Minutes from September 14, 2006

STRATEGIC PLANNING TASK FORCE
Meeting #29—September 14, 2006
Cardinal Hall A


Members absent: Michael Maggiotto, James McKenzie
(Douglas Naffziger substituted for Shaheen Borna.)

Provost King convened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. He asked that task force members send changes to the minutes of September 7, 2006, to Jean Amman.

Modified Version of Goal #2 Objectives:

Provost King called attention to the Goal #2 Objectives modified by the subcommittee. Referencing Objective E, he reported that President Gora has suggested "externally funded scholarship" rather than "increased scholarship." A question was raised as to the definition of "scholarship" in the objective, and the response was that it is based on the Boyer model--discovery, integration, application, and teaching. A lengthy conversation ensued about the objective in which comments like the following were made:

    • "Selected" implies that the institution can support the graduate programs.
    • There might be times when the scholarship is not externally funded.
    • It is probably impossible to "grow" a program without a cost.
    • It is important to note that we are not talking about eliminating graduate programs. This is always the fear of faculty.
    • We must remember both Goal #2, which addresses scholarship, and Goal #3, Objective B, which refers to "market-responsive."
    • There are programs at Ball State that could merit more external support.
    • If we do not obtain external support, we will be "robbing Peter to pay Paul" through reallocation.
    • Some departments are master's-degree-only when it comes to graduate education. These programs are beneficial, but they are not entrepreneurial. We must balance the need to raise necessary revenue with programs that provide a basis for critical thinking.
    • A program that brings in external funding might be able to raise graduate stipends.
    • The phrase "externally funded" in Objective E is implicit in the "extramural funding" of Objective B, so we need not repeat the idea.
    • If the words "selected" and "externally funded" are not used, will the university community think that we can grow without order or plan?
    • "Selected" is the key word in the objective, but we will have to have a basis for selection.
    • Current programs will not be neglected; they are addressed in Objective C.
    • External funding is implicit in all of Goal #2. Are we overemphasizing a message of "Get more money"?

It was decided to leave Objective E as is.

Goal #3 Objectives:

The Provost then asked the group to review Goal #3 Objectives. Heather Shupp reported that the subcommittee had attempted to eliminate ambiguous words, substituting words that are more specific and action-oriented. She called attention to an additional objective, now marked as Objective A.

After a time to review Goal #3 Objectives, members of the group made the following observations:

    • "Civic engagement" is not included. The emphasis on "economic development" is really a subset of "civic engagement."
    • Where is "cultural development"?
    • Some of our readers will not know what the Building Better Communities initiative is.
    • Building Better Communities has been singled out from all of the programs we offer.
    • We could include something about "quality of life" in Objective C, but how can it be measured?
    • In Objective C, we could add a phrase such as: "and similar programs that serve Indiana."
    • Objective C is an outcome under Objective A.
    • Maybe we should put "Building Better Communities" in lower case in order to be less specific.
    • We need to include "service" in an objective.
    • Service to professional organizations has been lost. This was discussed earlier in the planning process.
    • Objective C could be reworded to read: "Expand number and impact of projects, programs, and initiatives to build better communities."
    • Maybe we are trying to include everything that we do in a strategic plan.
    • There needs to be an objective to deal with sustainability, including social sustainability, which is as important as environmental sustainability. [Wording for an objective addressing this issue may be sent to the Provost.]
    • We could add "and in other cities and towns in Indiana" to Objective E.
    • Should we name Indianapolis under Goal #3 and not Muncie? We must be sensitive to local initiatives.
    • We could add "and professional service" to Objective A.
    • In Objective D, we should say more simply: "Lead Indiana in authorizing and supporting charter schools."
    • If the word "premier" is troublesome in Objective D, we could say that we want to be a "national" resource.
    • Objective D should state that we want to be a national leader in charter schools.
    • Would it help to substitute "a" for "the" before "premier resource"? [The subcommittee had also struggled with Objective D.]
    • Objective E is necessary and "political"; we have lots of opportunities in Indianapolis.
    • We certainly need to support the Indianapolis Center.
    • Tech transfer and entrepreneurial activity should be stated explicitly as part of Objective A.
    • The staff should be included in Objective A.

Review and Adjournment
:

Provost King suggested that Goal #3 Objectives go back to the subcommittee. Also, he requested that task force members review proposed Goal #4 Objectives and be prepared to discuss them at the next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 a.m. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, September 21, 7:30 a.m., in the Student Center's Pineshelf Room.