STRAGEIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

MAY 13, 2005

MINUTES

Present: J. Chase, C. Denard, M. Godbout, M. Groth, E. Hall, D. Hutchinson,

F. Lacomb, M. McCune (phone), N. Pellegrino, L. Purdy, B. Roberts,

A. Rollo, S. Sloan, J. Smith, A. Staples, M. VanDuyne, L. Labar

The meeting began at 8:35a.

I. Announcements

1. Carolyn began the meeting by thanking everyone for the hard work they have been doing with their subcommittees and the plan itself and for attending the extra meetings when they could.

2. The agenda for the meeting would include review of the Funding section, review of the Introduction that was handed out at Wednesday’s meeting, deciding where the Honor Code should be placed in the plan, getting consensus for the Alumnae and Alumni heading, and a preliminary cost analysis from Diane H. for some areas.

II. Major Points of Discussion and Comments

FUNDING

1. A committee member asked why would we have an objective to complete a readiness analysis and assessment when the plan was to launch a campaign within the next five years. Ann R. explained that before campaign date is launched we need to understand the donor. There was concern about no dates under Goal B but Anne R. did explain that ultimately there would be dates. The public launch date is ceremonious, the work itself continuously, both go simultaneously. Anne R. explained that 30-50% of the dollars are usually raised before the actual launch date.

2. There was a question asking if it was realistic to reduce the College’s endowment to meet budgetary expenses to 6-8% within the next five years. Anne R. explained that we should not rely on the endowment. Diane H. also explained that we have to reduce relying on the endowment before we go forward. Dollars are not available for transition. The draw currently is so high now.

3. There were no objectives listed under Goal F. The subcommittee felt this goal needed to be addressed and should be in the plan but didn’t have objectives to go with it. Everyone agreed and that benchmarks would be included later.

INTRODUCTION

1. Carolyn read the introduction and explained that she tried to make it clear emphasizing the foundation elements. The committee members liked the introduction and felt it set the tone for the work of the draft but some rewording needs to be done to be less repetitive and to cut it down to one page. There was concern for the second paragraph where it jumps from early years to ensuring years and that it implies the College has been deteriating all those years when there has been growth within those years. Also, committee members would like to see more language specifically to the liberal arts. Jonee S. didn’t agree that diversity should be listed as a great asset as there still needs to be much work done in this area. Carolyn explained that those elements listed were some old and some new assets and that diversity was an asset as it included many things. Anne R. suggested that the sentence be broken up and felt rewording would make the difference.

HONOR CODE

1. Bill R. suggested that the Honor Code be placed in Culture to make it more visible for the broader community. Bill R. felt that through the years the importance of the Honor Code has been weakened. Carolyn asked then if the Culture section should be put back in but would it be contradictory to have both Diversity and Culture sections. It was felt by the entire committee that the Honor Code should be very visible and should go in not only the student section but be cross referenced in the faculty and staff sections as an objective.

ALUMNAE AND ALUMNI

1. Everyone agreed to use Alumnae and Alumni so that each group would be identified.

MISCELLANEOUS

1. Muriel saw that there still was not a mention about the feasibility study for the library. Carolyn would add it as objective #3 under Goal D.

2. Laura P. asked about affirmative action in hiring faculty under the History section in order to maintain sex, male-female, and gender balance. Diane H. will check with the lawyers regarding this issue.

3. A committee member asked if the draft is going to be reviewed by everyone once more before it goes to Ann R. for the Express. Carolyn said the committee would meet once more on Wednesday, May 18^th at 8:30a. Jonee asked that the draft be sent out to the students before Wednesday so that all students would get a chance to see it before they left for summer break. There was a great concern by many committee members that it was not ready to go out until everyone was able to review it at Wednesday’s meeting. The consensus was that it would be reviewed first on Wednesday before it went out to the campus community with the revisions from Friday’s meeting. Carolyn did add that there would be two opportunities for the campus community to see the draft, after Wednesday’s meeting and then again in the fall. She reminded everyone that it is not a working document until the Board approves it and it would not go before the Board until the Strategic Planning Committee reviews and approves it. Jonee S.asked if this plan would be implemented in 2005. Carolyn answered it is created in 2005 not implemented.

4. Diane H. will email everyone with cost analysis as she needs to work with individual subcommittees to learn their dollar needs. Carolyn added that cost analysis would be work done over the summer.

III. COST ANYALSIS REPORT

1. Diane H. gave a cost analysis report on the Science Building:

Construction $13,125,000

Prof. Fees $ 1,571,000

Soft Costs $ 2,750,000

$17,446,000 (Have 5.4 million cash)

Endowment: $6,563.000 (Have raised 3.1 million)

Parking Lot – $465,000

Faculty Salaries (Assume IIB2 increase 3.5% a year)

05-06-$135,142

06-07-$145,785

07-08-$154,532 (above IIB2)

08-09-$111,581

09-10-$101,537

Minutes respectively submitted by: Phyllis Siemiatkowski