University of Minnesota, Morris Campus Resources & Planning Committee Minutes November 24, 1997 Members present: Chris Cole, Jason Anderson, Lynn Schulz, Jeff Ratliff-Crain, Gwen Rudney, Sara Haugen, Jenny Dose, Alan Fierro, Karen Fischer, Chris Wenner, Rod Oto, Andy Lopez, Maddy Maxeiner. Guests: Kari Schuch (library intern), Sam Schuman, Gary McGrath Chair Andy Lopez began the meeting by asking members for feedback on the UMM mission statement, vision, academic plan development steps, prelude by David Johnson, and strategic goals by Sam Schuman that were distributed after the 11/10/97. Jeff Ratliff-Crain asked if the mission statement is to be reviewed. Lopez responded possibly by people working on assessment. Ratliff-Crain then asked about the inclusion of distance learning and world wide web issues and Lopez suggested they were not specifically tied to the mission statement. Rod Oto noted the statement seemed more regionally than nationally focused. Concerning the vision statement, which was developed after David Johnson's arrival on campus. Ratliff-Crain pointed out discrepancies in building plans indicated in paragraph five. Sam Schuman noted that UMM is not pursuing Phi Beta Kappa (PBK) affiliation. Oto asked why the goal should be discarded, because it's not attainable or not desirable? Lopez suggested that UMM's weak honors program prevents the school from being PBK material. Ratliff-Crain said that goal should be dropped from the vision statement if it's on the back-burner but Oto insisted all the best liberal arts schools have PBK affiliation. Lopez countered that UMM opposes the concept of the "elite individual" student body. Maddy Maxeiner added that a goal is not a vision. Ratliff-Crain asked if admission goals still accurately reflect the emphasis on rural and first-generation students mentioned in paragraph two. Oto affirmed and added that a suburban tilt is emerging. Concerning the degree of ability in UMM's student body, Chris Cole asked if the drop in ability levels was intentional or simply unavoidable. Oto explained that UMM has failed to keep pace with the competitive marketplace for students and Cole suggested that the vision statement needs to reflect a need for resources to achieve competitiveness. Concerning the residential character of the campus mentioned in paragraph 4, Karen Fischer wondered if it's true that only 50% of the student body can be accommodated on campus. Sara Haugen suggested that the civility and cooperation mentioned in paragraph two should be upgraded to a greater appreciation for and understanding of differences. Jenny Dose asked if there is anything new since the vision statement was approved in 1991 that needs to be added. Discussion then moved onto the academic plan prelude written by David Johnson last spring. Fischer wondered what percentage of UMM graduates will have careers abroad within 5 years. Cole suggested many will have overseas connections in their careers but Ratliff-Crain added that the document does suggest UMM graduates will be living overseas. Rod Oto suggested the prelude might be a good place to reflect the need for market competitiveness for good students, perhaps in bullet #5, Ratliff-Crain added. Schuman noted that planning must consist of review of external influences, consideration of strengths and weaknesses, and preparation of a "to-do" list. If the prelude measures external influences and the strategic goals are a to-do list, where is the consideration of strengths and weaknesses? Ratliff-Crain agreed that this reflects a lack of prior assessment at UMM. Dose suggested that some material implies strengths and weaknesses but they should be clearly stated. Ratliff-Crain wondered if the administration could compose a document about strengths and weaknesses. Oto suggested bullet six concerning reciprocity was not actually valid and could be replaced with the competitiveness issue. Schuman added that the issue concerns recruitment of faculty and staff as well as students. Concerning the strategic goals document, Lopez wondered if items 2B and 5A concerning semester conversion weren't repetitive and 4B about operating in the black a given. Fischer replied that 4B is not a given if we haven't operated in the black consistently. Chris Wenner asked who pays the debt when we operate at a deficit and Schuman explained that it carries over. When liability occurs, there is a tax of 8%. The consequence is no increase in SSE budgets for about a dozen years and IMG will make this situation worse. Schuman suggested that 4B may be the most important goal while 2B could be dropped since it is covered by 5A. Oto encouraged the need to recruit quality staff, not just faculty and students. He suggested adding a financial item about adjusting UMM's revenue stream (for example, instate vs. outstate students/tuition) or making the generation of revenue a goal. Schuman suggested item 5C about articulation of UMM grads to UMTC graduate and professional programs may be less critical than insinuated and Ratliff-Crain added that it's really a how-to for item 2A stressing retention. Wenner wondered if item 3A concerning the Science Project is appropriate for a 3 year plan since it's almost accomplished (or will be shortly). Schuman responded that it's acceptable to include items that will be accomplished in less than three years and Lopez added that it's not accomplished until it's accomplished. Lopez then asked if 4A, about eliminating deficits, and 4B, about operating in the black, should be combined, to which Schuman agreed. Schuman agreed to redraft the strategic goals and the committee adjourned for fall quarter.