Members absent: Borna (on leave), Hancock, Kinghorn, Lutz, Smith, Weaver
Provost King convened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. He requested that task force members send any changes to the minutes of September 14, 2006, to Jean Amman.
Modified Version of Goal #3 Objectives:
Objective A: A question was raised about what "enterprising ventures" means.
Objective B: There was a great deal of support for adding "cultural" to this objective, although some members thought that cultural programs were covered by "quality of life" in Objective C. It was pointed out, however, that "cultural development" is in the Mission statement, which seems to balance educational, economic, and cultural development.
The consensus was to add "cultural" to the objective.
Objective C: Generating the most discussion under Goal #3, this objective led to the question of whether or not other approaches are being excluded with the emphasis on Building Better Communities (BBC). However, some members said that they read the intent of the objective as an effort to bring programs under the BBC "umbrella" and that they see the objective as a way to develop strategic focus. Most felt that their programs would not have a problem in fitting under the umbrella, although there was still some concern about "spinning" the activities of individual colleges to connect with BBC. Further, someone said that two models could result from the statement of this objective: Either we will become more strategic with the emphasis on BBC, or we will just "add our programs to the list [under BBC]."
The attention then turned to the phrase "Expand the success and reach . . . ." Suggestions were to add "range of programs" to the objective and to substitute "diversity" for "success." However, it was pointed out that since we certainly want success, why not include it?
Then the question was again raised about the omission of professional service. A response was that professional service could be an outcome measure under Goal #1 or #2.
Two editorial changes were made to the wording of Goal 3: the omission of "professional" before "activities" since students are stated or implied in several of the objectives, and the addition of the word "and" before "mutually beneficial."
-
-
-
Goal #4 Objectives:
After task force members individually reviewed the proposed Goal #4 Objectives, they raised the following issues:
- We should omit Objective B on "student living arrangements." It sounds a bit "silly," and we are really referring to a combination of facilities and programs. Several task force members saw it as an outcome of Objective F or G anyway. The consensus was to drop Objective B.
- We should tie Objective E to "climate." While some task force members thought the creation of a climate supportive of diversity to be too important to omit, others saw it as an outcome measure under Objective E. Suggestions were made for different words in the objective: "enhance the climate," "increase cultural awareness," and "improve the climate to facilitate . . . ." (Choice of verbs seemed to be a problem.) Other suggestions were "Increase and retain the diversity of student, faculty, and staff populations" and "Recruit and retain more diverse student, faculty, and staff populations." Some task force members pointed out that Objective E duplicates Goal #1, Objective A.
- The wording for Objective F still needs work. Would "align" be a more effective verb? Several members spoke in favor of going back to "optimize" as a way of making the best decisions about campus facilities; however, there was a concern about how we would know that we were "optimizing." Further, it could be argued that this objective is a really an "enabling objective" that supports the goals and other objectives of the university's strategic plan. Another point of view was that the content of Objective F is important to be said, but the objective itself is not very strategic. Provost King reminded the group that campus building plans usually cover a span of 25 years, going well beyond the limits of a strategic plan. He concluded that the group should have another conversation on Objective F.
Enabling Objectives:
There was consensus that the word "enabling" needs to be changed. "Supporting," "operational," and "overarching" were suggested as alternatives. ("Overarching" was used in some other institutional plans reviewed.) There was a short discussion about where to put these objectives in the plan. Should they go under the four goals? Should they go into a preamble? However, outcome measures will need to be attached to these objectives also.
Announcements:
The Provost announced that John Motloch's proposed objective will be reviewed by the subcommittee.
At the next meeting, to be held on September 28, 7:30 a.m., in the Forum Room, the task force will conclude its review of the proposed Objectives. Outcome measures will come from a variety of sources. Parallel to the work of this task force, the Board of Trustees will review the proposed plan at its retreat on October 6-8, and the President's Cabinet will do the same at its retreat on October 30-31. Unit plans written earlier this year can be brought into alignment in Spring Semester 2007.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 a.m.