St. Cloud State University
Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
November 1, 2002, 2:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Atwood Center

(Minutes approved by Strategic Planning Committee 11/15/02)
Download minutes [PDF: 4 pages]

Members Present: Theresia Fisher, Edward Addo, Diana Burlison, Lisa Foss, Bonnie Hedin, Steve Klepetar, Pat Krueger, Andy Larkin, Susan Motin, Joe Opatz, Glen Palm, John Palmer, Chad Sivertson, Karen Thoms, Brenda Wentworth

Members Absent: John Burgeson, Judith Kilborn, Guihua Li, Ali Malekzadeh, Mary Soroko, Addie Turkowski

Support Staff: Jackie Zieglmeier

Approval of October 18, 2002 Minutes:
Motion: Motion (Larkin, Klepetar) to approve minutes of October 18, 2002. Passed.


Update: SPC Website:
Lisa Foss and Theresia Fisher met with Sara Grachek, webmaster, to review the Strategic Planning website page-by-page. Old information will be archived. The website will be restructured and reorganized with new information to communicate to the campus community. It is currently under construction. Strategic Planning Committee membership, meeting minutes, priority strategic goals and SCSU’s newly approved mission and vision statement will be posted on the website. Committee members should channel additional information to be placed on the website through Theresia or Lisa.

Update: Central Minnesota Community Service Plan:
Lisa Foss reported that at the last meeting of the President’s Advisory Council, the group referenced the Central Minnesota Community Service Plan. The President’s Advisory Council identified three areas of focus for collaboration between the university and community:

  • Mobilization of volunteers
  • Funding requests (specifically looking at collaboration when funding is sought—legislative and grants)
  • Retention of graduates and economic development (this is the area the council is most interested in – how to grow area industry and retain graduates)

The specific question of what it will take to achieve mobilization of volunteers will be the topic of the next council meeting. The President’s Advisory Council meets quarterly. The council’s recommendations will be brought to the Strategic Planning Committee for its consideration as we build the strategic plan to make sure that what the President’s Advisory Council is looking at doing will fit with the priorities of the university.

Someone asked the question of who is developing the Central Minnesota Community Service Plan. Lisa responded that there is no plan at this time but that it will be a part of the strategic plan. The President’s Community Advisory Council wants to partner with the Strategic Planning Committee to develop the plan.

Update: Subcommittee on College Forums:
Members of the subcommittee met after the last SPC meeting and put together the handout in today’s packet – Strategic Goals for 2002-2005. The subcommittee sees this handout as the basis of presentations to college forums. It is a subset of the Priority Strategic Goals (approved by the SPC May 2, 2002). The subcommittee decided to have an overriding strategic priority that would tie all of the items together: St. Cloud State University will establish enrollment goals, which match capacity and resources.

A prolonged discussion on process followed. The three documents in the packet for today’s meeting and their relationship to each other were identified:

  • Priority Strategic Goals – reflects the last piece of work by the previous SPC. Approved by that committee 5/2/02.
    (has not been previously published; discussion and agreement at the 10/18/02 SPC that this set of goals would be consistently formatted, have minor language changes and then would be placed in the SP website.)
  • Modified Strategic Plan – the work of one committee member, John Burgeson, to reduce the previous lengthy strategic plan to something more manageable— placing data collection, assessment, timelines, scans and KPIs into indexes)
  • Strategic Goals for 2002-2005 – created from the motion that a subcommittee would come up with a subset of priority strategic goals to begin discussion in the colleges.

Motion: Moved (Larkin, Klepetar) to approve the Strategic Goals for 2002-2005.
Friendly amendment (Sivertson, Hedin) that the goals under Academic Distinction address the retention of diverse students. (i.e II 2. to read: The University will seek to increase the percentage of diverse students (domestic and international) enrolled and retained by 1% per year)
Friendly amendment (Larkin, Klepetar) that % increases in the document be removed.

Discussion continued about perceived substantive differences between the Strategic Goals 2002-2005 document and the Priority Strategic Goals document.

  • It was stated that at least there should be an explanation as to why the differences. The answer was that all of the Priority Strategic Goals could not be discussed at once.
  • The statements under Diversity II 14. and Academic Distinction II.2. are similar goals, yet different.
  • Question asked as to how some goals would be measured.
  • Stated again that the Priority Strategic Goals serve as a basis for the Strategic Goals 2002-2005 to be used in the college forums.
  • Noted that to use consistent lettering between the two documents would help clarify connections.
  • It was proposed that the large strategic plan (when all formatting is complete) be sent to each college and each bargaining unit.
  • The question was asked as to where the numbers come from for goals listed in the Strategic Goals 2002-2005. The answer was the numbers are basically stabs in the dark but are the kinds of things the Admissions Office routinely deals with. However, improving retention by 5% came from the NCHEMS assessment.
  • Concern expressed if we accept the numbers because they are printed in ink, what happens if SCSU doesn’t meet those goals?
  • Noted that it might be helpful to alleviate concerns by putting (where possible) a source to the numbers in the goals.
  • Question asked: Does approving a document that has an organizational structure to it, change the organizational order of the strategic plan—how it is organized or even its content?
  • A point of order was called: divide the organizational structure from the content of the documents.
  • Fisher ruled that the Strategic Goals for 2002-2005 as recommended by the subcommittee are in order and not two separate issues.
  • It was asked that the content be debated.
  • It was noted that NCHEMS recommended that percentages not be identified but simply say enrollment goals will increase.

Motion: Moved (Addo, Foss) that approval of Strategic Goals for 2002-2005 be postponed indefinitely or until the next SPC meeting so that the relationship between the documents can be studied. Motion failed.

  • A committee member spoke against postponement. At a previous SPC meeting a sub-committee was formed to prepare a document that would be the basis for discussion in the college forums. Clearly the goals have been taken from the previous Priority Strategic Goals. The questions are: Are they a selection? Are they the goals to discuss? The subcommittee was acting as a committee of the whole.
  • Concern was expressed that there is no message to departments or colleges regarding action they should be engaging in other than E,G. & H – retention and student profile of incoming students.
  • Statement made that these are merely priorities set with more attention placed on retention and not no attention placed on the items not identified in the Strategic Goals for 2002-2005.
  • It was questioned how the parking item was included in the Strategic Goals for 2002-2005. The response was that again and again people feel they can’t find a place to park when the come to campus. It was agreed that parking was not in the Priority Strategic Goals and should not be included in the Strategic Goals for 2002-2005.

Motion: Moved (Larkin, Wentworth) to close debate and call the question. Motion passed.

The previous motion was re-read.

Moved (Larkin, Klepetar) to approve the Strategic Goals for 2002-2005.
Friendly amendment (Sivertson, Hedin) that the goals under Academic Distinction address the retention of diverse students. (i.e II 2. to read: The University will seek to increase the percentage of diverse students (domestic and international) enrolled and retained by 1% per year)
Friendly amendment (Larkin, Klepetar) that % increases in the document be removed.
Motion passed.

Theresia thanked the chair of the subcommittee and stated that it is important to carry on discussion.

Update: SPC e-mails:
Theresia is close to sending out emails. She asked that the committee discuss 3A under New Business (NCHEMS visit) before discussion on this item is finished.

Update: FY02 SPC Meeting Synopsis:
Theresia told the committee that she forwarded the FYO2 SPC Synopsis statements to Jeanne Hites. Jeanne did not write the synopsis, but would be willing to write one if the SPC would like. A decision was made to let it go for the time being.


NCHEMS 10/28 Visit – Linking Strategic Planning and Budgeting:
a. University Council - Theresia told the committee that it was beneficial for her orientation to attend NCHEMS presentation to the University Council (President’s Council with presidents of different bargaining units and co-chairs of SPC). The presentation centered on strategic planning and enrollment management. Theresia also attended the NCHEMS session with the SPC.

b. Strategic Plan – KPIs – University Culture – NCHEMS stated that the strategic plan is linked to the budget by the KPIs. The 168 KPIs developed last year is an unmanageable number. 30-40 would be a better number to work with. SCSU needs to begin the discussion of KPIs and strategic planning. Theresia envisioned the SPC making a KPIs recommendation to the Provost in the spring. She asked Diana when the budget is known. Diana replied that it is contingent when SCSU knows what its allocation will be. That fluctuates over the biennium. Decisions on staffing for next year are already being made. Theresia said that NCHEMS asked for SCSU’s strategic plan. Currently, we have the reduced strategic plan that John Burgeson developed, but it is not up-to-date. Mission and vision statements were just approved by the MnSCU Board last month. We are currently updating the strategic planning website.

We are working to get the broadest discussion possible. Do we publish on the website the KPIs from the old document or does the SPC process the KPIs ourselves—eliminating those that are outdated, vague or extremely costly and not measurable—to come up with a smaller number for good discussion? What behaviors do we want to measure? How do we measure them?

Action: For the next SPC meeting, focus discussion on KPIs for academic distinction.

Noted that discussion of KPIs should not occur just within the SPC but there should be university conversations. Departments and divisions need to apply the principles of strategic planning to their planning processes. Another view expressed was that there should not be KPIs associated with the strategic plan until discussions take place with the university community.

Updated Strategic Plan:
Brief discussion of the history of the strategic plan. This plan was originally drafted by the SPC working with Sid Parham and initially published 9/4/01. It was online and then pulled because it was in the process of being rewritten. The plan was discussed much of last year and rewritten/updated/condensed by Jeanne Hites and Steve Ludwig earlier this fall. That plan was then just recently condensed again and reorganized (much of the material placed in appendices) by John Burgeson on behalf of the current SPC.

Discussion followed as to what to do with the DRAFT strategic plan. Comments included:

  • Do nothing with it but keep it for reference
  • It is generic and universally true – there is no reason to change it
  • Is it worthwhile to formally adopt it as the strategic plan?

Action: Theresia – Make the following modifications to the draft strategic plan (44 page document):

  • Make the section on priority strategic goals conform to the 5/2/02 copy of the priority strategic goals.
  • Update the mission and vision statements
  • Remove outdated material
  • Noted that Diversity is used in the Priority Strategic Goals while the draft strategic plan uses the terms "Cultural Diversity and Social Justice."

c. Retention (Enrollment Management/Email Discussion - The enrollment target for new freshmen is 2400 again. The question is what are we going to be doing differently so that students have classes? Theresia has a meeting scheduled with Michael Spitzer and Debbie Tamte-Horan.

It was initially suggested that the SPC email discussion be summarized for the SPC and recommendations sent to the Enrollment Management Committee. It was then decided that there was no need for duplication – many of the comments were voiced at the NCHEMS meeting with the Enrollment Management Committee.

d. Data versus Information -
NCHEMS suggested that there is much data available but not in the readily useable form of information. The Student Survey of Engagement should probably not be posted on the web because it would flood the university with data and not information. It would be better to give the processed summary of the survey with access to the raw data if people want to review it.

Updated Priority Strategic Goals for Website:

Motion: Moved (Palmer, Krueger) to approve Priority Strategic Goals for posting on website.

Communications to the University:

Motion: Moved (Kruger, Sivertson) to expand discussion of strategic planning beyond the college forums to bargaining units and student government to a series of town halls to include all sectors of the university.Passed.

Central Minnesota Community Service Plan:
A subcommittee was suggested to come up with a rough draft of a Central Minnesota Community Service Plan. Volunteers for subcommittee: John Palmer, Lisa Foss, and Edward Addo. Lisa suggested that Bernie Omann also be included in the subcommittee by virtue of his responsibilities at the university. Lisa will convene the meeting.

Motion: Moved (Thoms, Palmer) that a subcommittee on Central Minnesota Community Service Plan be established. Passed.

Meeting adjourned.