Campus Resources and Planning Committee

October 12, 2009

Present: Pete Wyckoff, Maddy Maxeiner, Kathy Julik-Heine, Matt Privratsky,

Dave Swenson, Sara Haugen, Sydney Sweep, Bart Finzel, Jacquie Johnson,

Lowell Rasmussen, Bryan Herrmann, Brook Miller, Sarah Mattson

Guests: Cheryl Contant, Gwen Rudney

Minutes from 9/28/09 and 10/5/09 meetings were approved as presented.

Agenda for the meeting today will include the following:

1. IT related proposal
2. Discussion of gateway
3. Current case statement for capital campaign that may happen

IT related proposal

Jacquie Johnson reported that Steve Cawley, Director of OIT from the Twin Cities visited our campus several weeks ago. Having observed the support we have received from the Budget Office in the Twin Cities regarding the support of Colleen Miller’s position as Finance Director on this campus, he proposed a similar kind of proposal in our IT area; an IT Director that would be funded by the Twin Cities for three years. At the end of three years, we would need to determine the continuation of that position and then reallocate resources. At this point, Cawley does not have anyone in mind for the position and we would hold a national search. We will appoint a search committee to determine job responsibilities. We also need to look at how this position will fit into some of the reorganization that we’ve already done. She wanted to bring the proposal to this committee for reactions and comments. Lowell added that Cawley proposed bringing a project team to our campus in the next couple of weeks to do an analysis of the network; look for weaknesses and redundancies; and address some of the auditors issues in terms of data privacy, protocol and access for servers. He also mentioned that eventually our current e-mail system and UMCal applications will be switched to Google applications that will require transition for the entire campus.

Pete noted that Jacquie has worked very hard for us to find a way to work without an IT director and inquired about the budget consequence. A new IT Director needs to have a budget to manage and perhaps we need to take a real hard look at how we operate the SE&E side of operations at the same time. Brook asked if Google apps will provide a significant cost savings. Lowell was not sure there would be a savings for us, but definitely for the University of Minnesota. It is Lowell’s understanding that Google will provide many applications that have no licensing fees. Brook also wants to make sure this new position will be an advocate for us to make sure we get an equal playing field. Jacquie added that there is an understanding that there will need to be considerable investments in our infrastructure fairly soon. Pete asked if Jacquie was looking for action on this or if it is informational. Jacquie said she believes more informational and that we really don’t have an option of declining the proposal; however, she appreciates hearing the good questions about of all aspects of this proposal. Her worry is how we think about the future when we become reliant on really good people in this area.

Gateway naming

Following up on a conversation at the meeting the previous week, Pete said he heard from several committee members about suggestions for naming the Gateway building. Kathy Julik-Heine said she brought the question to an MCSA meeting and the general response was that Gateway was preferred more than Welcome Center mostly because of the offices that will be in the building. Kathy suggested an Ojibwe word (anamikaage) that translates to welcome. Lowell said that it’s always a challenge for first time visitors to determine where they should go. Bryan said he thinks that “welcome” sounds more inviting than “gateway” and he worries about the potential confusion for our visitors. He would support the name Welcome Center. Jacquie also believes the name of the building has to be a word that people can say. Pete will follow-up with one of our Obijwe language instructors about the correct definition and Jacquie will look into the protocol for naming buildings.

Case for Philanthropic Support

Maddy Maxeiner distributed a handout that she and Jacquie plan to take to the Chancellor's Advisory Council next week. Maddy and Jacquie have taken a number of ideas to various donors, friends, and alumni over the course of the past two years, and particularly last summer. Their conversations with donors reflect the "wish lists" generated on campus, which have been shared with CRPC as the case for support has developed. She does not believe that the University will launch a capital campaign this year. However, UMM will actively seek gifts in conjunction with our 2010 celebration of UMM's fiftieth anniversary and the 100th anniversary of the founding of the West Central School of Agriculture. September 23-26, 2010 is UMM's Founders Weekend. Mark asked if the list could be included in Profile. Bart was concerned that liberal arts isn’t mentioned in the document. Brook wondered if “access” is a tremendous draw or a relatively weak draw. Maddy said some donors are very motivated about financial benefits and that it varies very differently from people we talk with. Brook wondered if commenting on liberal arts is a draw. Maddy said the people we are talking to already know we’re a liberal arts institution. Pete said the last time we talked about this, he had some misgivings about the working “change agent” and he would urge rethinking the use of that phrase. Gwen said she does not know what the donors want to hear but she’s disappointed that we’ve lost the living learning community aspect and she worries that we will lose our sense of self as a school. Jacquie said part of the challenge is to find key words that capture our distinctiveness. Pete would like Maddy to bring this back to the committee after she receives input from the Chancellor’s Advisory Council.