STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE

MARCH 18, 2005

MINUTES

 

Present:              C. Bailey, J. Chase, C. Denard, M. Godbout, K. Green, E. Hall,

D.Hutchinson, F. Lacomb, N. Pellegrino, L. Purdy, B. Roberts, A. Rollo,

S. Sloan, A. Staples, M. VanDuyne, P. Wahlen (phone), S. Zabriskie

 

Carolyn D. opened the meeting at 8:35A.

 

I.                    Minutes of the February 25th meeting were approved.

 

II.                 Announcements:

 

1.      Carolyn went over the timeline and made one change:  the discussion of cost analysis would be at the April 8th meeting when Diane H. will talk about cost analysis and the April 15th meeting would be presentation of the fourth version of the plan with key performance indicators and benchmarks.

2.      Ann R. passed out pictures for committee members to review.

3.      Steve Z. asked what is the audience for the Strategic Plan?  Carolyn answered that it would eventually be for all of the college community and also posted on the website once it was finalized.  Diane H. did add that it is also handed out to faculty candidates when interviewing.

 

III.               Review of the Second Draft

 

1.      Cover Sheet

 

In reviewing the three cover sheet examples; some committee members liked Foundation for the Future as it represented one independent plan rather than individual plans.  It represented different elements built on one sustaining foundation.  A few were not quite sure about using Excellence, as it would present Wells as not yet Excellent.  Another suggestion was to use Foundation for Continuing Excellence or Foundation for Sustaining Excellence.  It was decided to think about the suggestions given and review the cover sheet at the next meeting.

 

2.      Vision Statement

 

Quite a bit of time was spent on the vision statement.  There were many suggestions to change many parts of the statement.  Many agreed that the first sentence needed to be worked on and changed.  Many felt that the first sentence is very important and sets up the strategic plan.  Some suggestions included:  taking out By 2010, changing it to read Wells College is committed to a higher quality institution with an academically promising liberal arts academic program. Carolyn thought the idea of adding liberal arts was a good idea because when the board decided to make the change for coed it was very important that we remain a liberal arts institution and maybe the statement should say it.  Ann R. thought the document needed to say we would be enhancing what we do and that we have to do more or do better than what we are currently doing.  Ellen H. felt very strongly that engaged has a different meaning on campus and that it has more to do with social responsibility through curriculum.  The statement and plan needs to reflect this.  Steve Z. added that maybe here is where we should add a benchmark for things such as Tier I.  Chris Bailey agreed but then Carolyn added that this might be better put in the academic area.  There was an in depth discussion regarding Tier I as Pat W. asked what was Tier I?  Ellen H. explained what Tier I was and that there would be huge implications for faculty in many areas when striving for Tier I.  Susan S. added that some of the implications included class size, GPA, academic support for students and retention rate.  How realistic is it for Wells to strive for Tier I during the next five years?  We would truly need to understand also the schools we are striving to be included with when talking about Tier I.  Another suggestion was to either take out the last sentence or change it to read We will strengthen and enhance the following foundations that we believe are critical for the future of Wells College.  A few more suggestions were to not only name a diverse student body but to add diverse to faculty and staff as well.  Nicole P. thought it better to use diverse academic program instead

 

After a lengthy discussion it was decided that everyone would again review the vision statement and send ideas and suggestions to Carolyn before the next meeting. 

 

3.      Mission Statement

 

Carolyn asked if there was any sense that the mission statement should be changed.  Chris Bailey felt that it was not the Strategic Planning Committee’s responsibility to make changes to this statement.  Many felt it could be an item open for discussion but should not hold up the strategic plan process.  Meredith V. suggested that this could be an item to be included in the plan at a later date.

 

 

4.      Foundation For The Future

 

In reviewing the statement, a suggestion was made to take out nurture and have sentence read to solidify and enhance the foundation…. 

 

5.      Students

 

Diane H. felt that we did need a number to go to in the first five years.  Susan S. felt that by 2010 should be taken out, as the year was not relevant here as it was already reflected in the Enrollment Projection Schedules.  Susan also felt that if we were to keep #1 then #1 and #2 should be switched.  When beginning to talk about the applicant pool, retention and other items Ann R. brought up the fact that many items discussed were tactics, not goals. Steve Z. added it also comes back to who is responsible to achieve the particular goal.  Frank L. asked how specific do we get in the strategic plan indicating what group is responsible and how will they accomplish the work needed to be done?  Nicole P. asked that merit scholarship be separated from attracting diverse student body.  She felt both could stand on their own. Taking out merit and leaving scholarships would be better.  Chris Bailey asked that #4 be taken right off, as we don’t have this for other groups why then for just males.  Susan S. agreed.  Susan did want to remind everyone that this is the first year of the transition and even though we were doing well now, please keep in mind that we don’t know what the next four years will bring.  Susan asked and it was decided that she would work on the Admissions part and have a draft for everyone at the next meeting. 

 

 

6.      Misc.

 

Bill R. asked what connection is our strategic plan to the campus plan (Master Plan) that was completed in 2000 and that is currently online.  Amy S. asked what was the campus plan?  Bill R. wanted to know if this plan had been scrapped and does our plan take its place?  Steve Z. explained that the Board had endorsed the master plan for future guidance and planning.  Chris B. felt that we needed to take out Master Plan or this plan and all the work we do would be dead.  Bill R. felt that as a committee we had a responsibility to talk about and include the Master Plan.  Ellen added that the Board only approved one thing on the Master Plan and that was building the Science Building.  Carolyn did want to have the minutes reflect that the first working document did mention Master Plan. 

 

It was decided that because only a small part of the strategic plan was covered in this meeting, Carolyn would take all the suggestions and work with them, rework the committees and contact everyone so that the next step would be for each committee to meet on their own to organize the goals and tactics in their particular section.  She would also meet with senior staff to talk about the strategic plan and get their suggestions.  Carolyn reminded everyone to keep in mind they were now going to work on the Goals, Tactics and Key Indicators for their section.

 

Meeting ended at 10:30a.

 

Next Meeting:  Friday, April 1, 2005, Henry Wells Room

 

Minutes recorded and respectfully submitted by Phyllis Siemiatkowski