St. Cloud State University
Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
April 30, 2004

Download minutes [PDF: 6 pages]

Members Present:John Burgeson, Diana Burlison, Debra Carlson, David DeGroote, Lisa Foss, Sara Grachek, Judith Kilborn, Balsy Kasi, Steve Klepetar, Pat Krueger, Susan Motin, John Palmer, Mahmoud Saffari, David Sikes, Mary Soroko, Phil Thorson, Addie Turkowski, and Brenda Wentworth

Members Absent: Edward Addo, Theresia Fisher, Bonnie Hedin, Kvame Johnson, Guihua Li, and Karen Thoms

Approval of April 16, 2004, Minutes:

Minutes of April 16, 2004, be approved (John/David, MSP)


  • Next year, Strategic Planning will meet on Thursdays from 10:00 a.m. – noon beginning the second week of classes.
  • Judy said the campus preliminary survey results are out but not fully analyzed. She will work with Steve Frank on interpretations of the responses. There were not enough responses to be a good scientific example although the information is available on the Campus Conversation web site for consideration.
  • Sara shared that Academic Distinction and Community Relations are on the web in pdf format. The approval date signifies which ones are on the web. KPI’s will be up on the web almost immediately. Assuming that the KPI’s are approved today, Judy will email faculty directions how to obtain the KPI’s with encouragement to read them before Tuesday’s Faculty senate meeting. A note will also be sent to other bargaining units although their approval is not required before sending them to Provost Spitzer or President Saigo. In order to minimize the risk of blind siding people, Judy encouraged the committee to discuss the KPI’s with faculty and explain that a vote is sought on May 4 th. Messages on announce and discuss will also be sent.
  • Brenda expressed fear that because no standards were set, an administrator, MnSCU, or the state legislature would because that is what has happened in other states.
  • Judy inserted that some standards have been set. She also added that Spitzer has stated that those baselines and targets that SPC could not set could be established in the fall by the responsible units. If faculty is not involved in setting baselines and guidelines for Academic Distinction, it will be a problem since those involve assessment of student learning and of programs that faculty offer. She believes this committee needs to work next year on buy-in from the campus community as the KPIs move into the units and departments.
  • Judy expressed that at the FA M&C yesterday, Provost Spitzer had asked FA if they would respond to the NSSE report and make recommendations about what NSSE questions SCSU should focus on. Speaking as a senator, she said it had not been clear what was supposed to be done in Senate but that it became clear during the M&C. Administration wants to know which NSSE items to focus on. Since SPC has NSSE listed under data point in some of the KPIs, she agreed at M&C that SPC could recommend NSSE items to focus on. If there is time, Judy would like to check if all items have been included that SPC would like included. No responses received to her query if there are any questions about that request.
  • Judy announced that she had a request from President Saigo to go with him, Diana Burlison, and Theresia Fisher to Rochester, MN, to see software for inputting data to link KPI’s and budget. She agreed to go and a tentative date is set.

Call for new agenda items:

  • Judy asked for any corrections to the minutes from the last meeting.
  • Judy shared Annette Schoenberger will join SPC next year as new FA President and will verify the new meeting time to ensure that it fits in her schedule next year.

Discussion and approval of KPI’s that have not been approved via email:

-Service Community

  • Judy asked anyone from Service Community to speak on the changes that are in the full packet of information located in the room and were sent in an email as an attachment.
  • Mahmoud expressed that in regard to A.1., the wording was changed. One-half a percent annually is reasonable, doable, and easy to measure. Responsible parties were expanded and the time line was changed.
  • Judy asked if this should be looked at every year as well as five-year trends. Several agreed.
  • Steve noted that since it will be done anyway, it may as well be identified as something to be done.
  • John B asked what would be done in five years.
  • Judy explained it would be reevaluated and redone. The results will be used to focus on graduation rates. The destination will be determined by tracking what is being tracked.
  • Judy brought up the grammar issue of consistency. It was decided that a hyphen will be consistently added to “4-year”.
  • Judy initiated discussion on KPI B1.
  • Mahmoud shared that surveys to assess student satisfaction in different areas has been approved, an agreement of when they will be implemented has been reached, and funding is available. The subcommittee met and is comfortable that gathering data will be initiated.
  • Steve shared no numbers are built into it, but can be added as they come in.
  • Mahmoud explained they are new surveys, so years cannot be compared.
  • Steve added that NSSE will be included as well.
  • Lisa asked if SCSU should look at some of the NSSE data since it is available. It would show SCSU has a baseline which would help alleviate Brenda’s concern.

Motion to incorporate the NSSE data into the KPI’s. (Steve/Susan) Motion passed.

  • Diana asked what the ACT student survey is.
  • Mahmoud explained the ACT is a student opinion survey. Both surveys were discussed as options. One is ACT and the other is Noel Levitz. They are designed to measure academic and non academic student satisfaction. They are both highly used nationally. ACT allows 30 questions to be added to the survey. Mahmoud wants to ask Academic Affairs Council for feedback on determining the 30 questions. Another benefit is that SCSU is compared nationally.
  • Addie relayed Bob Bayne administered the ACT a couple of times so some data is already present.
  • Mary added the last time was 1996.
  • Mahmoud stressed it is critical to identify the importance of each area to the students.
  • Diana asked if the NSSE and ACT overlap.
  • Mahmoud stated they are engagement and programs which means they are different surveys.
  • Addie shared the feeling it is a good tool.
  • Diana asked about the cost.
  • Mahmoud compared the cost to Noell Levitz ($4,000) and NSSE ($3,000).
  • Diana stressed it is a trade-off since there is no new money. She said that by expressing that something else will be lost if the surveys are done, she is linking the budget with strategic planning.
  • Discussion took place about the definition of “basic services” in Goal A KPI A1. Suggestions of including examples were countered with the fear that others may be excluded by omission.
  • Lisa felt the list will come from the survey due to respondents telling what is important to them.
  • Discussion then revolved around referencing student satisfaction.
  • John P asked if the document had already been approved. It was explained that not enough votes came back.
  • John expressed his belief that the votes were only for the KPI’s and everything below that was subject to adjustment.
  • Judy asked if she should call the question, substitute the motion, receive an amendment, or add surveys to KPI 1.
  • Pat suggested making a statement that does not exclude any services.
  • The question of point of order came up and clarifications were discussed.
  • John P expressed his belief the document is being handled in a different manner than others have been handled.
  • Steve suggested that everything could be cleared up by adding the language Pat suggested.
  • Pat read a proposed reworded option: “The goal is to improve basic services to students to include but not be limited to registration advising, residential life and tutorial services to students, including access to both upper- and lower-division courses and support and enrichment activities.”
  • It was expressed that ISRS is the only data that needs to be included.
  • Discussion centered around why to define “basic services.”
  • Judy noted the group is close, an amendment and alternate suggestion have been given, and there is a need to figure out where the group is on those first.
  • Pat withdrew her amendment.
  • John B noted that “academic programs” has specific expectations/inferences.
  • Judy expressed she would accept a friendly amendment or a vote.

Moved to accept the wording “The goal is to improve academic and nonacademic services to students, including access to both upper- and lower-division courses and support and enrichment activities.” (Steve/Susan) Motion passed by consensus of the committee.

-Diversity and Social Justice

  • The subcommittee, with input from the CODE Committee as well as work by Margaret, was able to limit the number of KPI’s to four.
  • Steve said the committee is at the point it needs to be. He doesn’t think it’s a good use of time to debate whether to have three or four.
  • David called the question
  • Judy clarified that the motion to approve the KPI’s and all the attached materials.

Motion to accept the four KPI’s. (David/Steve) Motion passed unanimously.

  • Sara confirmed that the email that was sent had no changes made to it.
  • John P publicly thanked the chair for quickly disseminating information.
  • Judy thanked the group for their valiant reading and responses.
  • Applause.

-KPI on Conflict – location of KPI and KPI itself

  • Judy announced that Technology was approved this morning. The only thing needed to be worked on is the KPI(s) on conflict. SPC has the materials. In sorting out and picking the final KPI’s, no more duplications remained. The group then tried to generate one conflict KPI that could possibly be a meta-KPI.

Move to accept KPI on conflict resolution as constructed by chairwoman. Moved so it could be one common document to work with. (John B/Susan)

  • Lisa noted that it will be easy to get goals and data.
  • Judy amended that this is not a meta-KPI, but a motion to be decided where to go later. Discussion on motion was called for.
  • Steve called the question.
  • Judy stated it was unanimous and initiated discussion of the need for a meta-KPI since this is the only medi KPI.

Moved that this KPI be separated and appear as a meta-KPI at the beginning with an introduction since it appeared in several places. (Steve/John B).

  • David noted that embedding it is better. Speaks against motion because it would give it too much visibility and imply it is the most important.
  • Discussion revolved around whether this KPI is indeed more important than the others due to having been listed under several of the goals, the image it would project to list it as the number one KPIS of SCSU, whether the SPC should determine it as the highest priority, or if it would make it a 6 th priority.
  • Judy noted that cross referencing is an option.
  • John B said it looks like it fits very well under Goal A of University Relations.
  • Lisa pointed out it would support the goal.
  • Judy asked for and received a call for a reading of the motion. The motion was read.
  • John P expressed he sees it as one of 13 KPI’s.
  • Discussion was held regarding that the committee had approved several meta-KPI’s. Others gave rationale that when there had been 3 or 4, the “meta-KPI” concept was formulated. By consensus, the need is not seen for one meta-KPI.
  • Judy reminded people that the KPI was already approved as a draft and asked where it should be placed.

Motion to place conflict KPI under University Community Relations goal as Goal A1. (John B/Deb) Motion passed.

  • Steve added a friendly amendment to cross reference where appropriate.
  • John B agreed.
  • David pointed out that cross references need to exist for all of them.
  • Deb asked for the purpose of cross referencing.
  • Judy explained that it would point to where goals are being met.

Motion that where appropriate, KPI’s are to be cross referenced with other goals. (David/Balsy) Motion defeated.

  • David said one reason for doing so is to explain to the general public why they are seeing fewer items.
  • Susan made several points against the need for cross referencing.
  • Judy clarified that it applies to all KPI’s, not just one.
  • Steve said he sees cross referencing all the time.
  • John B said these issues are not limited to one goal; it’s not a tidy little package.
  • David expressed it is a way of recognizing it without putting it out front.
  • Judy called for the motion.
  • There was a call for division: 5 hands in favor; 8 opposed.

Motion to bring the KPI’s, strategic goals, and all the data and responsible parties to FA Senate on Tuesday, May 4, 2004. (Steve/John B.) Motion passed. John P abstained.

  • John P expressed being in favor of the KPI’s but not all the information below the KPI’s.
  • Brenda said the substance lies in the bulk of it; it would otherwise be meaningless.
  • Phil stated that if the goal had been to identify KPI’s alone, that task would have been possible 2 months ago. It is the reason more time was needed.
  • Susan called the question.
  • David said John B is right that FA Senate only needs to approve the KPI’s.
  • After discussion, Judy agreed to send the KPIs to Theresia Fisher who will send it to FA. Judy will point in the email to both the KPI’s and supporting documents on the Strategic Planning web site.
  • David cautioned that someone may think they need to vote on all the materials.
  • Discussion revolved around: While technically the Senate does not need to vote on the KPIs for the Administration to implement the KPIs, FA support will enhance the process greatly.
  • Judy expressed the desire that faculty encourage faculty to read the documents and participate in the vote.

Inclusion of NSSE under data points

Moved that SPC recommends to Administration that they focus on NSSE points that are listed as data points under the themes. (Susan/Balsy) Motion passed.

  • Lisa stated that they are already referenced there.
  • Discussion was held regarding distinguishing between data and how scientifically significant NSSE is in order to be careful with what is done with the data.
  • Judy shared that Administration acknowledges this.
  • Susan stated not being willing to change the motion.
  • Judy said Faculty already has expressed concerns about the statistical significance of NSSE. SPC has already made recommendations in lieu of FA Senate for certain NSSE points because NSSE has been in Senate’s agenda since October, 2003.

Discussion of goals for next year’s SPC committee.

  • Judy answered Diana's question of who will be chair next year: Judy will be chair again, Theresia Fisher will be chair-elect and represent the College of Science and Engineering, and Annette Schoenberger will be on SPC as the FA President.
  • Judy initiated brainstorming topics for next fall so thoughts can begin for next year.
  • John B suggested asking how the SPC and the budget are linked.
  • David proposed considering what it would take for SPC to feel this way April 30, 2005.
  • Brenda suggested considering the KPI’s for all the goals that have been set.
  • Steve would like to come to a group understanding of the definition and common vocabulary of KPI’s
  • Judy stated that baseline data is missing in some areas which prohibits the ability to set measurable KPI’s in those areas. She added that she thinks SPC should be proud because there are more results than people thought possible. Units, departments and programs need to set measurable KPI’s or there will be resistance, as she sees it.
  • David told Judy he will send her the 17 graduate committee quality indicators.
  • Judy announced the first meeting next year will have goal setting on the agenda.
  • Diana noted that faculty was involved the last time adjustments were made to how dollars were allocated. She asked how linking this plan interacts with FA - how the bi-annual budgets can be tied to people of responsibility.
  • Judy acknowledged this needs to be worked out and the time lines will be different.
  • Lisa would like to bring in the provost, etc. at the first meeting so there is mutual understanding because the committee can’t do a lot of what is being discussed regarding linkage to budget.
  • Susan sees the number one thing as identifying the expectations of the groups.
  • By consensus, the minutes of today’s meeting will be approved via email.
  • Judy closed meeting with thanks and appreciation.

Notes by Jackie Zieglmeier