St. Cloud State University
Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
February 7, 2003, 2:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Atwood Center

Download minutes [PDF:3 pages]

Members Present: Edward Addo, Diana Burlison, Theresia Fisher, Lisa Foss, Sara Grachek, Bonnie Hedin, Judith Kilborn, Steve Klepetar, Pat Krueger, Ali Malekzadeh, Susan Motin, Glen Palm, John Palmer, Mary Soroko, Chad Sivertson, Karen Thoms, Phil Thorson, Jay Vora, Brenda Wentworth

Members Absent: John Burgeson, Andy Larkin, Joe Opatz, Glen Palm, Debbie Tamte-Horan, Addie Turkowski

Support Staff: Jackie Zieglmeier

Approval of January 24, 2003 Minutes:

Motion: Moved (Kilborn, Addo) to approve minutes of January 24, 2003. Motion passed.


Update: Central Minnesota Community Service Plan Committee (handout):
The strategic planning subcommittee on University Community Relations met Thursday, January 30, at 10:00 am in AS-201. There was a good response to the call for additional members. The sub-committee talked about clarifying definitions. How will community be defined? What is the audience? They talked about possible use of the Anderson Center as an incubator for business Should partnerships be discussed with St. Cloud Tech, St. Ben’s and St. John’s? The sub-committee meets the first and third Friday of the month. The next meeting is Feb. 21 at 10:00 am in AS-201. New volunteers to the sub-committee are welcome. The 12-member Central Minnesota Community Service Plan Committee will meet with President Saigo in March. It has defined economic development, graduate retention and volunteers as areas of focus.

Update: Diversity and Social Justice Strategic Goal – Awaiting Response from Committee on Diversity Education and Independent Review Committee:
The Committee on Diversity Education is working on formulating a recommendation. A mid-February response is anticipated. The Independent Review Committee is still reading reports. They have yet to receive the Rankin report. A request from Strategic Planning has not yet been made to this committee.

Update: Strategic Planning Committee Charge:
The previous charge to the Strategic Planning Committee is in need of modification. Theresia Fisher was to provide a rough draft to share with the committee. Theresia asked for volunteers from the committee to assist her. Jay Vora volunteered.

Decisions on Suggestions Made at the Last Meeting:

Motion: Moved (Palmer, Kilborn) that a sub-committee of Sara Grachek, Mary Soroko and Lisa Foss prepare a report of the strategic planning process thus far. Motion passed.

Motion: Moved (Motin, Wentworth) that notes from the forums be posted as is to the strategic planning website.
Discussion: The edited notes from the sub-committees would be easier to follow. Motion defeated.

Motion: Moved (Klepetar, Malekzadeh) to place on the strategic planning website a description of the comments made by various strategic planning subcommittees dealing with the five strategic based on forums to date. Motion passed.

Motion: Moved (Motin, Wentworth) to place PowerPoint presentation on website as is with a note to contact college strategic planning representatives if there are questions. Motion passed.


Report from Student Government Discussion during the Strategic Planning Forum:
Chad Sivertson and Theresia Fisher reported on the strategic planning forum for Student Government two Thursdays ago. The students expressed no confidence in the strategic planning process. They stated there is no action plan so the process is not doing its job. Student Government advises that Chad withdraw from the Strategic Planning Committee. Student Government tabled discussion until the next meeting. Chad said that Student Government suggested that a Student Government sub-committee go through the priority goals and that the Student Government Budget Committee also review the priority goals. Student Government asked if the Institutional Work Plan directs the Strategic Plan. The SPC responded to Chad that it does not—they are too separate documents. The SPC suggested that Chad explain that the strategic plan is an evolving document and the SPC is still in the process of developing the plan. Chad identified other concerns of Student Government:

  • Brett Sween, Student Government President, served on a previous SPC and found the experience frustrating.
  • Student Government wants the SPC to be a decision-making body (It is advisory to the Provost and President).
  • Student Government believes it is fiscally irresponsible not to be taking action.
  • Student Government is concerned about selective admission.
  • There needs to be an action plan to the strategic plan.
  • It seems like we are already doing many of the points listed under the Academic Distinction priority goal..

At this point, some SPC members said that the students’ concerns were echoing what they heard in the college forums:

  • How is the strategic plan different than what we are doing now?
  • Is the strategic plan written to keep us where we are today or to move us to where we want to be 5 years from now?
  • With the budget crisis, can SCSU maintain what it has now?

Further Discussion: Priority Strategic Goal: Academic Distinction and Related KPIs:
The sub-committee reported that it was still working on the goals and would like to wait until the goals are finished to have a discussion of the KPIs. Jay Vora said he believed the two processes were parallel. The sub-committee stated that they felt they needed to keep the SPC’s promise to the university community that their feedback would be considered in changing the goals.

Budget Situation:
Discussion moved to the budget situation. The SPC believes that there will be fundamental changes to SCSU. The SPC needs to consider the reality of those changes as they develop KPIs.

The committee would like to discuss this with NCHEMS. A $21 million cut to SCSU will be devastating.

The SPC would like to be able to empower the administration to say that this is not the picture we want for SCSU three years from now. Minnesota prides itself on having an educated workforce yet more and more budget cuts are directed at public higher education and its students. The Minnesota Private College Council urged lawmakers to fully fund the dwindling state grants program. The so-called “high tuition, high financial aid” plan is controversial among public school officials who say it would make post-secondary education less affordable for many Minnesotans. Some feel that shifting funding to financial aid would add insult to public colleges and universities already hurting from budget cuts.

A motion to have the SPC speak out against the budget decisions being made by state government would help student confidence in SCSU. Such a motion could be used by the students attending lobby day.

Suggestions for disseminating the motion included: scsu-announce and scsu-discuss, University Chronicle, Current News on SCSU website, a leak to the St. Cloud Times.

Diana Burlison told the SPC that there will be an open budget meeting on Friday, February 14 from 2-4 pm. This would be a good opportunity for the SPC to speak.

Motion: Moved (Klepetar/Siverston) The SCSU Strategic Planning Committee, a cross-section of the university community, wishes to express its dismay over the disproportionate share of budget cuts to public higher education. This is a serious breach of responsibility to the young people of Minnesota and constitutes a failure on the part of state leadership to serve as stewards of state resources. Motion passed unanimously.

Motion: Moved (Motin, Thoms) That Jay Vora and Theresia Fisher (Co-Chairs of the Strategic Planning Committee), put the previous motion that passed unanimously out on scsu-announce and scsu-discuss as soon as possible having first informed Provost Spitzer and President Saigo.


  • After consultation with Theresia Fisher, Jay Vora voiced their discomfort over the current motion because the SPC is an advisory body and this motion exceeds the charge to the SPC.
  • A committee member stated that the SPC is charged with planning and therefore needs to make this statement.
  • Another committee member stated that SPC members are representatives of their constituents; the motion should be taken to constituents and have them do with it what they want.
  • Jay countered that it is appropriate for the motion to be reflected in the SPC minutes and for the motion to be taken to the Provost. As chair, he could make an executive decision to defunct the previous motion. Jay explained that he could be overruled by the SPC, but it would take a 2/3rds vote.

Motion removed.

Substitute Motion: Moved (Kilborn, Krueger) That Jay Vora and Theresia Fisher (Co-Chairs of the Strategic Planning Committee), advise the Provost of the motion and the discussion of how to communicate to the SCSU community and larger Minnesota community. The committee will endorse however the Provost wishes to proceed. Motion passed.

Brief Discussion on the Kind of KPIs the SPC Would Like to Develop:

  • Measure learner outcomes (assessment)
  • Qualitative, not just quantitative
  • Would come from departments
  • Don’t see student outcomes/assessment in the NCHEMS’ KPI’s examples
  • Might want to look at general ed. requirements (for example: all program have writing standards)

Reminder: Strategic Planning Committee meets with NCHEMS from 3:00 to 4:30 on Wednesday, February 12 in the Glacier, Atwood.

For the next SPC meeting, February 21: Academic Distinction Sub-Committee will be ready with finished goals.

Meeting adjourned.