Campus Resources and Planning Committee

November 2, 2009

 

 

 

Present:           Pete Wyckoff, Jacquie Johnson, LeAnn Dean, Kathy Julik-Heine, Brook Miller,

                        Sydney Sweep, Maddy Maxeiner, Mark Privratsky, Sarah Mattson, Carol

                        Marxen, Bart Finzel, Sara Haugen, Dave Swenson, Bryan Herrmann

 

Guests:                        Gwen Rudney, Janet Ericksen, Pareena Lawrence, Sandy Olson-Loy

 

 

Pete announced that Linc Kallsen plan to attend the meetings on November 9 and 16. Today we will wrap up the discussion on naming the Community Services building and spend time discussing reactions to the “Financing the Future” report as well as Bryan and Cheryl’s presentations.

 

Naming of Community Services Building

 

Dave Swenson made a motion that CRPC recommend that the building be named Welcome Center. Second by Bart Finzel. Motion passes – 7, opposed – 1, abstain – 1.

 

Reactions to “Financing the Future” Report

 

Chancellor Johnson said she thought it might be a good idea to have a conversation about the

Master Plan along with the siting of two additional wind turbines. The Master Plan will be presented at the December Board of Regents meeting. A campus community meeting has been scheduled along with a Morris area community meeting to present the Master Plan and to discuss the location of the turbines.

 

Pete informed the committee of the new charge from VP Jones that every campus put together a blue ribbon panel. The initial charge included three parts that include a five-year plan for admissions, an academic staffing plan and a five-year financial plan and is due by the end of the semester. The deadline for the blue ribbon panel is late February or early March depending on when our Compact meeting is scheduled. Jacquie said the charge is for each unit of the university to look closely and carefully at what they’re currently doing particularly well and what things we could let go of. We also need to think about things we’re not doing but ought to be. President Bruininks has appointed a steering committee and Kathy Julik-Heine has been named to that U-wide committee. Jacquie wondered whether we should appoint yet another committee or work within the framework we already have in place. We also need to think about how we might incorporate external audience feedback.

 

Brook suggested that we think about staging the groups, activating blue ribbon group once we have some initial findings from the three groups already in place. Jacquie said we also need to think about how the groups will work with our campus governance. She thought the staging idea made sense in terms of progression and logic. Bart thought we should start by looking at deliverables and determine if there’s an overlap with the blue ribbon panel. Perhaps the three groups can convene and make a recommendation to the blue ribbon committee. Jacquie added that the overall deliverable is a plan reflecting some collective shared sense of how we are going to manage the growing gap that looks inevitable between our revenue and expenses. The major deliverable is that plan. One option for building a blue ribbon committee is to invite the budget summit participants from spring 2009, a list include the vice chancellors, division chairs, representatives from the Consultative, CRPC, Executive, and a union representative. Student representation would need to be added and all work must be done within the framework of shared governance.

 

Pete believes the charge for the blue ribbon panel is bigger than the charges for the three groups we’ve already laid out. He also believes we will need broader by-in regarding campus governance. Jacquie asked if the committee would like to wait with the blue ribbon panel or go ahead with the budget planning summit. She suggested that she and Pete discuss what such a group might look like and then bring back for this group to review.

 

Follow-up on enrollment plan

 

Pete distributed a handout that he created about the UMM market share in terms of MN high school graduates—recent history and near-term projections. UMM faces a new challenge: we recruit most of our students in-state, but the number of Minnesota high school graduates will decline over the next several year. For the past few years, UMM’s class of first year-students straight out of high-school has tracked the number of Minnesota high school graduates fairly closely. Based on the information Bryan presented the previous week, Pete doesn’t think the numbers are we are projecting are low enough and wants to know the empirical basis for the predictions we have seen. Jacquie responded that the numbers need to be tied to initiatives and investments that should lead us to important conversations on what we should invest in. The point Pete wants to make is that problem with our 2006 strategic plan was that we assumed we would reach an a priori defined specific enrollment number, rather than base our projections on a realistic assessment of how many students we were likely to be able to recruit. With our current exercise, we need a strong empirical basis for our 2010-2014 enrollment estimates. Jacquie believes that our enrollment potential is tied to programs we offer, ACT scores and other intervening variables. Sydney asked what type of empirical data would allow us to refigure the enrollment numbers. Bryan said certainly competition from the Twin Cities campus changes our market share but it is hard project the impacts of this competition into the future. Pete said he just wants an explicit statement of how we figure the range. Bart thought the bigger the range we offer for 2010-2014, the harder it will be to use our predictions for actual planning. Jacquie said there’s always an inclination to just look at new high school student numbers but we need to look at the bigger picture and the roll that various groups contribute to it. While those projections are complicated, she believes we are on the right track.