St. Cloud State University
Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
March 30, 2006

Members (Bold if present):  Addo, Edward; Burgeson, John C.; Burlison, Diana; Carlson, Debra; Condon, Frankie; Day, Annette; DeGroote, David; Dolan, Joseph; Fisher, Theresia; Foss, Lisa Helmin; Furan, Jennifer; 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. (26– 10 quorum)

Call to order

Convened as a sub-committee at 10:10 a.m.

Convened as a full committee at 10:50 a.m.

Approval of minutes (Feb. 23)

Motion (Palmer/DeGroote): To approve Feb. 23 minutes with the change of the chair election date from fall to April 13. Motion passed.


Co-chair election
The co-chair election will be on April 13. Nominations need to be submitted to Lisa Helmin Foss by Monday, April 10.

Request for representatives

Foss reported that she has contacted each of the bargaining units and ask them to nominate representatives to fill the vacant seats. They have been sent a copy of the new Membership and Terms agreement. MAPE has already responded with its appointments. Jennifer Furan will be replacing Sara Grachek, who has left the MAPE bargaining unit and can no longer serve as their representative on strategic planning.

Kilborn reported that she has received a full slate of names for faculty representatives on strategic planning. The FA will be holding elections and she will have the names by the April 13 deadline.

Plan for Enhancing Student Success

Foss distributed copies of the Plan for Enhancing Student Success that was developed by a university-wide committee that included representatives from Strategic Planning. Kilborn asked for a summary of the plan to be shared with all faculty. Foss said she would prepare a summary and make the full plan available electronically through the strategic planning web site.

Old Business

Technology Performance Measures
An updated version of the Technology performance measures was reviewed by the committee. The committee discussed the following changes:

  • Including “(area) specific computer and non-computer” to the second goal. This would indicate that technology doesn’t just mean computers but includes other equipment.
  • Changing “faculty” to “employees” to indicate that all employees have technology needs, and include “computer and non-computer” in the 12th performance measure. This again would indicate that technology does not just mean computers.

Motion (Palmer/DeGroote): To approve the Technology performance measures with the changes indicated by the committee and to send measures to the President and Faculty Senate for consideration. Motion passed.

University Community Relations Measures
An updated version of the University Community Relations performance measures were reviewed by the committee. The change to this document since the last review was the inclusion of “The University will be purposeful in its outreach efforts to communities of color in Central Minnesota” as an objective and the associated performance measures. The committee discussed if it was important to explicitly say “Central Minnesota.” The committee decided it was important because the theme specifically represents the university’s commitment to the region/community in which it resides.

Motion (Palmer/Kilborn): To approve the University Community Relations performance measures and to send measures to the President and Faculty Senate for consideration. Motion passed.

Diversity & Social Justice Measures
An updated version of the Diversity & Social Justice performance measures was reviewed by the committee. The following changes were made to the document:
  • The wording of the last performance measure on page #2 was changed to read: “Percentage of General Education curriculum with identified learning goals and assessment methods identified for racial, multicultural, and global issues.”
  • The last objective on page #3 had a typographical error.
  • A wording change was made to the sixth performance measure on page #3. The word “presented” was changed to “available.”

Motion (Kilborn/Palmer): To approve the Diversity & Social Justice performance measures with changes indicated and to send measures to the President and Faculty Senate for consideration. Motion passed.

Service Community (Part A) Measures
The committee reviewed for the first time the goals, objectives and performance measures for the student portion of the Service Community theme (Part A). The employee portion of the theme (Part B) was reviewed and approved by the SPC at an earlier meeting.

The goals, objectives, and performance measures presented in Part A were taken from the Plan for Enhancing Student Success. At an earlier SPC meeting, it was agreed that the committee would include the work of the Committee on Student Success on the planning document. Foss explained that it was important to integrate the two-plans into one, and it would be inefficient and ineffective to have two separate plans. This is an example of an integration of planning that needs to continue on the campus.

The committee discussed the first goal and whether we were concerned with if students feel more prepared or if we’re interested if they actually were more prepared.


  • The goal should be that whatever the level the student is at when they come here they know that we will help them succeed. It’s not whether they feel prepared, it’s the experience they have when they get here.
  • Or the goal could say that students will have the opportunity to be more prepared and successful at SCSU.
  • I’m not comfortable with the way we are using the word prepared. Some might read this to mean that we are looking to attract a better prepared student population that is different than the one we have now.
  • Maybe we need to split this goal into three separate goals? One piece could be that the university will provide a broad and deep array of student support services. The second goal could be the students will know which services are available. The third goal could be that student will report greater satisfaction with the support services available to them at the University.
  • There’s a difference between having a goal to communicate with them and them actually hearing us.
  • What student’s perceive and what students tell us may not be the same thing.
  • What is supplemental instruction? Supplemental instruction is a very specific copyrighted program that involves the use of peer mentors. Note: Mark Nook will provide the committee a definition of supplemental instruction.
  • I see there being two pieces. The first piece is preparation, which includes having access to a rich array of programs and services to enhance their academic success (access and usage). The second piece is that students will feel more positive about their college experience.

The committee agreed to consider four goals for the Service Community (Part A) theme.

    • Development of programs and services to enhance academic experience
    • Communication with the student about those programs and services
    • Usage of the programs and services by the students
    • Assessment of the effectiveness of the programs and services

Once the goals are developed, the objectives and performance measures will need to be rearranged to fit the goals. Foss will take the notes from the meeting and revise the document for the committee to review. Any changes to the goals will need to be shared with the Committee on Student Success.

New Business

Global Initiative
The committee discussed how to move forward in developing a plan for the Global Initiative that President Saigo presented at the Feb. 23 meeting. The committee discussed the timeline of completing a white paper on the subject by the end of the semester. The white paper would be similar to the General Education position paper completed last year. They also discussed continuing work on the initiative this summer through a series of retreats with the goal of having a planning document ready for the campus to review by the beginning of fall semester. Faculty would be paid duty days for attendance at the retreats.

The committee decided to use the April 13 committee meeting as an open forum on the topic and invite faculty with specific expertise in this area to share their thoughts on the initiatives. The institution is already doing a number of good things in this area, and there are people on campus with a lot of expertise in this area. A SWOT analysis could be conducted at that meeting. The committee needs to look at barriers and opportunities but not move to solutions too fast. People/groups identified to invite to the April 13 meeting were:

  • International Studies committee
  • Faculty who have taught abroad
  • Center for International Studies
  • Foreign languages faculty
  • Ethnic Studies faculty
  • Latin Studies faculty
  • International Business faculty
  • Students who participated in a study abroad program
  • Dennis Fields
  • John Campbell
  • Linda Raine
  • Robert Johnson
  • Bill Langen
  • Piotr Przytula

It was recommended that we go through the current strategic planning themes and pull out goals and objectives that support this initiative. Work from the HLC sub-committees should also be reviewed to see if work in the area of global education has already been started. The Stamats research should also be reviewed for appropriate information.

The committee discussed the need to ensure that we have a clear understanding of why global education and international study experience is important. We need a clear idea of what the global goal is.

The committee was asked to send the names of any people who should be invited to the April 13 meeting to Lisa Foss.

Meeting adjourned at 12 p.m.