University of Minnesota, Morris
October 24, 2006
The Campus Assembly met on Tuesday, October 24 at 4:30 p.m. in the Science Auditorium.
I. Chancellor's Remarks.
Chancellor
Johnson called the meeting to order and explained that the purpose of the
meeting was to consider a single agenda item: the final recommendations of the
Strategic Positioning Task Force. She
explained the history of the agenda item for newcomers to campus who have not
been a part of the year and a half conversation and process that has taken
place. The October 20 document is
unique to UMM but an important part of a broader Twin Cities campus effort to
craft a strategic direction and tie it to the biennial process. Coordinate campuses were invited last
year to undertake the process with the expectation of community-wide
involvement. Chancellor JohnsonÕs
first encounter with the strategic plan preceded her visit to the campus last
spring, when she was captivated by the focus and distinctive niche UMM has
carved for itself as one of only a few public liberal arts residential
campuses. She has since watched it
being shaped and formed. It is
interesting and right that the campus assembly should play a role of
recognizing and acknowledging the strategic plan for the campus. The ability to secure funding to carry
out the recommendations in the plan will require official action through the
governing process of the campus. Recommendations
for financial resources will be strengthened by the governing endorsement of
the plan that has been obtained throughout campus and especially today by
Campus Assembly. If the vote is
positive, we will move to the next stage of assignment of cost and
responsibilities. Chancellor
Johnson invited Andy Lopez, chair of the Task Force, to present the motion.
Andy Lopez
introduced the following motion to the assembly:
MOTION
Be it resolved that the UMM Campus Assembly approves the
general strategic direction for the University of Minnesota, Morris as
outlined in the revised strategic planning document posted on October 20,
2006. Refinements and definition
of key metrics will require on-going input from the Campus Assembly and
consultation with other appropriate entities of the governance system.
Rationale
The
Campus should have an opportunity to vote on the direction that this document
takes us. Out of necessity, the
document will need to remain flexible (a living document) as we adjust to the
new realities that we will be faced with.
Discussion
Michael OÕReilly
voiced a concern that the term ÒhonorsÓ was included in the document. He recalled that early in the 1990Õs
UMM had a student body worthy of being called an honors college. Since then, the administration has
tried to boast that Morris was more than it was, partially contributing to the
decline of students. The students
are not getting what they were told to expect from an honors college. He asked that the motion be amended to
delete the words Òhonors college.Ó
Pareena Lawrence answered that the task force is not set on a definite
tag line but does not want to remove the line. A study will be done with students to see how marketing UMM
as an Òhonors collegeÓ or Òhonors experienceÓ is viewed by potential students.
Siobhan Bremer
asked in what way the tag line would this be tested, and whether there would be
another vote in Campus Assembly after the test. Chancellor Johnson
stated the concept of a living document is important. In her opening remarks at Convocation she had stated that
there must be a full and clear articulation of what it means to be an honors
college or to have an honors experience.
We must also articulate what the liberal arts means in the twenty-first
century. It is wrong to make a
claim not backed by clear indicators.
Paula OÕLoughlin added that the last sentence of the motion clearly
states that definitions have to be clearly articulated.
Stephen Burks repeated
Siobhan BremerÕs question, asking if Campus Assembly will have another
opportunity to vote on the term ÒhonorsÓ in the future. Andy Lopez answered that it would. The vote today is not on whether to use
the term Òhonors.Ó That is for the
campus community to decide later in the process. Paula OÕLoughlin added that if it comes to a Campus Assembly
committee, it will come back to Campus Assembly.
Greg Thorson stated that the
entire plan will come back time after time, as various pieces of the proposal
are considered. He commended Andy
Lopez and the task force for making revisions as they consulted with various
groups on campus. He cautioned
that the assembly members should not get caught up on specific issues in the
plan at this time because there will be many opportunities to discuss them
later.
Bert Ahern had a concern on
wording in the Executive Summary, pages 2 and 8 in reference to the Native
American Tuition Waiver program.
He suggested dropping the word ÒmandateÓ from the document. Sandy Olson-Loy stated that the
possibility of UMM getting federal funding is greater than getting state
funding. Bert responded that this
is a state obligation and not federal obligation. Andy Lopez asked Bert Ahern to e-mail any suggested word
changes to him.
Steve Burks commented that
UMM does not have enough finances to support the plan, which he said should
more appropriately be described as a vision statement. He did not recommend voting against the
motion, but advised the members to know that hard choices will have to be made
with trade-offs still to come.
Bert Ahern questioned the
wording on page 19 of the document: Òprovide comparable salaries for faculty
and staff.Ó It could mistakenly be
taken as meaning a comparison of faculty salaries to staff salaries. Pareena Lawrence explained this was
meant as Òcomparable salaries for faculty and staff to faculty and staff
salaries at other comparable institutions. Andy Lopez said they would revise the language to make it
clearer.
Paula OÕLoughlin called the
question and moved to vote by secret ballot (seconded by Cyrus Bina). The motion passed.
The motion to accept the Task
Force Report passed: 87 in favor, 5 opposed, 2 abstentions.
The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.