February 21, 2007
Present: C. Bailey, J. Chase, C. Collmer, S.
Gilchrist, M. Godbout, M. Groth,
D. Hutchinson, T. Lossowski, T. Lumumba-Kasongo, A.
Lundquist,
L. Miller-Bernal, C. Speaker, M. VanDuyne, P. Wahlen
(phone), S. Zabriskie
Absent: E. Brownell, T. Copeland, J. Goddard,
S. Grey, L. Labar, F. Lacomb, A. Rollo,
L. Ryerson, S. Sloan
Meeting began at 8:35a and
was facilitated by Leslie Miller-Bernal
I.
Steve Gilchrist was
introduced as a new member of the Strategic Planning Committee. An informational publication from
Pennsylvania State University, Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment
obtained by Cindy Speaker while attending an assessment conference was handed
out entitled Strategic Indicators:
Measuring and Improving University Performance as a helpful tool in
moving along with the strategic planning process.
II.
Discussion
Leslie
explained that she found difficulties in the homework assignment of
prioritizing and asked if anyone else did.
In the priority lists submitted she found that many approached the
assignment in different ways. It was
agreed that the assignment actually put each area in isolation and the
prioritizing was more on a personal level, some ranking categories while some
the area, depending the need of their particular area. The process did show that in most instances
the members had the same idea of order of priority. Everyone agreed that the need to know what has been completed in
each area and what still needed to be done would help in prioritizing. Many groups such as EMT, Student Life and
Senior Staff already originate their work from the Strategic Plan. Some groups may be waiting to be directed
from the SPC. Work already done in one
area may change the priority in another area.
It was asked if the plan could be changed once priorities were done as
new goals in areas not specifically mentioned in the plan emerged. The plan is flexible for change but so that
the plan itself doesn’t become so specific in language, it was decided that the
different strategic plans from the different groups and committees would be
added as appendixes and the details would be there. A question was asked about funding for specific areas in accomplishing
certain goals. Diane H. explained that
the strategic plan informs the budget and the budget is actually built around
the five-year strategic plan.
Leslie
suggested that subcommittees be formed to continue work in prioritizing and
suggested at least two committees, one dealing with gender-equal co-education
so that Wells remains a good place for women to come to and one regarding the
ten year academic plan that Roger Bagnall suggests.
Steve
Z. asked where were all the previous documents such as the Cost Analysis, the
Senior Staff Responsibility Outline and work done by previous
subcommittees. Instead of creating more
subcommittees and continuing to go over the same topic every semester, couldn’t
these documents be updated and used to continue work. It would help to alleviate revisiting and continuously going over
work that has already been discussed and completed, get new committee members
up to date and give confirmation to all members what work has been done and
what still needs to be completed. It
was agreed that what was started by the Senior Staff Responsibility document
needs to keep going and that work now needs to be directed to the various
groups or departments responsible in completing tasks. Meredith suggested that Senior Staff add a
new column to this document as to what group is working in a specific area on a
specific goal.
Muriel
G. asked about staff development. There
has been discussion regarding goals being completed for faculty development and
student development but no mention for staff development.
1. The Senior Staff Responsibility document will go back
to Senior Staff for updating to show what tasks have been completed. A new column will be added to this document
to indicate which group or committee is responsible and is currently working on
a specific task.
2. A copy of the cost analysis will be updated.
3. Leslie will develop the two committees that she has
suggested.
4. Develop a hard copy of the plan and have it available
in certain areas for everyone to review at any time and the plan with the fall
revisions accessible on the website.
5. A meeting will not be necessary every week. It was decided that work would originate
from the Senior Staff Responsibility document and the whole group would meet a
week before last faculty meeting and just before the next Board meeting for an
updated report of the SPC progress.
6. It was suggested that a presentation from Senior Staff
be done for staff, possibly at a Staff Forum meeting to engage staff in
becoming more a part of the plan.
Meeting
ended at 10:35 a.m.
Respectively
submitted by Phyllis Siemiatkowski