October 23, 2001
Members Present: Margaret
Kuchenreuther (chair), Clare Strand, Maddy Maxeiner, Annie Olson, Lowell
Rasmussen, LeAnn Dean, Jim VanAlstine,
Ken Crandall, Prince Amattoe, Ferolyn Angell, Pam Gades
Absent: Dennis Templeman, Trish Welte, Kevin Ely, Ken Hodgson
(In these minutes: discussion
of strategic three-year plan)
Minutes of 9/25/01 approved on a motion by Amattoe, second by Rasmussen.
Rasmussen reported the State Capital Investment Committee visited UMM on October 22. The group spent about an hour on campus touring the Social Science building and the new Science building. They wanted to know how quickly the renovation could be done if we receive the money needed. Rasmussen said we have a pre-design for the building. He added the House Capital Investment Committee will also visit at some point.
Amattoe mentioned the Senate Committee on Finance & Planning are discussing tuition waivers for children of staff. He added this is a controversial topic and he will keep CRPC informed.
Discussion of Strategic Three Year Plan
Kuchenreuther reported she met with the Chancellor and Vice Chancellors to talk about how to approach the strategic three-year plan. They talked about the value of communication and making sure we try to stay on the same page and reinvent the wheel. Kuchenreuther took the former plan, eliminated things that have already been completed, rearranged priorities and added several new ideas gleaned from the planning retreat. She added that Schuman is committed that this three-year plan have as few goals and objectives as possible so it is realistic and doable.
Strand suggested the following as objectives: enhance visibility and marketing; increase resources; improve retention of students, faculty, and staff; and strengthen communications. She would lobby in favor of having the communication item higher on the list.
Rasmussen believes communication is key to all of the points and added there are natural timelines that this committee needs to be aware of, e.g., budget planning, capital improvement requests, etc. If a reporting timeline was established, it would reinforce the strategic plan objectives, increase accountability and allow CRPC to actively plan rather than simply react.
Maxeiner added the whole issue of calendars and scheduling on this campus is far from perfect and wondered if this committee needs to address this or just simply weigh in that improvement is needed.
VanAlstine suggested including an implementation category, then include very specific goals followed by a timeline. The vision and mission could be in the preamble.
Angell thought the committee should consider the strategic plan as a leadership document for the campus.
Crandall does not think we promote our programs well and that we don't send out enough positive messages to the campus or the community. He believes scholarships have to be added to maintain and improve student retention.
Rasmussen also thinks we need to do a better job of cultivating our allies on the Twin Cities campus to make sure we are not out of sight and out of mind. He suggests inviting peer groups to visit us. Strand added we also have enemies on the T.C. campus who are interested only in strengthening their campus and forgetting about the coordinate campuses. VanAlstine added it all goes back to politics--the Twin Cities campus looks at what we do, and then they copy it. Unfortunately, they can often do it better because they have more resources (one example noted was the residential experience for Freshman).
Crandall asked why we assume the goals that remained unfinished in the last strategic plan will be accomplished in the next three years? He believes we need to give offices their charge and then require that they report back to the committee. Kuchenreuther suggested setting realistic annual benchmarks and doing a progress assessment each year.
VanAlstine, along with Dean and Angell, agreed to synthesize comments from this meeting work on a framework of the plan for the next meeting.
Adjourned at 9:35 a.m.