Skip global navigation
St. Cloud State University

St. Cloud State University

SCSU Task Force on Restructuring
Home
Documents and Reports
Peer Institutions
Restructuring Recommendations
Presenter Responses
Minutes
Your Suggestions
Committee Members

Restructuring Task Force Meeting Notes - Oct. 31, 2003

Present:        Murphy, Bayerl, Kang, Dobey, Hansen, Starks-Martin, Rundquist, Nunes, Larkin, Spaude, Cogdill, SubbaNarasimha

Absent:         Lawrence

Discussion :

Discussed providing Provost Spitzer and President Saigo a chance to speak at a meeting. 
Some opposed, saying the task force needs to remain open and not influenced by their opinions.  Some suggested the committee needs to be open and should invite them; they might have important perceptions.  We will ask Spitzer and Saigo whether they think it would be a good idea to address the committee.

Nathan Church presented :

Nathan Church handed out materials (recommendations, NSSE summary data, NSSE College Guide).  He indicated that the structure currently is so open and loose that a free agency environment is allowed-does have some positive outcomes in that it allows for independent activities in a fluid environment.  Is this the best environment for students who have very specific academic support needs?

Referred to the NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) report.  NSSE indicates that SCSU is not good in terms of engagement of students.  Indicated agencies are looking at the results of the report and using it in college rankings.  Distributed their guide and checklist that NSSE promotes for use with college bound students and their parents.  Results from the survey indicate how students experience SCSU.  Addressed the issue of what kind of structure is best suited for success for our students.  Critically important to define who we are and to anticipate the students that actually come here.  Teach to the students who actually come, not those you wish had come.

Recommendation 1:  some kind of structure that would anticipate first and second year students with no major.  General college or something for someone without a major.

Recommendation 2:  creating a specific academic home for first year experience.  Comprehensive home.  Our students need this the most.

Recommendation 3:  Academic home for academic support services where there is accountability.  There is no comprehensive tutoring program on campus though the need is great.  Need a coordinated council for second floor of Centennial Hall - what has been referred to as a "Student Success Center."

Recommendation 4:  Develop a student retention council made up of representatives from academic and student affairs to monitor and to improve our student retention efforts. 

Do you believe the problem to be one of majors vs. general eds.?
Church:  Problems exist across the curriculum for students creating a need for better advising - better connection for first two years is the most critical however- also, it is easier to define our first steps here and then to address other issues for majors later.

Wayne Wells presented :

  • Planned restructure doesn't apply much to COB.
  • Overall structure pretty solid.
  • Provost model is correct.
  • Problems outside of business area with other offices like HR, Business Office, etc.
  • Felt super mega-college idea not a good idea unless it helps a lot of general eds.  Doesn't really save money.
  • Any problems will be referred to academic support services when appropriate.  Likes the WritePlace, they utilize it.
  • Discussed their advising center within the College of Business.  It works well for business students.  It was set up in house in 1988 or 1989 with 1 MSUAASF and 1 grad student 7 years ago-now have 3 full time MSUAASF people, a graduate student and some undergraduate students.  All pre business students go through here and once in a major have a faculty adviser. 
  • He felt that since they only have a few general ed courses that they were really not affected by a general college.
  • Problems are with organizational structure, not with fully implementing the Provost model.  It is developing.
  • Agreed that the VP's supervisor should be the Provost.

Question on Entrepreneurial Center-Wells indicated that it was not set up well-not set up by SCSU.

Discussion :

  • What is the general ed committee purpose?  There is a difference between gen ed and core.  Discussion on CORE courses and general ed differences and problems. 
  • Suggestion for general ed committee to react to the general college concept. 
  • Resource issue - not solved by structure.
  • There is a serious underfunding issue, and this committee cannot directly address this issue.
  • Back to initial discussion on inviting Spitzer and Saigo to meeting.
  • We need open communication within the university and community.
  • Perhaps the committee should provide an opportunity for feedback from the Provost and President.  As we move into the deliberation process, we will invite them and see whether they wish to come to the committee.
  • Provost Spitzer was asked about the Gosh and Mortimer report.  They stand behind their recommendations, but the combined college was intended as a point of departure that would stimulate other thoughts.

Meeting note correction - Loncorich wants to be aligned with the business office, not records & registration.