STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
November 18, 2005
Henry Wells Room
Minutes
Present: C. Bailey, J. Chase, C. Collins, M. Godbout, J. Goddard, K. Moselle (attending for K. Green), M. Groth, E. Hall, D. Hutchinson, V. Muñoz, N. Pellegrino, B. Roberts, A. Rollo, E. Smith, A. Staples, M. VanDuyne, S. Zabriskie
Absent: F. Lacomb, L. Labar, S. Sloan, L. Ryerson, P. Wahlen
The meeting began at 8:30 a.m.
I. October 21 and October 28 minutes with one correction each were approved.
Diane H. gave her report by going page by page of the costing report.
1. Page 2 - D3, Provide greater opportunities for internships. “Is this new funding?” Yes, this is new funding, but Ellen H. was not sure at this time how much it would be. She is still exploring this.
2. Diane H. asked if the terminology for the annual budget was all right or did it need to be reworded. All committee members agreed that the terminology was fine. Figures still are needed from the Dean of Students and Funding. In certain areas, the dollar figure of $5,000 was used when the cost was not known.
3. Page 4 is as complete as it can get at this time. B1, includes three faculty, for each of 3 years (this year as year one). A year four was added as this plan goes beyond this five-year strategic plan. There are two scenerios for 2BII as it depends how quickly 2BII is reached. The figures would be different depending on which scenario it is.
4. Page 5 is complete.
5. Page 6 & 7 – Ann R.’s figures are still needed.
6. Page 8 – only need one item to complete this page, D2. This one item is still being worked on, as there may be other costs associated to this. Ellen H. will check with Susan S. to see if there would be additional recruiting cost or if it is already figured in the Admissions’ budget.
7. Page 9 – complete
8. Page 10 – Still need to touch basis with Lyn L., as some decisions have not been made. Projections can be made for this area, as different sports need different costs. The figures should be broken down by sport. With estimated costs, a decision can be made as to which sport to go with.
9. Page 11 – Diane H. asked who would best be responsible for A2, the developing and implementation plan for lighting, signage, security phone and navigation throughout the college? Ellen H. will make a call to Holt Architects as they are doing the lighting for the science building and will ask that this be included in the report they are working on. A question was asked as to how much should be determined for A3, the informal gathering center? It was suggested that the amount of $1,000 be given for each informal gathering space. D6, the dollar figure was mistyped and should read $965,790.
10. Page 12 – Figures are still needed for B1, 2, & 3. Ann R. suggested that this be cross-referenced with the Alumnae and Alumni campaign cost. Dollars are already accounted for running a campaign in the early part of this plan (page 7, B1) to launch a campaign. Kelly M. asked for an explanation of this section and Ellen H. asked if this section was really needed if it was to be cross-referenced. Ann R. explained that we do need this section so that special attention is paid to be sure it is done. It needs to be clear that this is cross-referenced; it is not an addition in the campaign budget. The next capital campaign would be to support this plan.
11. Page 13 - $20,000 is revenue. It was suggested that a column be added to indicate total cost. Figures from last year’s budget for the Book Arts can be given and then an estimate for future costs can be made. Ellen H. can supply last year’s figures.
Discussion:
Kelly M. asked where in the plan is there an item addressing increased student population and the future need for more residence space. It was explained that currently the campus can house 450 students and the campus is currently below that number this year. It was suggested that more funding was needed to take care of the future increase of students. Not only would more residence space be needed but more furniture and staffing needs also needed to be considered for the future. Ellen H. will talk to Karen G. regarding this item as many decisions to meet the future increase of students can be made in other ways than just through the strategic plan.
Professor Muñoz asked that on-going assessment be built into the plan along with mechanisms for on-going emergent needs when situations change. It needs to be indicated in the plan itself. What is needed is a strategic plan within the strategic plan. It was explained that this committee from the beginning continues to stay in place with the responsibility of monitoring the plan; it is an on-going process within the committee for the plan. Also indicated by a committee member that at this time, the committee is not there financially for on-going assessment, but without the financial figure, assessment can’t be done. All committee members agreed that a concrete statement was needed and placed in the plan for everyone to see. Where this written statement would go in the plan is yet to be determined.
Diane reviewed the College’s Accessibility Plan prepared by Holt Architects in September 2000. It is difficult to cost this plan and needs to be done by an architect. Prioritizing will be very important and will make a difference as to what needs to be done first.
Discussion:
It is the faculty, students and staff that need to endorse the plan before it goes to the Board of Trustees. Professor Muñoz asked why the plan was not also going out to Alumnae. They are a very important group that contributes to the college and why are they not going to get the same consideration as part of the campus community. It was explained that the plan has already gone out to them and it would be very expansive to send it out again. It also was explained that this plan is actually coming from the three on-campus community groups and it these groups that need to endorse the plan. It was suggested that whatever the campus community sees, the Alumnae should have available to them as well and that an email with the plan should go out to all Alumnae for their review and comments.
It was decided by the committee members that the plan will be put on a website hotlink so that everyone can review it from there. It was asked what would we do with the responses once the plan was sent out again because at this point the committee is asking for a group endorsement not individual comments and suggestions. Everyone agreed that it is a group endorsement from faculty, students and staff that is needed and that the plan along with an email before the Thanksgiving holiday would go out to Collegiate, Faculty Club, and Staff Forum for a vote of endorsement by December 21st. The plan would not be up for a line-to-line veto. When it is sent out it will be open for discussion but the endorsement would be for the complete plan. A question was raised, “What would happen if a group tables their vote?” It would go to the Board of Trustees with the table vote. When the plan does goes out it needs to be clear that this a draft plan. The plan would go out by email to Alumnae.
It was decided that notebooks with the plan along with costing information be made for the campus community to review one last time before it is voted on for endorsement. An email would go out to the campus community letting them know where the notebooks would be located. The notebooks would be placed in the following locations:
1. Ellen Hall’s office
2. Library
3. Building and Grounds
Although salaries cannot be put in, it was suggested that a total of salaries be used.
Ellen and Phyllis still need to go through the plan to see what areas include requests for tools to meet their job requirements.
Accessibility of plan to community:
1. Put on website, location to be determined.
2. Ann will work w/Phyllis, draft already on webpage previously
3. Endorsement needs to be done by December 21. (Collegiate, Faculty Club, and Staff Forum) Asking for group endorsement (yes or no), not individual suggestions or changes. Endorsement of plan as it is now. Not up for a line per line veto.
4. Email and webpage needs to be very clear that this a draft plan.
5. Email to alumnae but it will not include all alumnae, only those with emails.
Meeting ended at 9:45 a.m.
Next Meeting: Friday, December 2, 2005, 8:30 a.m., Henry Wells Room
Respectfully submitted: Phyllis Siemiatkowski