Members absent: Kinghorn
Provost Terry King convened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. After proposing some ground rules for discussion, he asked each member to write one word to describe the work of the task force on the strategic plan to date. Lynne Cooper then read the words submitted, which suggested both positive and negative opinions. The Provost stated that the task force must not start over, but instead set its sights on finishing by the semester's end.
Strategies Statement: Dr. King presented a strategies statement, which he had crafted, along with an additional fourth goal for the group's consideration. Today he would like to see if there is "buy-in" to these proposed items. (See attached materials.)
A question was raised about how the Strategies fit the plan, especially since the group has been careful in choosing terminology. Dr. King's opinion was that the Strategies clarify the Vision (where we want to go). Further, it is clear that Ball State University must differentiate itself.
Some of the comments and other questions occurring during the discussion were as follows:
- Is it contradictory to speak of "a national model" in the Vision but refer to Indiana in the Strategies?
- The Strategies are called "Themes" in some strategic plans of other universities.
- Are the Strategies for internal or public consumption? (A response was that it does not matter.)
- How are other universities attempting to differentiate themselves?
- The Strategies appear to capture the thirteen Guiding Principles drafted earlier.
- One task force member would prefer that Item #2 under Strategies be revised to say "all qualified students." This is a crucial statement for faculty "buy-in"; they will see this item as meaning more work on salaries that are already too low.
- Others stated that our aspiration really is to offer "program-related immersion learning experiences to all students." This will differentiate Ball State.
- Another member suggested that the word "offering" is the answer to the above stated concern. In other words, Ball State will offer "program-related immersion learning experiences to all students." However, another member said that we are already "offering" immersion experiences; his preference would be for the word "providing." There appeared to be consensus for making this change.
Provost King responded to several of the concerns by stating that a strategic plan should be different than what we are presently doing. Planning for resources will follow and complement the Strategic Plan. He added that commissioners from the Indiana Commission for Higher Education visited the Ball State campus last week and were very impressed so far with the work on the Strategic Plan. They see the institution as moving "up."
Provost King then asked the group members if they were comfortable with the Strategies statement and ready to move on. He was able to take as consensus that the group was willing to do so.
Discussion of Proposed Goal #4: Cross Cutting—Ball State University will improve the quality of campus life.
The group then looked at proposed Goal 4 with its nine proposed objectives. Some of the responses were as follows:
- Some of the Guiding Principles are showing up under Goal 4 as Objectives. Now there is a place for them. These objectives also pick up some missing pieces by looking at the entire university.
- Without Goal 4, it would be difficult to position these objectives anywhere in the plan. Some of the Objectives address directly concerns of Student Affairs.
- A question was raised about Objective E: "Fully coordinate marketing communication strategies across all units." Is it too buried? Does it need to go under Strategies instead? Several task force members agreed that both Objectives E and H are Strategies, keeping in mind that they will still need to be measurable.
- A concern was that an item on sustainability and greening initiatives is missing. Someone pointed out that it is in the Values Statement, however. The Values were crafted because some necessary language appeared to be missing in the Vision and Mission.
- We must be careful not to reject what units have told us.
- Goal 4 and its accompanying Objectives do not seem to be the "catchall" that Goal 2 is in the current Strategic Plan.
- Perhaps when we decided to cut down from six goals (in the current Strategic Plan) to three (in the proposed Plan), we were overreacting.
- We should find another word for "Cross Cutting," perhaps something having to do with "Community."
- We should substitute "university life" for "campus life" to lessen the physical connotations of the word "campus."
- How do we define the "quality of life"? A comment was that the objectives will do the defining.
By consensus the task force approved the addition of Goal 4.
Review and Adjourn: The Provost announced that next week we will begin with Goal #1 and review and agree to its Objectives (going as far as we can in one hour). He asked if this process would be satisfactory. At this point, members expressed the desire to meet every week to complete the work of the Task Force so that units may begin their work. It was agreed to meet next Thursday, August 31, at 7:30 a.m.
Minutes:
The minutes of May 11, 2006, were approved as distributed.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 a.m.
RELATED LINK:
Agenda for August 24, 2006