Minutes

Present: C. Bailey, C. Collins, M. Godbout, J. Goddard, K. Moselle (attending for K. Green), E. Hall, D. Hutchinson, F. Lacomb, L. Labar, A. Rollo, E.R. Smith, A. Staples, & S. Zabrskie.

The meeting began at 8:35 am.

I. Approval of the minutes of the last meeting was deferred to the next meeting. Any person with comments to the draft minutes may send them directly to Phyllis. Minutes from both the last meeting and this meeting will be approved at the next.

II. Feedback Comments on review of Strategic Plan. The Community Response Committee reported there were only 30 feedback forms received: 13 from Alumnae, 6 staff, 6 faculty, and 5 others. The most common concerns were: no benchmarks or costing, too general, too vague, and that the Wells Express did not arrive until after the deadline to return the feedback forms. On the positive side, the group thought it was good that benchmarks are wanted.

The review group organized the comments according to the ideas expressed. The items that were specifically mentioned on the feedback forms were: Learning Center, diversity, faculty/staff salaries, athletics, child care, coed issues, library resources, financial aid, current practices, communication, enrollment retention, gender balances in courses, and funding. In general, the review group felt somewhat limited in that there were only 30 responses to work with. But they found no surprises in the responses received. Most of the topics commented upon in the responses had been talked about while developing the plan (except for a child care center). In defense of not addressing specific costing within the draft, Diane pointed out that usually a strategic planning document, presented to the community, does not include funding details and cost work-up. The comments regarding the absence of costing details may have come up because some areas of the plan are very detailed and specific, including numerical benchmarks in their goals.

The Community Response Sub-committee (M. Godbout, E.R. Smith, A. Staples) reported on the 30 responses received to date. 13 responses came from alums (including one response from the Alumnae Association), 6 from staff (including one response from the Staff Forum Salary Committee), 6 from faculty, and 5 "other" (2 "friends of the College," 1 honorary trustee, 2 unknown).

There were a number of supportive comments and a number of areas of concern as well. The most adamant area of dissatisfaction was the September 15th deadline. As in many instances, people did not receive

the plan and survey/response form until after the deadline. Otherwise the greatest area of concern was the apparent lack of benchmarks, assessment tools, reference to review, and a lack of specifics, including a lack of detail on funding and implementation. There was concern that the plan was too general and vague to be implemented successfully.

Other issues that came up in the comments were the Learning Center (continued lack thereof), diversity (needs to be developed/emphasized more), faculty and staff salaries, issues of communication within the campus community, and athletics (idea of a minimum GPA for athletes, perception that we are putting athletics ahead of academics). A smaller group of responses centered on the library, the academic program in relation to co-education, child care, financial aid for students, the idea that the plan relies too much on current practices/on what is already being done, gender balance, and retention.

Ann Rollo believes after talking with the alumnae and from these conversations, the overall alumnae response was favorable, and the low number of feedback forms returned reflects their approval of the plan. The presentation made by Frank & Chris to the Alumnae Council stimulated a lot of discussion regarding the plan. Transcribed comments from that meeting will be made available for review.

Anyone wishing to review the actual feedback forms (rather than the summary prepared) may do so in Phyllis’ office. There was some discussion of the comments made in regards to the Learning Center. The idea that the Learning Center is already in existence is somewhat confusing. The work being done in the spirit of the Learning Center has been going on for a few years, but a physical location for the Center is what is approached in the Plan. There was also some discussion on the suggestion made to change each section in the Plan where it states “Wells will…” to “Wells is committed to…”. There were opinions expressed both in favor of changing the wording and in leaving the wording as is.

Ideally the Plan will be put up on the web after it is complete. For now, Ellen thought we should put a comment in the upcoming Express, acknowledging the receipt of the feedback forms, letting people know that their comments were reviewed and appreciated.

III. Priorities and Pricing. In considering priorities, it was suggested to Ellen that costing out the plan would facilitate setting priorities and schedules. Ellen pointed out that working on pricing for the various plan items is very time-consuming. She requested direction from the committee before starting to cost out the whole plan. Some felt that ball-park figures were sufficient. Ellen pointed out that a certain amount of research needs to be done to give a realistic “ball-park figure”. Often ball-park figures are low. All agreed that costing out the plan would be good to do first. A certain amount of detail in costing the plan is necessary to develop realistic figures, but it does not require detail to the finest level (exact software prices, etc.).

As suggested at the meeting, the finance committee will go through the Plan to assure that where plan proposals are covered in more than one section, the costs associated will not be added in two or more times. Also, start-up costs need to be identified separately from on-going expenses. Plan action costs that are in the current budget should also be noted. Although a cost is built into the current budget, it should be known how much is budgeted now and if so, whether that amount is enough to cover the plan proposal. It was suggested that the costs of the various elements of the plan be looked at over a five-year period.

Questions arose regarding the terminology used, especially “no associated cost”. In some cases where “no associated cost” was used, it was noted that there are costs involved. Chris and the finance committee will come up with standard nomenclature in this matter.

As pricing-out the various sections will take time, the next meeting will be scheduled for November 18^th at which time the committee as a whole will review the plan costing with the idea of finalizing the Plan. The plan should ready to present to faculty, staff and student bodies in December for endorsement, so that the plan may be presented to the Board for approval in February. The suggestion was made to email the groups, prior to their meetings, to announce the placement of the Plan on their agenda for endorsement.

The meeting adjourned 9:35am.

Respectfully submitted: Andrea LaBaron