St. Cloud State University
Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
December 8, 2005

Members (Bold if present):  Addo, Edward; Burgeson, John C.; Burlison, Diana; Carlson, Debra; Condon, Frankie; DeGroote,David; Dolan, Joseph; Fisher, Theresia; Foss, Lisa; Grachek Sara; Kasi, Balasubramanian; Kilborn, Judith; Krueger, Patricia; Leigh, Debra; Li, Guihua; Litterst, Judith; Motin Susan; Nook, Mark; Palmer, John; Saffari, Mahmoud; Schoenberger, Annette; Sikes, David; Thorson, Philip; Turkowski, Adelaide; Voelz, Neal; Wentworth, Brenda; Westphal, Donella. (26 – 13 quorum)

Call to order

Convened as a full committee at 10:09 a.m.

Approval of Nov. 10 and Nov. 17 minutes.

Motion (Palmer/Voelz): To approve Nov. 10 minutes. Motion passed.

Motion (Palmer/Voelz): To approve Nov. 17 minutes. Motion passed.

Call for new agenda items

Palmer noted that a tabled motion from the Nov. 17 meeting did not appear on the agenda. Strategic reduction of class sizes was added to Old Business.

Old Business

Retention Planning Retreat:
Foss reported that the Retention Planning Retreat is scheduled for Dec. 14. The location will be the Kelly Inn.  

Strategic Reduction of Class Sizes:  
Tabled motion from Nov. 17 meeting: The Strategic Planning Committee recommends an investment in class size reduction consistent with the performance indicator for Academic Distinction. Funding for this initiative will come from a 50 percent reprogramming of some of the identified items on the FY’06 and FY’07 Budget Plan. Fiscal note: 50 percent of $3.5 million results in 23 new faculty lines.

Input should have been gathered before the decisions were made and that the budget decisions should be made that benefit the students that are here now and not just those students who will be here in the future.

The budget proposal was tied loosely to the strategic planning themes but the university should tie those themes more closely. Reduction of class sizes was not even on the table. Faculty and departments had little or no input on the budget document. The budget committee needs to be involved early on.

Fourteen additional faculty lines were added this year, which means we’re back to pre-2003 levels. The institution needs to look at how resources are applied in a new way.

If we’re not allowed to question decisions when we weren’t consulted on them – I’m disturbed by this. We have a history of taking resources away from existing programs to create new programs and not giving resources to successful programs. At some point we need to say “Stop that.” SPC is being used and we should fight back.

The parking ramp is an artificial use of the SPC. We haven’t asked where the tie between SPC and the budget is. In some fields class size is an issue and in some it is not.

Last year, we were asked for our input on how to spend the excess monies. Our department went through a painful process. I thought we had input and the budget was the result of that input.

I don’t have the budget in front of me, so I don’t know where to go with the motion. DGS is about class reduction. Our current faculty/staff ratio is trending down and it is in line with our peers. I don’t think SPC is a budget committee so is this really our place? We set a direction for the future and then the university community follows it. What’s the impact of this motion on other items in the budget?

My view is smaller than the global view. I only make recommendations. I am a middle manager. I have to trust that what I presented is valid and others will aggregate all the requests. I can’t second guess other people’s requests. Class size is an important thing. We’re trying to address those pockets. In some ways this is the same as saying everyone gets a 10% cut. I don’t know the effects. We have a long list of indicators. We don’t know how to rank them according to the objective. How do we prioritize them? Have these been used inappropriately? I can’t judge that. We’re still young in this process.

The campus budget committee was not a participant by the time it got to us. The decisions were made. The intention of this motion was to say that something important was not on the table.

I can’t support this motion. I can’t relate to this discussion. I am unclear on some of the information and we’re not a budget committee.

This motion says what’s our role and it has to do with implementation and operationalization. Philosophically I agree, but I can’t support the motion because we don’t have enough information. We need to get on the train sooner.

Motion (Thorson/Schoenberger): To refer this issue to the adhoc subcommittee on planning integration.

This is an attempt to stifle debate.

This is a good idea and it is not stifling debate. The subcommittee should come back with something everyone can support.

I want to remind the committee that we’re not talking about last years $11 million. I ask the group, if not now, when are we going to stand up?

Motion (Motin/Schoenberger): That the sub committee on integrated planning come back to the full committee by Jan. 26 with its recommendation. Motion passed.

New Business

University Community Relations Sub-Committee: 
Draft indicators were shared with Jill Rudnitski, VP for University Advancement for her input. Donella Westphal and Pat Krueger agree to served on a sub-committee to review those indicators.

Goal B: Service Community Performance Indicators:
The revised Service Community performance indicators were shared with the committee.

Motion (Palmer/Motin): To accept performance indicators for Goal B of Service Community Theme. Motion passed.

Update on other performance indicators:
The TLTR and TPR committees are reviewing the Technology indicators. They will have the Technology performance indicators ready for review at the Feb. 23 Strategic Planning Committee meeting. The need to look not only at those indicators that are easy to measure but also those that are important even if they are difficult to measure was discussed. The need to look at not just quantitative but also qualitative measures, including pedagogical effectiveness must also be considered.

Diversity and Social Justice performance indicators are being reviewed by the CARE committee. They should be ready for the February 23 Strategic Planning Committee meeting.

Retention planning committee will look at Service Community Goal A performance indicators. They should have a report by the Jan. 26 meeting.

Sub committee on integrated planning:
The sub committee will address the motion discussed earlier. It will also consider whether or not other planning committees should send items through SPC and what kind of impact should strategic planning have on the budgeting process.

Meeting was adjourned at 12 p.m.