St. Cloud State University
Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
October 25, 2001, 7:45 a.m. Mississippi Room


Members Present: John Burgeson, Bonnie Hedin, Jeanne Hites, Karen Thoms, and Mary Soroko

Members Absent: Pat Krueger, Glen Palm, John Palmer, Addie Turkowski, Jay Vora, Fred Walker, and Brenda Wentworth

Support Staff: Subimal Chopra and Lucie Schwartzkopf

Guest(s): Bassey Eyo, Lisa Foss, and Steve Ludwig

1. Minutes Approval.

October 11, 2001, minutes were approved with one revision regarding Steve heading up a project to connect the budget to the organization at St. Cloud State University. Steve clarified that this project is being overseen substantially by Diana Burlison and others. Two people from NCHMS are coming to campus for a day to talk with individuals on campus. After these meetings, they will write up a proposal how to link the two, as well as possibly propose changing the organizational structure. The goal is to look at what the budget is really about. John Assmussen was helpful in talking to the Faculty Association budget committee. Steve is trying to create connectedness between the budget and organization and publish an understandable description of how things are spent. This is also an issue Ruth Meyer wants to work through with Renewal for Academic Excellence. In the end, academics is what SCSU is about. Ruth wants to get to some common definitions, and take the strategic plan and look at it more comprehensively across the units in relation to the budget.

2. Renewal Committee.

Academic Affairs has been given the task by President Saigo to link management, etc. The Renewal Committee intends to implement more than what SPL and will focus on the structure of the university. The structure hasn't been re-evaluated for 20 years. The process of where it seems many projects are done on an ad hoc basis is to be examined. The question of how to implement the mission, vision, and core values into the organizational design is an example of this. Other examples include the workings of the chair/dean relationship, and EPT in association with the hiring process. SPL wants to look at those things in the context of SPL's themes and goals. This is a time of flexibility in the university, and hence, an ideal time for this process.

It was suggested it is perhaps time to differentiate strategic planning from the implementation phase of the process.

Steve will be on the Renewal Committee, which will focus on Academic Affairs. Steve conjectures that since administrative affairs provides service to academic affairs, it places the academic vice president as a first among the peers. Turf and what it represents are being discussed. Ruth is bringing it together and chairing it.

Per the request of Faculty Association, Jeanne called for volunteers to participate on a sub-committee. The same letter was also sent to other bargaining units. Nominations for this position will be directed to Ruth Meyer. Bassey Eyo, Jeanne Hites, and Jay Vora volunteered. SPL would like Jay to be a third person so that a different college is represented. Tactics and strategies need to be tied together to accomplish goals. Brenda Wentworth was nominated by Mary Soroko. It was shared that whether on the committee formally or ad hoc, Brenda's perspective will not be discounted.

It was stated that this is a time of transition.

UW Stout has received awards for linking budgets, although they are more vocationally focused.

3. Communication Committee.

The revised mission and vision was handed out. Lisa Foss conveyed 4 meetings were held including community members and web link responses. The sub-committee met and came up with drafts incorporating the feedback. People wanted distinctions made. References to technology were made. Interaction with faculty staff and preparation was what students saw as a strength, so it was incorporated. President's Council reviewed the draft and made no further recommendations. The approval process is to take the draft to Student Government and Faculty Senate. Bassey and Jeanne will take it to Faculty Senate. Once approved by the two bodies, it will be given to the president's office to go to the MnSCU Board of Trustees. Because the MnSCU agenda requires 30 days advance notice it could be 60 days from local approval prior to MnSCU approval.

The implementation of the communication plan should include a reward recognition program and bragging points (almost a marketing campaign) followed by presenting information to other stakeholders. It will need more than a marketing campaign. It will require hiring, student requirements, etc., eventually. Much of these are being addressed now: A budgeting consultant is being brought in, the Renewal for Academic Excellence, etc. The mission, vision and core values can be used as a core to this. The four main goals for the measurement process as described on the hand-out were explained.

It was recommended to share the information with AFSCME. The Foundation Board has seen it. While the contracts do not require the approval of the other groups, enhancing communication would be a reason to share it with other groups. The approval process comes from MnSCU's requirements. After the approval process there will be an educational process to let people see it in a visible way regularly i.e. back of business cards, bottoms of email messages, etc. The next step is to help people incorporate this into more concrete venues. The sub-committee's role is to incorporate and implement these ideas. Ideas were solicited.

It was proposed to add a number 10 to changes in interaction with others to allow the executives to deal with issues of the university rather than social issues. It was suggested not to extract executives from the social issues. What needs to be encouraged are climate, structures, and the need for interactions.

It was suggested to accept the report of the committee while acknowledging things such as the measurement process are in-progress. It must be looked at in relation to the KPI's discussed last year. Any comments should be directed to Lisa Foss.

4. Reviewing Plan: Definition of Strategic vs. Tactical.

Without Jay Vora present, it is difficult to discuss his perspective of SPL which he sent via email to the committee. It was moved and passed to table this agenda item until he is present.

5. Implementation of internal/external environment surveys.

SPL has all but one of the college plans. Once this decision is made, SPL should be able to move forward.

The Noell Levitz bid has been brought to Jeanne. They gather the same information every year in order to plot the changes/trends. Exploring other companies was discussed. Noell Levitz has been doing this for years, has worked with SCSU, and can compare findings nationally. Alternative options were not known by anyone at this time. Two of the three categories they can study are student satisfaction and a profile of an incoming student. What SCSU wants to know should drive what is selected.

It was suggested SCSU is at an implementation/recommendation juncture. Setting a list of recommendations to be passed on to the next phase of the committee was suggested.

Jeanne would like to discuss and prioritize the current 33 recommendations at the next meeting. She thinks asking Faculty Association for input would be a good idea but is concerned about the timeframe.

Planned meeting times

Thursday, November 8, 2001, 7:45 am - 9:00 am, Mississippi
Thursday, December 6, 2001, 7:45 am - 9:00 am, Mississippi
Thursday, January 17, 2002, 7:45 am - 9:00 am, Mississippi
Thursday, January 31, 2002, 7:45 am - 9:00 am, Mississippi
Thursday, February 7, 2002, 7:45 am - 9:00 am, Mississippi
Thursday, February 21, 2002, 7:45 am - 9:00 am, Mississippi
Thursday, March 7, 2002, 7:45 am - 9:00 am, Mississippi
Thursday, March 21, 2002, 7:45 am - 9:00 am, Mississippi
Thursday, April 4, 2002, 7:45 am - 9:00 am, Mississippi
Thursday, April 18, 2002, 7:45 am - 9:00 am, Mississippi
Thursday, May 2, 2002, 7:45 am - 9:00 am, Mississippi