The
agenda for the meeting was to respond to the question, “How could our proposed
planning structure, under the stewardship of APPC, be made to work effectively
in developing a [mock] proposal for an Educational Resource Center?” The
planning group should hold open meetings, every semester, and be sure to
seek input from all divisions ("the biggest bucket possible").One
important role would be to identify and provide access to new and not-so-new
planning documents, including making them available on the web if feasible
(examples include disciplinary reviews and statements of needs; previous
long-range planning documents; existing facilities reports; charrette working
documents; staffing requests; Enrollment Management Team and Critical Issue
Action Committee work). It
was favorably noted that the proposed planning group would provides ongoing
process with built-in rolling membership, and that it would thereby help
to coordinate planning with work of other groups.It
was also suggested that the group look to other institutions to see what
kinds of interior, exterior and external spaces they have created.Reliance
upon in-house expertise (alums, board members) was suggested too. One
general theme is the idea that all info/ideas related to long-range planning
should be funneled though the subcommittee, and there was support for the
notion that APPC would define the subcommittee’s agenda.Some
questions then arose: What starts the process?[could
be via APPC from its representation with Dean of the College’s office,
Dean of Student’s office]?How would
an initiative arising from the Development office, or the President’s office,
or, indeed, the Board of Trustees, be brought to this group?Would
the group be project-oriented (sequential) or more overview-oriented (multiple
activities)? Concern
was shared that we must be sure that money brought in by development fits
our needs -- not that our plans be designed to fit the ideas coming in
with the money.The widely-held belief
that the Campus Master Plan, which proposes the removal of some important
academic buildings, had taken on the status of a set of “facts on the ground”
was eloquently expressed by some faculty members.In
response, one board member explained that the plan was in draft form, that
the Board had approved the plan after careful consideration of cost and
other issues, and he welcomed the opportunity to work with the proposed
planning group. Importantly,
there was general agreement that the plan currently adopted by the board
is open to modification (including plans to bring down any building) except
for the siting of the science building.In
summary, the meeting seemed to go well with general support for getting
such a planning body up to speed. Senior administrators and the Board of
Trustees (including new Board Chair Tobie van der Vorm) seem ready to work
with such a group. Respectfully
submitted, S.
Heinekamp (with input from C. Collmer and M. Groth)
Contact information:
Dean Ellen Hall, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dean of the College
Wells College, Aurora, NY 13026
Voice: 315.364.332441; Fax: 315.364.3227; Email: ehall@wells.edu
This page belongs to Ellen
Hall. Please see our statement
of responsibility.