Minutes

Present: C. Bailey, J. Chase, C. Collins, M. Godbout, J. Goddard, K. Moselle (attending for K. Green), M. Groth, E. Hall, D. Hutchinson, F. Lacomb, L. Labar, V. Muñoz, N. Pellegrino (phone), A. Staples, L. Ryerson, M. VanDuyne, S. Zabriskie

Absent: S. Grey, B. Roberts, A. Rollo, S. Sloan, E. Smith, P. Wahlen

The meeting began at 8:35 a.m.

I. The minutes with three corrections from October 14 meeting were approved.

II. Teaching Technology Committee and Classroom Upgrades Group

The call went out to division chairs asking if they would consider becoming members of these groups. Ellen H. should have this list confirmed within the next few days and will send the list to the members of the Strategic Planning Committee.

III. Costing

Diane H. reported on the two areas that were done so far. The first page was the Staff section and the second page from Ann R. was the Alumnae and Alumni section.

Staff Section - On Page 4, under Letter D, Number 3 of the planning cost document, Diane needed clarification and thought maybe the Jenzabar system which is the webpage system they were looking into would go here. Ellen H. felt that the technology training would be a tool and the upgrading of software would go under another section. Diane asked if the cost of software rotation should be added and also changed from every five years to every three. Frank L. added that this should cover everyone on campus, not just staff. Ellen H. and Lisa R. agreed that it was a good idea to cost it out. The first priority should be tools to meet already requested needs and the second priority should be the upgrade needed. Lisa R. stated that the baseline should be awareness of requests on table to meet the job requirements. This should be in the plan then think more broadly from there.

Everyone agreed with Ellen H.’s suggestion that she and Phyllis will go through the plan to see what areas include the requests for tools to meet job requirements. Diane H. also asked that consideration be given to making all offices on campus ergonomically correct. This is a need that must be addressed.

Alumnae and Alumni Section – Figures used to cost out were from the last campaign over the last eight years. The cost of the main website needs to be priced out.

IV. The next step for this committee is to review and look at what can be done, what can be afforded, and what priorities are for what that needs to be done and what funding can be raised. We should always consider how our work affects enrollment and retention. When presenting the plan to the Board, first, second, and third priorities should be indicated. Costing is needed in order to prioritize. There are many items that may need to come first but may not be possible because of cost. One of the many items in particular brought to the committee’s attention at this time was the Learning Center. Wells needs an integrated center in one place. Learning issues tend to be related to each other and there is not just one area that students can go for these services. The Learning Center covers social, academic and medical assistance, all of which would help retention. A student engagement survey (NSSE) will be done soon and will indicate the many issues students are having. The problem with this survey is that it is time consuming, it goes to both students and faculty, plus it is a nationwide survey and the results don’t come out until August. In addition, Dean Kelly Moselle will be giving out a climate survey to students in the WLLS 111 class in November, which centers on diversity. This survey is connected to a consortium of colleges for a Teagle project, which includes Hamilton, Colgate, Cornell, Ithaca and Wells. This survey will help to come up with strategies to implement.

Jeanne G. asked that although the Learning Center was being used as an example at this time that the Arts be considered a priority as well. The Arts helps with recruitment, retention, campus environment and sense of community. A strong Arts Program would benefit any institution. One committee member raised the question, “Are we offering what students want?” If we are not attracting students with the academic program, other steps are mute.

Another concern for students is the library. This should be another priority considered.

After taking a year to put this plan together, at what level do we make decisions on issues; individually or collectively? The answer was that individual priorities would come from community priorities. Another questions asked as follow-up, “At what stage do we make a fiscal priority to be healthy in keeping draw down?” An answer to this question was that we have to think globally and institutionally. The work needing to be done is to attract and retain students in a healthy community. The plan needs to be balanced - dream big on one hand and be more fiscally responsible on the other hand.

Victoria M. asked that costing be added to the Community section. The plan does state under Community – Wells will sustain and enhance its sense of community as a college, its role as a welcoming neighbor and strengthen mutually beneficial relationships within local, regional, national, and global communities. At this time costing out is not indicated and funding is needed, especially if the plan is to expand out into the national and international/global communities. The costs can include honorarium for consultants/speakers, books for discussion, food, and services, such as transcribing of focus groups.

V. From this meeting’s discussion, Ellen confirmed with the committee members the priorities to date to be considered:

1. Learning Center

2. Institution Assessment

3. Arts Program

4. Library

5. Living Environment

6. Technology

7. Athletics

Amy S. asked if the entire plan would be voted on when it is presented to the Board. Ellen H. and Lisa R. did answer that what this committee does now is very important for February when the plan is presented to them. Ellen H. asked that everyone please look at the plan and review for any items that they think should be added or deleted. She asked that members send their their list of priorities to her and when listing their priorities, please think institutionally and continue with costing.

VI. The Community Response Committee will report on October 28.

VII. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 a.m.

The next meeting will be on Friday, October 28 at 8:30 a.m. in the Henry Wells Room

Minutes respectfully submitted by Phyllis Siemiatkowski