Campus Resources and Planning Committee
November 20, 2008
Members Present: Kathy Julik-Heine, Escillia Allen, Shannon Juhnke, Karen Cusey, Zak Forde, Sara Haugen, Pete Wyckoff, Dave Swenson, Michelle Page, Jacquie Johnson, Brook Miller, Bryan Herrmann, Lowell Rasmussen, Sandy Olson-Loy, Sarah J Mattson
Guests: Lowell Rasmussen, Jacquie Johnson
Approval of Minutes:
Š October 23, 2008
Š October 30, 2008
1. Post-Gateway Planning Report to be posted on CRPC Website
2. Clarification of December 2nd Campus Assembly Conversation on Recruitment
a. Scholastic Committee’s Agenda for this meeting
i. Bryan Hermann went over charts from Scholastic Committee website regarding UMM students’ ACT scores and other metrics. He recommended that they not be put forth to Campus Assembly because of ambiguous and misleading numbers.
ii. Chancellor Johnson weighed in saying that the main questions to be answered at the Campus Conversation are “What questions and concerns are out there regarding our current and future recruitment of students?” and “What can we do currently?”
iii. Pete Wyckoff added the question, “How are we doing over all compared to other schools that we call our peers?”
iv. Jacquie asked “Why do we want to know how UMM’s admissions stats compare to schools such as St. Olaf?”
1. Pete Wyckoff answered by saying that we need some sort of benchmark, and Brook Miller weighed in saying that we can also learn lessons from schools that are doing well.
2. Bryan Hermann added that attempting to compare equally is very difficult because of the many differences in characteristics of competing schools (i.e. Carlton, Concordia, etc.)
v. Pete Wyckoff asked if enrollment in remedial courses, such as Fundamentals of Writing, has been growing in recent years and if true what it means.
b. Pete asked the committee to weigh in on what other types of issues should be addressed or brought to the attention of the Campus Assembly Conversation on 12.2
c. Chancellor Johnson stressed that this meeting has the ultimate goal of ‘shedding light’ on issues that are becoming muddy through ‘hall talk’ on campus.
d. Pete is concerned that there has been no proposed shift in the recruitment target and is concerned that there is an overemphasis on future demographic trends —UMM enrolment has declined during a period of large expansion in the number of Minnesota high school graduates.
e. Jacquie: “Are we targeting a different group of students now than we were targeting before?” One of the indicators of this is the ACT statistics. In addition she posed, “Is it a different mix of students and how as the mix changed?” and then finally, “If it is a different mix of students, should we change our target?”
f. Jacque stressed in addition that this needs to be a discussion of the UMM experience and the UMM outcome. She said that there is a need for a shift away from the focus on inputs.
g. Shannon Juhnke asked if there was a survey done on students who do not chose UMM and why it is that they make the choice to not attend UMM.
i. Bryan Hermann responded that these results are difficult to interpret because reasons vary so much from individual to individual.
h. Bryan Hermann added additionally that we need a better University profile in the minds of the public.
i. The topic of transfer students came up frequently in conversation about recruitment, and Brook Miller brought of the notion of a tipping point regarding too many transfer students and how circumstances such as this could potentially lead to effects in experience and outcomes.
i. Jacque made several comments about this and it’s relation to culture, to which Shannon responded that there is little social scene for upperclassmen.
ii. Escillia Allen spoke from personal experience as a transfer student.
j. Jacque shared a story regarding a comment from one of the Regents about remembering our mission and what we are as a public liberal arts institution. The elements of mission, she hopes to see factor into the discussion.
3. Budget Discussion
a. Jacquie spoke about the anxiety on campus regarding the global economic recession and she verified that there are not going to be any layoffs announced at the meeting on Monday. At the regents meeting in October, the regents approved a budget request that would go to legislature for $54 Million, the biggest part of this is a 3% increase in salaries. The university is also proposing an increase in tuition.
b. In regards to the ‘hiring pause’ announced by Bob Bruinicks, Chancellor Johnson said:
i. Posted right now we have seven posted tenure track positions and one maintenance position posted as well.
1. All of these positions add up to about $900K in salaries and benefits..
2. We have a process in place for examining all open positions and nothing is posted unless it goes through review. This process is tied to the budget situation as well.
3. Chancellor Johnson becomes the hiring authority for this institution.
4. Comments from the ‘Budget Summit’ on Tuesday.
a. It needs to be decided right now about tenure track positions, whether or not the hiring process should begin on these.
ii. Both Chancellor Johnson and VC Lowell Rasmussen agreed that it is necessary to be prepared for changes in the economy.
c. Chancellor Johnson spoke further on the reconciliation in budget for next year, saying that for the first time since she’s been here she feels like she finally has the entire budget picture.