Minutes

Present: C. Bailey, J. Chase, C. Collins, M. Godbout, J. Goddard, M. Groth, E. Hall,

D. Hutchinson, F. Lacomb, S. Sloan, E. Smith, A. Staples, L. Ryerson,

M. VanDuyne, P. Wahlen (phone), S. Zabriskie

Absent: K. Green, S. Grey, L. Labar, V. Muñoz, N. Pellegrino, B. Roberts, A. Rollo,

The meeting began at 11:05 a.m.

The minutes from the August 24 meeting were approved.

Ellen H. welcomed everyone to the first meeting for the 2005-2006 year and introduced the new members who were in attendance; Carrie Collins, Jeannie Goddard, and Emily Rose Smith.

It was decided that the best time for the Strategic Planning Committee to meet would be on Fridays at 8:30 a.m. The meetings would attempt to be one hour in length but in some cases if one hour was not enough meetings would go on to 10:00 a.m. Coffee/Tea will be available for the Friday meetings.

Before opening up for discussion, Ellen H. reported where the SPC was currently. She reported that in reviewing the August 24 minutes, a summary letter did not go out to the community with a draft of the plan. Very few responses were received, from the May letter to the community and from the draft presented in the Wells Express. The responses that were received were passed around so that committee members could review them. At this stage, the draft is not ready to submit to the Board in September. The committee would submit it in December if the Board met then, if they did not, the plan would be ready to be submitted with cost analysis in February. Plans have already been put in motion for one staff member and one faculty member of the committee to present where we are with the plan. Frank L. and Chris B. will report to the Board during the working dinner on Thursday and to the Alumnae Council on Saturday.

Open Discussion:

Chris B. reported that he and Frank will present the historical structure of the strategic planning committee, based on position not person, and explain the broad timeline of what has been done so far.

President Ryerson asked that there be some time after they reported for Alumnae to interact with discussion to get feedback during this session. Chris B. sees their reporting as an introduction to a conversation and this would open discussion for feedback.

It was felt that the presentation to the Board would need numbers. Diane H. does have figures for the Science building, estimated figures for faculty and salary, and some figures for athletics. President Ryerson added that it is very important that we have a timeline with cost figures to move on. Ellen H. asked if the best next step would be to reconstitute the small committees or to combine the smaller committees to work together on the actions that need to be taken to move forward. A concern was how much detail would be needed for the next step and how quickly does the committee need to move. Per Pat W., detail comes from the annual budget. Additional endowment would be needed to carry on the huge number of initiatives. This is the bigger picture the Board would be interested in hearing.

It was suggested by Amy S. that a Financial subcommittee be formed to oversee the work that the smaller committees would be doing since all committees needed input for the cost analysis in planning the initiatives for their area. A financial subcommittee was formed with the following members: Diane H., Ann R., Chris B., Steve Z., Muriel G., and Carrie C. This committee would meet on October 7 and report to the larger SPC on October 14.

It was asked what is the goal for this committee this year? It was decided the following goals were:

1. Set priorities,

2. Process feedback once the draft went out to the community,

3. Bring in people from the various committees to help complete work at various stages,

4. Attach a timeline to all work that is planned.

It was decided that the draft would go out to the community as soon as possible for feedback. An email letter would be composed before the end of today and emailed to all committee members for their review and input. This would be sent out with a copy of the draft and a response form. The goal for this email would be to explain the commitment this committee has to the draft and seeking community endorsement before submitting it to the Board. A timeline of response from the community would be set for October 12. The plan would be presented to each of the on-campus constituencies for endorsement at an appropriate meeting in November (Faculty Meeting, staff at Staff Forum, and students at Collegiate). Steve Z. asked if these groups needed to see figures along with the draft. Ellen H. felt that it would be very useful for the community to see the ballpark figures.

The meeting ended at 11:50 a.m.

The next meeting is Friday, October 14 in the Henry Wells Room at 8:30 a.m.

Minutes respectively submitted by Phyllis Siemiatkowski