University of Minnesota, Morris
Campus Resources and Planning Committee

November 6, 2001

Members Present:    Margaret Kuchenreuther (chair), Kevin Ely, Pam Gades, Maddy Maxeiner, Jim VanAlstine, Ken Hodgson,
                                    LeAnn Dean, Clare Strand, Prince Amattoe, Lowell Rasmussen, Ken Crandall, Ferolyn Angell

Absent:                      Dennis Templeman, Trish Welte, Annie Olson

Guests:                       Sam Schuman, Fritz Schwaller, Gary Strei

(In these minutes: discussion to create a budget planning sub-committee, revision of draft of strategic three year plan)

Minutes of 10/23/01 approved on a motion by Crandall, second by Maxeiner.

Proposal to create a budget planning sub-committee

Schuman addressed the committee about the possibility of creating a 3-5 member budget planning sub-committee of the CRPC whose purpose would be to plan the annual UMM budget in a more open, broad-based fashion. There is apparently much frustration at UMM about the budget process. There exists a perception that the administration simply sets the budget without widespread consultation, which is simply not true. One way to address this problem would be to open the process up to a sub-committee. Schuman is willing to turn the process over to a sub-committee as long as he retains had the final say on the proposed budget. He also noted the process seems to change from year to year and the actual discretionary amount is very small. Schuman thought the sub-committee could meet with Gary Strei who would further explain the process and deadlines. Angell said she has been frustrated for many years when creating a budget for her own area and thought the creation of a sub-committee would make the process more open and cooperative with units across campus. Kuchenreuther expressed concern about the committee being helpful without knowing the entire budget process. Schuman said the task of explaining the process would fall to Gary Strei although we could certainly invite budget folks from the Twin Cities campus to meet with the sub-committee. Dean inquired as to the role of the Administrative Committee and providing advice on consultation. VanAlstine asked if we would be merely setting up another level of bureaucracy since, as Schuman said earlier, he expects the sub-committee's budget outcome would be little different than a budget developed in the usual fashion and because he could veto anything he didn't like. Would simply become a buffer for criticism? Schuman sees this as a learning opportunity and believes this campus does not understand what the budget is and where it comes from. Amattoe asked how other coordinate campuses plan their budgets. Schuman said he was not sure but guessed it's done differently from college to college. Strei added that traditionally two-thirds of our budget is set for us, without any real consultation, based on past allocations. Schuman said he has argued vigorously that our allocations have not been adequate, but his arguments have fallen on deaf ears. He concluded by saying he thinks this should be a collegial process, an effective way for the committee to know what's happening with the budget and why. The alternative is to say that CRPC doesn't want to do this; we trust the administrators in Behmler to get the job done. Kuchenreuther asked the committee members to think hard about this and be ready to discuss again at next meeting.

Draft of Strategic Plan

Kuchenreuther began by saying VanAlstine took comments from previous meeting and incorporated them into four strategic goals. He suggested listing four goals, then objectives and implementation plans under each goal. Schuman thought four major goals were fine, but warned about having too many objectives. He also thought it looked as though the committee was planning the administration's workload and believes the purpose of a plan should be to get a small handful of things done that can realistically get done. He suggested adding a who, when, and how to every goal. VanAlstine believes this committee plays an important role in suggesting implementation of the plan to administrators. Gades thought we need to be careful about getting into micro-management of the campus. Why not state the goals and objectives in the plan and then, in a separate document, suggest possible implementation plans for each objective. Then the administration would know what we have in mind, but they would set up the actual implementation. Kuchenreuther asked the committee to work on the objectives for the next meeting.

Adjourned at 9:35 a.m.