University of Minnesota, Morris
Campus Resources & Planning Committee Minutes

 January 21, 1998

Members present:  Jeff Ratliff-Crain, Jenny Dose, Andy Lopez, Chris 
Wenner, Wade Bronson, Jennifer Wright, Lynn Schulz, Sara Haugen, Maddy 
Maxeiner, Rod Oto, Alan Fierro, Gwen Rudney

Guests: Sam Schuman, Gary McGrath.

Encouraging the committee to move forward with the development of a 
three-year Campus Plan, chair Andy Lopez initiated a discussion of Sam 
Schuman's revised strategic goals and UMM strengths and weaknesses.  Jeff 
Ratliff-Crain found the document much cleaner than the previous version.  
Lynn Schulz questioned the emphasis on transfer students in item IIA.  
Schuman agreed to strike the words "largely" and "of transfers."  

Sara Haugen suggested that the item about increasing the student body to 
2000 should be accompanied by an item seeking adequate resources to 
service those students, specifically adequate number of positions and 
compensation for faculty and staff.  As the group discussed where to 
insert such an item, Schuman stressed the need to be guided by priorities 
concerning compensation.  Haugen suggested that the number of staff be 
prioritized highly.  Rod Oto suggested the item be placed in IIB for its 
significance in maintaining the quality of education.  Schuman suggested 
that Vice Chancellor for Finance Brannen might want it under item IV 
concerning finances.  Wade Bronson suggested any place will do and Lopez 
summarized that the consensus was the item needed to be added somewhere 
during a polish of the document.

Rod Oto suggested that visibility should be a goal because of its impact 
on potential students, potential faculty and staff, and legislative 
funding.  Ratliff-Crain asked if perhaps visibility should be a process 
goal for the Campus Plan rather than a strategic goal.  Schuman suggested 
visibility should serve the goals of our mission, not be a goal in and of 
itself.  Maddy Maxeiner suggested that visibility with focus is central 
to an institution's strength.

Concerning the document on strengths and weaknesses, Ratliff-Crain 
suggested that physical plant concerns, specifically aging buildings and 
outmoded classrooms, be added to weaknesses.  Lopez mentioned that our 
buildings are also are strengths when one considers facilities like HFA 
and Ratliff-Crain agreed that the Master Plan also endorses UMM's 
preservation of its historic core buildings.  But McGrath confirmed that 
some buildings are indeed out of date.  Jennifer Dose added that 
strengths and weaknesses should indeed reflect strategic goals like 
updating physical resources.

Wade Bronson wondered if describing the area as small and safe might 
discourage prospective students and Rod Oto replied that visitors are 
initially more influenced by their perceptions  of the campus than the 
surrounding community.  Schuman added that the description also speaks to 
prospective faculty and staff and compliments important initiatives like 
the Center for Small Towns.  But he acknowledged that the description 
could be perceived as both a strength and a weakness, which is admittedly 
confusing.  Gwen Rudney suggested that the plurality is not confusing but 
common, as in the case of a big city campus with myriad amenities and 
complications.  Bronson wondered if the wording of the strength should 
indicate that Morris is not a college town.  Ratliff-Crain commented that 
the lack of symbiosis between campus and town is a problem.  Maxeiner 
countered that a lack of utopia is a far cry from blatant animosity; thus 
UMM and Morris have a rather good relationship.  Rudney agreed, noting 
recent progress in this area indicated by the Masters of Liberal Studies 
program (which enrolls many local citizens), the reactivation of WCEDA, 
and student involvement in Campus Compact (community volunteer) 
activities.  McGrath agreed, suggesting that an admirable tolerance is 
sometimes misinterpreted as indifference.  Many students are heavily 
involved in community activities including church membership and 
coaching.  

Schuman asked for feedback on weakness #3, a campus culture which tends 
to stress combativeness over cooperation.  Ratliff-Crain suggested the 
attitude is not pervasive and Lynn Schulz mentioned the admirability of a 
combined recognition dinner that honors faculty and staff at the same 
time.  Terms suggested included "inflexibility" and "territoriality" and 
Rudney suggested the tensions might be resource-based.  McGrath countered 
that well-endowed schools see the same problems, which are very 
debilitating to younger faculty.  

Chris Wenner requested that advising of freshmen and sophomores be added 
to the list of weaknesses and Bronson confirmed that the ratio of faculty 
to students in this area does create a problem.

Lopez ended the meeting by calling for volunteers to prepare an initial 
document, using the Mission statement, Vision statement, strategic goals, 
and strengths and weaknesses, that would help identify planning goals for 
the next three years in unit-based terms, seeking feedback through open 
forums.  Jeff Ratliff-Crain will draft a document assisted by Maddy 
Maxeiner and Wade Bronson.  The CRPC will meet again when a draft is 
ready.