last three items. Would that be appropriate?
David: It would mean that they actually acquire the data from somebody else, either the department or colleges, whichever is appropriate.
Judy K: So right now I have down for those three items FA Graduate Committee and Graduate Dean reports. Would all of these come from the graduate committee and the dean reports, or would some of these come from Institutional Research.
Addie: Career Services does a report on the percentage of students employed in the field
David: The percentage of students completing their programs would aggregate through the Graduate Dean.
Judy K: So that would be from the Graduate Dean report.
David: I don't know that the Graduate Dean usually collects information on professional exams or if that's departmental. I think that's got to come from the department. The nursing department is the only one who is going to know who passed the nursing exam.
Judy K: What about the next one, "The percentage of admitted students relative to program enrollment goals
David: Since the department sets those goals, I think they would know the number of students.
Guihua: Are we talking about enrollment rate or matriculation rate or yield rate? Or are we talking about enrollment goal and actual enrollment? We probably want to take the percentage off?
Judy K: How would we write that then?
Guihua: Percent of enrollment. Take the admitted out, because I get confused. It could say, "Percent of enrolled in comparison to program enrollment goals."
Judy K: What would be the data source for that?
David: I think it would have to be the department.
Judy K: What about the next one, "Benchmark and track employer evaluations for student preparation for work." Do you do any of that in Career Services?
Addie: We do some, but not formally.
Judy K: So do you think that would be appropriate for your office or not?
David: The examples I know are restricted to a couple of departments in the College of Science and Engineering. I don't know how it works beyond. But the Departments are supposed to develop surveys. The departments send them out and get them back. I don't know if that's true in the other accreditation situations.
Brenda: What if the degree isn't a degree that leads to a particular profession?
Addie: We do some of that surveying overall, but not specifically towards disciplines.
Judy: I don't know how we would do this with our department. I think there are some departments that would have difficulty with this. We don't really have access to employers. I'm wondering if it would have to be an institutional survey of employers.
Susan: Can it be an "or" situation? Some departments are available to do that OR we have Career Services as institutional.
Judy: We could say "to be determined" on some of these. We don't want to do it in a way that we can't come up with good data. Also, we don't want to abuse employers by giving them multiple surveys.
David: In most any of these things, not just in Graduate, there may be some things that aren't appropriate for departments. It's pretty hard to have a one-size-fits-all. There's not much we can do about this. Then you just say this really isn't applicable to me. Then you justify it. Let's not say if appropriate all the way through this. Then we'll have a lot of people just saying, "That's not appropriate and that's not appropriate," all the way through this.
Annette: I think we can put down departments here, but maybe this University should be figuring out how we're going to do this. I know we try to get students to go to Career Services and tell them what they got. Maybe we need to figure out how we can do one survey instead of individual department surveys.
David: I think Annette's points are very appropriate, particularly when you have areas that are similar, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering. This is an immature concept that needs some development.
Judy K: So are we in agreement that the data source under "Benchmark and track student evaluation of preparation" is "to be determined?"
Judy K: Okay, what about the next one "Benchmark and track student evaluation of preparation provided by graduate program."
Guihua: Are we including graduate students?
Judy K: That would be a good idea. So, could we on these three things say alumni survey, are we doing "department," or "to be determined and alumni survey," or "department or alumni survey?" I'm just throwing out some options.
David: I wouldn't even put the alumni survey on benchmarks and track employer evaluations. The next two could be department or alumni if we're doing them now.
Addie: There's a plan to do an alumni survey.
Judy: Let me go through what I have now. The first "benchmark and track employer evaluations" would be "department report or to be determined." Then the next two would be "alumni report, department report, or to be determined." Is that correct? Then the percentage of programs completing review of graduate faculty every five years, would that be "department or college reports" too.
Judy K: Do we have a motion about the Graduate section of this?
David: Motion: I move we approve Graduate section as revised. (DeGroote/Fisher)
Judy K: We're up to General Education, and you have the document in front of you.
Judy: This does incorporate the suggestions that were made at the last Strategic Planning meeting. This has been reviewed by the General Education subcommittee, and there is one correction. On the first page, fourth column, add "learning" to second box under tasks. It should read "student learning outcomes."
Mark: On the 2nd page, add "Assessment" after Director of University
Judy K: It should say "reports" too. It's two reports, reports from the General Education committee and the Director of University Assessment.
Brenda: Some of the people were not in here when we changed the column title.
Judy: We changed the column title again. They are no longer performance indicators. They are now performance/progress indicators.
Brenda: Motion: I move to approve the General Education section of this document. (Wentworth/Litterst)
Judy L: I need to bring one point from the General Education committee, because we just met to look at this as a committee yesterday morning. There is still concern under the first page under performance/progress indicators with the 70% figure. Where is it coming from? It is arbitrary. We aren't concerned about the 70% on the next page for future General Education program, but we're worried that we will not be able to meet that. We are concerned about making that a public statement at this point.
Annette: General Education is at the same place as Majors and Minors. Let's find out where we are now, and then we can set a performance indicator about how much better we want to be. We need to determine the percentage of graduating students who meet the existing general education student outcomes.
Diane: Could you add "that are assessable" to take care of Judy's concern?
Judy: Determine percentage of graduate students meeting the existing assessable General Education student outcomes.
David: What about the 70% in the bottom one?
Judy L: That one we're not as concerned about. That's our target. Eventually we want to get there. We don't want to set the bar too low.
Judy K: What process should we follow to move forward?
Annette: Can we add a draft watermark?
Susan: And date it.
Judy K: I can add a draft watermark, and I'll leave the word draft printed on the document. I'll keep the date, and I'll put approved by Strategic Planning. I can send it off to the bargaining units. Maybe I should have a motion about how this should go up.
Judy K: I think it's a good idea to have it go up in parallel motion for two reasons. First of all, the last full Senate meeting is in two weeks, and it would be good to get it out to senators as fast as possible. Number 2, when I was at NCA last weekend, Roy Saigo sat down with me and said, "So, we're past a deadline." He wants to see them, so it would be nice to send them off in parallel form so that he sees them. I would make it really clear that these are drafts, that they've been approved by Strategic Planning, and that they're going up to Senate and to the administration at the same time.
Brenda: Motion: I Move we send the draft to all the bargaining units and the administration at the same time asking for comments. (Wentworth/Motin)
Relationship of AVP to Strategic Planning Committee
Judy K: I'd like to move on to what I added to the agenda today. And that is considering the role of the champion of strategic planning or whatever he or she should be called in relationship to the Strategic Planning committee. We proposed that we have an Assistant Vice President for Strategic Planning, a fulltime position that reports to the Provost. This person will act as the strategic planning champion for all campus stakeholders. This person will be responsible for the daily implementation of the Strategic Plan, and will serve as non-voting member of university Strategic Planning committee. Is that where we still are? We said at the infrastructure committee meeting with the President and Provost that you can put this position wherever you want to as long as its high visibility. We think this person needs to be hired before the data person. Since this committee was formed by an agreement, we need to know what the Strategic Planning Committee thinks about the relationship between the champion and this committee. Theresia, do you remember how the agreement was formed?
Theresia: It was agreement between President Grube and whoever the FA president was at the time. It may have been Laura Robinson. The agreement led to the formation of this committee. The agreement was that the chair would be a faculty position with 50% reassigned time for the position, so if it's a co-chair situation, we'd want to recommend that to Faculty Senate, because it's an agreement between two parties, the administration and the FA. My concern was that the President would feel side-swiped if the committee says this is a good idea and the Senate says it's not a good idea. Annette has talked with President Saigo, so he knows about the Senate thing, so it's a matter of what you all feel is appropriate.
Judy K: We can make a recommendation and then send it to Senate.
Pat: So this would be a full-time position, and if I'm interpreting this correctly, the person would be responsible for making sure the Strategic Plan is actually being carried out instead of being shelved somewhere? That's always the fear that people have when something like this happens. They want to see that there's an actual outcome action phase to this, and that it enters into decision making.
Judy K: When you think back, strategic planning had been mired for years, and in the last several years, starting when Theresia and Jay Vora co-chaired, we started to see movement. Part of the issue is that all of you folks have full-time jobs. I'm actually the only person getting any reassigned time for doing this.
Judy K: Let me read some of the roles of the strategic planning champion: responsible for day-to-day implementation of the strategic planning and Balance Scorecard processes, including working with departments and units on campus to ensure deadlines and reporting requirements are met; directing campus communication about strategic planning; prioritizing the workload; directing research and surveys required for measurement; coordinating schedules and meetings. The person needs both technical and people skills. While the person in this position does not need to have the direct knowledge of the programs used in this project, here we're talking about technical programs, he or she must have knowledge of how these programs work and what is possible. This position must make sure that early feedback is used and should know how to develop projects using the incremental approach. Other responsibilities are to work with the University Assessment Director, to serve as a non-voting member of the Strategic Planning Committee, to help staff the Strategic Planning Committee, to do national trend analysis in terms of where higher education is going nationally, to do SCSU survey area demographic trend analysis and SCSU trend analysis, peer analysis, report creation for decision making, student learning outcome studies, projections. We're talking about somebody whose job is strategic planning. The question is how much in charge. Do you want this person to sit on this committee ex-officio, which is what we originally proposed? Do you want this person to co-chair with a faculty co-chair? Do you want this person to chair Strategic Planning?
Theresia: I just want to put the history of strategic planning in a way that I think of this. The initial years did not go very far because of the constant change in high-level administration that we had. We now have had some consistency in this administration with Roy and with Michael, so that has helped a great deal. I support this position when we actually go into the implementation of the Balanced Scorecard. We need that position. We need someone who's actually going to oversee the data collection and all that area. I'm torn about the chair or co-chair, probably because I'm chair-elect. All this year I've been viewing everything that's happened in terms of when I take over, so this does send me for a loop. You can imagine a meeting with the President and the Provost where this came up. I didn't say anything. I didn't do anything, and afterwards when I was in my office by myself, I did have a bit of a nervous breakdown. But if it is in the committee's best interest that this person becomes the chair, then we should go for that. You should go for whatever you believe to be in the best interest of the committee.
David: I think we need to explore the advantages and disadvantages of ex-officio vs. co-chair.
Susan: I think our past model has worked. We've found that we need both. We need both administrators and faculty and staff from across the campus on this committee, so if it isn't broken, don't fix it. I don't think it's broken, so I would recommend that we do a co-chair, because I think we need the administration involved and the faculty and staff. We need all of us sitting at the table, so I would make a motion for a co-chair.
Susan: I would like to make a motion that we recommend the strategic planning champion position co-chairs the Strategic Planning Committee with a faculty co-chair, who should continue to have 50% reassigned time. (Motin/DeGroote)
Brenda: Would having an administrator as a co-chair erode the faculty release time to chair the committee, and if this champion were a voting member of the committee, that seems to make more sense to me. It bothers me that the person in charge of this whole thing would not be able to vote. That way the person would be able to have more input and influence on the committee. I don't know about the co-chairing part. That's something that makes me a little uncomfortable.
Theresia: I feel fairly uncomfortable talking about the reassigned time with me here, so how about if I leave and you all can talk about that. I just won't vote on this because of my own interest in this.
Susan: Can we hear one thing from you though? What are your feelings about a co-chair?
Theresia: I co-chaired before. I co-chaired with Jay Vora, but the way we did it was that he did it one semester, and I did it the other. I don't think that same model would work here, because I think we're in a real critical juncture. The co-chairs could work. How it could actually work and how it relates to the reassigned time, I don't know. I just feel uncomfortable because of my own self interest in this.
Judy K: Can you stay for a little bit, and then if we talk about reassigned time you can step out?
Annette: To me, the issue is does this committee work for the person we're going to hire or does the person hired work for the committee. If this person co-chairs the committee and there is no reassigned time for the faculty, then this committee works for that person. If the idea is that this person works for the committee, then we need to make sure the faculty co-chair continues to have the 50% reassigned time. You look at the two ends of what can happen, and you really want to be thinking about this. Is it the Strategic Planning Committee that advises this person, or is it the Strategic Planning Committee that tells this person we want this done.
Phil: This person would influence strategic planning, institutional research, assessment, things like NCA, not just strategic planning. So when you're looking at the different areas that they would champion, I don't see that this person would work for the committee. Plus, I've never seen a model where anyone works for a committee. I would parallel the TLTR group where a faculty co-chairs with an administrator and rotates meetings and what items are brought to the board. I think there's been some success with that. I support the idea of this person being a co-chair. I also think that we'd want to make it very clear that through that commitment, we would expect even closer ties to the budget because of that new avenue being there. To me, the reason TLTRs have administrators on their committees and as a chair or a co-chair is for that direct financial connection. I also think that we need to make it very clear that there would be release time for a faculty member to co-chair. I don't see the workload going down for the chair of this committee, so I would expect to continue with the half workload.
Sara: I'm uncomfortable with the co-chair idea. I would see this person coming in as more a facilitator of this group. As a staff person, I feel that things get pulled out of balance because they're so heavily weighted to the faculty side. I think for the next year, we should have a co-chair for the first year and then transition that person to move into it as a single role.
Judy K: I think one thing that's been really, really difficult this year is that we don't have support. Right now, if we had a co-chair, one advantage would be that that person would have administrative supervision over someone. We could, if we went with the co-chair model, describe what the responsibilities would be. I would think that the faculty responsibility would be to shift some focus onto facilitating more faculty involvement and coordination.
Theresia: I have a comment on the secretarial support. Strategic Planning is under the office of the Provost. Really the responsibility for giving this university committee appropriate secretarial support lies with the Provost's office, whether we have a co-chair or not. Just like when strategic planning was under the administrative VP, it was that office's responsibility to provide the secretarial support. So I think we still have to work that one out if the administration is not hiring someone right away, and we still have the problem of clerical support, then we would have to talk with Michael to see what can be worked out.
Judy J: I'm not sure this position would end up, to be honest, and I'm not sure we would stay under the Provost. Michael has made it clear that he's not comfortable with that. I think it's going to be the decision of the President and the Provost where this position would be housed. I would hope that if they go ahead and hire someone for this position, that person would also have some sort of clerical support. Do you want to vote on this today, or do you want to have some thinking time?
Mark: Before I'd be willing to vote, I need to know more details. Is this really at the assistant VP level?
Judy K: I'm seriously thinking about both this position and the data position. My concern is that we have this agreement. If this person is added, it changes the configuration, and we need to, at some point, weigh in on what the relationship of this person should be to the committee.
Guihua: We recommended the assistant VP title, because we wanted it to be at a high enough level to give it power.
Brenda: I move to table this motion definitely until the next meeting. (Wentworth/Grachek)
Judy K: What information do you want me to find out? I will try to find the original document put together the agreement for the configuration for this committee. I will also forward recommendations from the Infrastructure committee to you folks again. Is there a clear connection between the data needs for the Balanced Scorecard for Strategic Planning and NCA? I did ask Kate Steffens who is co-chair of NCA to attend this meeting at President Saigo's request. We have serious data needs right now that this data person and the AVP for Strategic Planning could help. It's really clear that the faster we have these two positions in place, the better off we'll be on both ends.
Susan: Who writes the job description?
Judy: Someone here would write it. Obviously, the President and the Provost need to make the decision about whether they're going ahead with this, and, if they are, what level it is and what the duties would be. Theresia and I could meet with Roy to talk about where he is.
Addies: Do we have information about what other colleges have done?
Judy K: I talked with one of Kathy's bosses, who is from the Center for Institutional Effectiveness, and he talked about a few models. I encouraged President Saigo to talk with him. Universities tend to either put this position with the provost's office or often it's under the President. A lot of people are using a different title than Strategic Planning, something like Special Assistant to the President for Institutional Effectiveness.
Guihua: Kathy's example was that they have an Assistant Provost for Assessment and Institutional Research.
Phil: I don't believe there is enough tie-in there or relationship to Institutional Research along with NCA and future accreditation-type efforts. I think we should make those clear.
Judy K: In the discussion with Roy and the Provost, they're thinking about some connection that would make clear ties with Institutional Research, assessment, and NCA, so I think they may even be thinking about a unit. That's just what I was hearing. I don't know. The one thing that was really clear in this meeting that we were saying was that we used to have 4.5 institutional research people.
Annette: We didn't have four people who were in an institutional research office. We had four people engaged in this type of work. The point is that we need to have these people together.
Judy K: We don't have the infrastructure, and we need to think about how we want to build the infrastructure, which begins with hiring the champion and the possible hiring of this data person. What is the relationship of those people to one another? What is the relationship of those two people to us? The first piece is what the relationship of that champion to us is. If the President says he wants to go ahead, what's our response? Is there anything else you want me to find out between now and two weeks from now, or is there anything you want me to send you?
Mark: One thing I would like to know is where this position is seated? Is it in the Provost's office, the President's office, or administrative affairs? They're all real possibilities, and they all have different implications.