St. Cloud State University
Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
October 18, 2002, 2:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Atwood Center

(Minutes approved by Strategic Planning Committee 11/1/02)
Download minutes [PDF: 3 pages]

Members Present: Theresia Fisher, Edward Addo, John Burgeson, Diana Burlison, Bonnie Hedin, Jay Vora, Judith Kilborn, Steve Klepetar, Guihua Li, Ali Malekzadeh, Susan Motin, Karen Thoms, Brenda Wentworth

Members Absent: Bassey Eyo, Lisa Foss, Pat Krueger, Andy Larkin, Joe Opatz, Glen Palm, John Palmer, Chad Sivertson, Mary Soroko, Addie Turkowski

Support Staff: Jackie Zieglmeier

Approval of October 4, 2002 Minutes:
Motion: Motion (Klepetar, Burgeson) to approve minutes as corrected. Passed.


FY 02 SPC Synopsis Statement:
Theresia Fisher said she contacted Jeanne Hites to determine the origin of the FYO2 SPC Synopsis Statement. Jeanne was not aware of the statement.

Action: Theresia will fax the FY02 SPC Synopsis Statement to Jeanne as a follow-up.

SPC Website:
Committee members noted that no changes have been made on the Strategic Planning website.

Action: Theresia will try to get new membership and basic new information on website.

Communications Plan:
Tabled until next meeting because Lisa Foss was not in attendance.

Subcomitttee on College Forums:

Action: Ali Malekzadeh will convene subcommittee and give a report at the November 1 meeting.

SPC e-mails:

Action: Theresia Fisher will draft and send out.


Meeting with Provost Concerning SPC Charges and Strategic Theme Versions:
Theresia Fisher reported that none of the three previous charges to the Strategic Planning Committee were quite what the Provost has in mind. Provost Spitzer said that he would be glad to draft a charge for the committee’s consideration but did not know when he would have time to prepare a charge.

Action: Theresia Fisher will draft a statement (based on her conversations with the Provost) for his review. Theresia mentioned specifically the Provost’s comments about the SPC taking a much more active role in retention but the committee would not be responsible for directly addressing the issues of retention.

Provost Spitzer will look at the strategic theme versions and get back to the committee. Because of his heavy workload, that may be some time. It is not clear that the differences are significant. Past committee members remember e-mail voting on the 4/30/02 version. During the course of the meeting today, two different versions dated 4/30/02 emerged.

Action: Theresia Fisher will confirm with Jeanne Hites which copy was agreed upon last year and the date of that
agreement. This will be the version the committee will use.

Motion from Previous Meeting -- Take goals statements to Senate:
Committee members questioned the timing of this. Should discussion take place first in the colleges and other units?

NCHEMS Meeting – October 28:
NCHEMS will be on campus October 28 and will meet with the SPC co-chairs from 3:00 – 4:00 pm . Theresia invited SPC members to join that meeting. Location is undetermined at this time.

Action: If committee members are interested in attending meeting, e-mail Jackie.

Relationship of Provost and President to Strategic Planning Committee:
Theresia Fisher read a memo from the President dated 10/8/2002 to co-chairs Fisher and Vora:

I have delegated the responsibility of strategic planning to Provost Michael Spitzer. The recommendations of the Strategic Planning Committee should be routed to me through Dr. Spitzer.

SCSU Workplan & Strategic Plan:
Discussion points included:

  • The Strategic Plan should be an evolving, dynamic document that is mapped to the budget and related to the institutional work plan.
  • The SPC should make recommendations for the work plan. (It was pointed out that the Chancellor has approved the current work plan and is the plan directing current activities. The SPC might make recommendations for next year’s work plan.)
  • Suggested that the SPC get the strategic plan as current as possible, do an analysis of the work plan, and come up with recommendations as to how the work plan coincides with the strategic plan.
  • Counter suggestion made that the strategic plan not be rewritten, but that the committee work with the 4/30/02 Priority Goals and project them out for the next 3-5 years and that would become the strategic plan. Many of those items are givens and there is universal agreement. Discussion can take place as to what SCSU is doing. The process would include setting priorities to work on for the next 3-5 years – example: Retention increased by ___%. There should be achievable goals. The SPC should be an oversight committee making recommendations to the Provost.
  • There seems to be a consensus to move forward on the strategic goals.
  • Provost Spitzer has already asked colleges to tell him how college goals fit into the work plan.
  • Beyond discussion of goals in the college forums, a corrected (fixing typos and formatting) copy of the 4/30/02 Strategic Goals should be on the web and possibly the list serve. There needs to be consistency in the document – why are KPIs under one goal only? (Again, need to determine which version of the 4/30/02 has been approved.)
  • In college forums, there should be less discussion of the KPIs (colleges will develop their own measurements) and more discussion of goals and rationale.
  • Committee members expressed discomfort with not having a strategic plan.
  • Current strategic plan is obsolete.

Motion: Moved (Kilborn, Klepetar) that the subcommittee on college forums extract a portion of the priority strategic goals for discussion and bring recommendations to the SPC. Passed.

Action: Ali -- call subcommittee together

Action: Theresia – forward copies of latest draft of strategic goals to subcommittee.
Post same subset on the web.

Motion: Moved (Motin, Klepetar) that the current strategic plan be reviewed by a subcommittee, revised, brought to the SPC for feedback and then distributed (posted on the web). Motion failed. (Committee members expressed that they are too booked to handle this task.)

  • Again, stated that a 3-5 year plan is needed. Plan should have signed and dated approval of the President/Provost.
  • Stated that the strategic plan be brief – 10 pages or less. If the current strategic plan cannot be reduced to 10 pages (not counting appendices) consider taking the strategic priority goals and expand them to make the strategic plan.

Motion: Moved (Klepetar, Wentworth) that John Burgeson take the 43 page strategic planning document and further modify it by extracting components and placing them in relevant appendices and make other modifications as deemed appropriate and then submit that draft to the SPC for discussion. Motion passed. (Note: to be accomplished by next meeting. John to e-mail draft to committee members. )

Motion: Moved (Malekzadeh, Motin) that the SPC approve a procedure for revision of the strategic plan in the next 3-5 years. Committee will approve a template with special attention to inclusion of name and date of those persons who have approved the plan.

  • Concern expressed that there needs to be a way to measure programs which do not have accreditation review or licensure exams. What is missing is an assessment/measure that everyone can use to determine the quality of programs.
  • Questioned whether there should be a subcommittee to review the work plan to see how it relates to the strategic planning document and come back to the SPC with preliminary recommendations to be discussed.
  • Further question about what process would be used. There is not the same language in the two documents. For example: assessment –in one document it is broadly defined; in the other the language is more finite. Are the two documents compatible? Why do this? Work plan is already approved by the Chancellor and is being implemented.
    It would be appropriate to comment on the next draft work plan.
  • Maybe it is appropriate to take a look at the priority goals and the work plan to get feedback from the people in the trenches.
  • To review and analyze the work plan may be spreading the SPC too thin. SPC should look at who we are and who we want to be. Is the work plan taking us in the direction we want to go? Is it in line with the strategic themes?
  • The work plan is a “top down” document. We may simply need to know that it is there – it is an umbrella document.

Motion: Moved (Malekzadeh, Addo) that a subcommittee of the SPC look at Priority Strategic Goals and the work plan to come up with items to be discussed with sectors of the university and possible recommendations. Motion passed.

SPC Meetings – Spring Semester:
The SPC will meet Fridays from 2-4 pm Spring Semester.

Action: Jackie – book room.

Chair of Enrollment Management to Join SPC:
Motion: Moved (Thoms, Hedin) that the chair of Enrollment Management be invited to join the Strategic Planning Committee. Motion passed.

University Council:
Motion: Moved (Li, Klepetar) that Theresia Fisher attend the October 28th meeting of University Council and report back to the SPC the charge of the University Council. Motion passed.

"Madison Initiative" – Chronicle of Higher Education Article:
Brief discussion of the article provided by Ali Malekzadeh.

Meeting adjourned.