University of Minnesota, Morris
Campus Resources and Planning Committee Minutes

September 22, 2000

Members present:    Ferolyn Angell, Ken Crandall, LeAbnnb Dean,  Pam Gades, Margaret Kuchenreuther (Chair) Maddy Maxeiner,
                                Norrine Ostrowski, Lowell Rasmussen, Joe Timmerman, Jim VanAlstine,  Brian Welle.

Members absent:     Prince Amattoe, Mary Elizabeth Bezanson, Brian Herrmann, Melissa Nelmark

Guest:                      Sam Schuman

(In these minutes:  discussion of plans for the LaFave house; a model of campus planning; street names for the UMM campus)

1. Opening business

The meeting began at 2:05 p.m. with a round of introductions.

The minutes of the March 13, 2000 meeting were approved without correction. (Motion by Jim VanAlstine; Ken Crandall, second)

Margaret Kuchenreuther asked the committee's opinion about attribution of comments in the minutes.  In the interest of open and representative governance, she would prefer to see attribution.  The committee assented to this position.

Kuchenreuther said she met with Sam Schuman last week to discuss the role of the CRPC in campus planning.  It is her view that long-term planning is important and should include ideas coming from the bottom up.  Later in the meeting Schuman  will outline his model of campus planning.

Kuchenreuther went on to share her ideas about how to run CRPC meetings.  The Committee already faces several agenda items, so she would like to see it meet weekly for awhile to address pressing issues.   Perhaps then toward the end of the term meetings can become less frequent.  She also discussed the difficulty of finding a time that is free for all to meet.  Fridays at either 8 a.m. or 2 p.m. are the times with the fewest conflicts.  Fridays at 8 a.m. was chosen as the meeting time.  Therefore, the next meeting will be Friday, September 29 at 8 a.m.

Kuchenreuther then distributed packets containing several items for the committee's future consideration:  the report of the Task Force on the UMM Archives, an excerpt from the North Central Association's Evaluation Team outlining their view of UMM's strengths and areas of concern (Kuchenreuther noted that committee members can view the full report in Briggs library or in their Division offices), summaries of Schuman's open forums concerning the future of UMM for students and faculty, the 2002-2003 Biennial Budget Proposal, and a spreadsheet detailing the Morris Campus 2000 Capital Budget Requests.

2. La Fave House Task Force Report

The committee then turned to the Final Report of the LaFave House Task Force (7/21/00).    Schuman commented that he views the house as "the campus living room," serving the functions that a Chancellor's residence might normally serve (e.g., a place for gatherings in honor of visiting guests, a venue for retreats, etc.; similar to the function Eastcliffe provides on the Twin Cities campus)  He solicited the committee's reaction to the report.  Among the comments were questions concerning what must be done to provide access for people with disabilities, who would be in charge of setting policies for use of the facility, how UMM would go about upgrading the facility's decorating and how the improvements would be funded.  The idea of starting a "Friends of the LaFave House" group was mentioned.

3.  A model for campus planning

Schuman shared his model of campus planning with the committee.  He believes strategic  planning  is best approached as series of simple steps:

A. Know what your mission is.  UMM has a strongly defined mission that is widely understood on campus.
B. Outline the handful of things over which we have little control, but that have the greatest  potential for a large effect on our destiny (e.g., the state's economic forecast).
C. Outline UMM's greatest strengths and weaknesses.
D. Given the above, what are the three or four things we should work on in the next year?  Who will be in charge?  When should each be done?  What will be the measures of success?
Each of the four steps should be done annually.  Care should be taken not to establish too many goals because this is overwhelming and  few of them may be addressed.  UMM's budget should reflect the priorities that emerge from this process.

4. Next meeting agenda

In preparation for the next meeting, the committee was directed to read the North Central Association report excerpt  and the "future of UMM" forum summaries, and to think about priority issues for its attention during the coming year.  The next meeting will be dedicated to discussion of this topic.

5.  UMM street names

Lowell Rasmussen  raised the issue of road names for the UMM campus.  The county needs this information to facilitate their E-911 (emergency response)  program.   The committee viewed a campus map and discussed what roads needed to be named and what the names might be.  Members are invited to submit their ideas to him.

The meeting adjourned at 3 p.m.