University of Minnesota, Morris

Campus Resources and Planning Committee

 

December 13, 2007

 

Members Present:         LeAnn Dean, Carrie Grussing, Sara Haugen, Sarah Mattson, Maddy Maxeiner, Brook Miller, Michelle Page, Lowell Rasmussen, Dave Swenson, Sharon Van Eps, Jenny Wermerskirchen, Douglas Williams, Pete Wyckoff

 

Members Not Present: Joe Basel, Ken Hodgson, Jennifer Rothchild

 

Guests:                                 Tom McRoberts

 

 

Pete called the meeting to order and reminded committee members to send their spring semester schedules to Carrie Grussing as soon as possible.

 

Employee Wellness Program

 

Sarah Mattson reported that the benefits program has taken on a wellness component. The program will continue to grow because the hope is that as University employees become healthier, insurance costs will go down. Central administration is giving UMM funds to hire a half-time, temporary one year fitness coach. She is looking for ideas/suggestions about communicating this to the campus and support to move forward.

 

Master Planning

 

Lowell Rasmussen reported that the Master Plan hasnÕt been updated in 10 years and the Strategic Plan suggests that it be revised. The hope is that some of the changes recommended in an updated plan will take place before our reaccreditation. Consultants hired to revise the plan have proposed three future visions of UMM-- all three have met some resistance from members of the master planning steering committee.

 

It was noted that it is difficult for visitors to figure out where things are on campus. One committee member suggested that none of the three plans distributed add to the idea of a gateway building or an entrance that is appropriate and easy for visitors.

 

College in the Schools—continued discussion with Tom McRoberts

 

A question was asked: if students participate in college in the schools, are they more likely to stay at UMM after high school? There is no data on this point; however, the students who do continue on at UMTC after participating in CIS typically have higher GPAs than students who do not participate in college in the schools. There was also concern raised about the number of students at Morris High School who are ready for college level courses—would it be enough to sustain a CIS program?

 

Clarification on budget implications: High schools receive an additional $150 dollars per student per college class and they often pass some/most of that amount on to the college overseeing their CIS program. Potential direct gross revenue generation from a CIS program is small.

 

Tom emphasized that this is a repeated request from a school in our community and it is about building a partnership. The enrollment at the high school is drastically declining; they are still trying to offer programs and a strong school despite the accompanying loss in revenue.

 

It was also noted that not all high school teachers are good teachers and not all university professors are good professors, so we could end up with poor teachers and poor mentors. Another concern is that the program could lead UMM to potentially produce graduates who arenÕt as prepared as those who complete all 120 credits on campus.

 

It was noted that UMM-Community relations make an impact on our community and it is important not to turn a deaf ear on their request. We donÕt want to send out the message that UMM wonÕt work with the local high school.

 

Unfortunately, CRPC feels that it does not have enough information about what is being proposed to give an opinion about the resource issue (or the potential impact of a program on our reputation)—it is not clear yet who at UMM would staff a program and how the program would impact faculty/staff workloads. Tom promised to return next semester with details of a specific plan when and if they emerge.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 a.m.