1

UWSP Strategic Planning – Spring Semester 2007

Purpose of this semester’s work Chancellor Bunnell actually began strategic planning at least two years ago as she held numerous forums and conversations regarding a vision for UWSP. She refrained from naming this process ‘strategic planning’ at that time for a variety of reasons. This semester, however, UWSP began an official strategic planning initiative which will enable the resultant “Vision 2015” (see Appendix 1) to become a reality. We undertook this strategic planning process for two reasons: first, in 1998, UWSP promised in the NCA accreditation report to conduct a strategic planning process. Second, the November 2006 AASCU team report states that for the upcoming accreditation visit, the accreditation team will expect to see “strategic planning to ensure the achievement of University goals” (p.9).

Process Virginia Helm and Bob Mosier pulled together a “Strategic Planning Organizing Committee” (SPOC) at the beginning of the spring semester, consisting of Virginia Helm, Bob Mosier, Chris Sadler and Anna Haines. At the February 7, 2007 Faculty Senate Meeting, Anna Haines, Associate Professor, CNR presented a draft strategic planning framework and process for campus (see Appendix 2). Appendix 3 provides a timeline of the spring semester activities of three planning groups: SPOC, the planning group, and the review group.

SPOC organized four sessions off­campus that were facilitated by Mark Hilliker of Portage County’s UW­Extension office. The first three sessions in March, prior to spring break, resulted in the development of a draft SWOT analysis, a draft mission statement, a draft values statement, and a structure for on­going strategic planning process (See Appendices 4­9 for these documents). About 30 faculty and staff were asked to participate in these four evening sessions (Appendix 10 provides a list of the planning group participants).

After the March planning sessions, a review group, chaired by Joan North, was asked to solicit responses to the draft mission and values statements. (Appendix 11 provides a list of the review group participants). Drafts were distributed widely and were available on a strategic planning website. The minutes of the review group’s meetings are provided in Appendices 12­15. Part of the process included sifting through the hundreds of responses that came from the website, colleges, Deans, and other units. Appendix 16 shows weighted scores for the draft values.

The fourth session in April brought back the planning group to review campus responses and revise the mission and values statements and the strategic planning structure (Appendix 17). The revised mission statement and values is located in Appendix 18.

In May, SPOC is asking the campus to provide feedback about the revised mission and values statements. The feedback from those responses will be compiled. Colleges, departments, offices, and units across campus have another opportunity to discuss who we are, what we value, and what we do.

2

Discussion In the review process, quite a few individuals indicated concern that the first mission statement didn’t indicate how UWSP is unique. Mission statements from other organizations, including colleges and universities, rarely if ever are so specific that they present the institution or organization as totally unique. If you view Vision 2015, the draft mission statement, values, and our select goals and responsibilities, you will see the uniqueness of our university. We include copies of a dozen mission statements in the report and encourage any faculty and staff who raised this concern about ‘uniqueness’ to read these examples (see Appendix 19) in order to better understand the real nature of mission statements.

Several individuals have expressed their concern about the campus’ “Select Goals and Responsibilities” (aka ‘Select Mission’), which is listed in the catalog on page 1 in the Introduction. (See Appendix 20). The revised mission and values statements do not replace UWSP’s Select Goals and Responsibilities.

Future of Strategic Planning Finally, the results of this semester’s work will be forwarded to the Academic Affairs Committee, which will take up the issue of the campus mission and values statements first thing in fall semester, 2007. After they have given it their full consideration, they will make recommendations to Faculty Senate – either to approve or to return to the campus for further revision.

The strategic planning process will continue next semester. The planning session participants approved the planning structure outlined in Appendix 21. The model is accompanied by definitions and rationale; it will be discussed by line officers and various campus constituencies including governance.

Prepared by Strategic Planning Organizing Committee: Anna Haines Virginia Helm Bob Mosier Chris Sadler

May, 2007

3

List of Appendices

Appendix # Document Page #

1 Vision 2015 – “UWSP: Connecting to the Future” 4

2 Draft Campus Planning Structure 5

3 Timeline of Strategic Planning Process – Spring Semester 2007 6

4 Planning Session 1: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, & Threats 7

5 Summary Notes – Planning Session 1 8

6 Planning Session 2: Mission and Values 13

7 Summary Notes – Planning Session 2 14

8 Planning Session 3: Planning Structure 16

9 Summary Notes – Planning Session 3 17

10 Strategic Planning Session Participants 21

11 Strategic Planning Campus Review Group 22

12 Mission & Values Review Group Minutes – 4/3/07 23

13 Mission & Values Review Group Minutes – 4/9/07 25

14 Mission & Values Review Group Minutes – 4/11/07 27

15 Mission & Values Review Group Minutes – 4/12/07 29

16 Values – Revised Weighted Scores 31

17 Planning Session 4: Mission/Values & Planning Structure Review 32

18 Draft #2 – Mission Statement and Values 33

19 Sample Mission Statements 34

20 UW­Stevens Point Mission Statements 37

21 Strategic Planning Structure 39

4

Appendix 1

Vision 2015 ­ "UWSP: Connecting to the Future"

UWSP's vision for 2015

Building on traditions of excellence and service to Central Wisconsin, UWSP will CONNECT TO THE FUTURE by:

• Providing challenging learning and leadership experiences that prepare students to be GLOBAL CITIZENS

• Projecting our history and values in the LIFE AND LOOK OF THE CAMPUS o Experience of the liberal arts and sciences o Responsibility of personal and community wellness o Stewardship of natural resources o The power of communication and the arts

• Partnering with others for a VIBRANT ECONOMY

5

Appendix 2

Draft Campus Planning Structure

Mission & Values Plan

2008 Diversity

Campus Master Plan

Division/ Unit Goals

Campus Academic Goals

Strategic Planning Framework

Assessment GDR Review

Enrollment Advising

Vision 2015

6

Appendix 3

Timeline of Strategic Planning Process – Spring Semester 2007

Coordinating Group Planning Group Review Group Date Activity Date Activity Date Activity February Planning Late

February Planning for review

March 5 SWOT March 8 Mission and

Values

Early March Planning for review

March 12 Receive Mission and Values from Mark Hilliker

March Continue to meet as needed

March 12 Planning Process Models

March 12­ 30

Receive feedback from UWSP community

March 31 – April 13

Analyze feedback and prepare report

April 13 Receive Review Group report

April 13­17 Meet to discuss and send to planning group

End of April Meet to discuss final meeting of planning group, make all results available on a website, next steps…

April 18, 19, 25 or 26

Final meeting to discuss mission and values statement based on review group report

7

Appendix 4

University of Wisconsin­Stevens Point Strategic Planning Initiative: Spring Semester 2007

Session 1: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, & Threats

Monday March 5, 2007 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Conference Rooms 1 & 2, Portage County Courthouse Annex 1462 Strongs Avenue, Stevens Point

Agenda

6:00 – 6:15 p.m. Welcome & Charge to Work Group Chancellor Linda Bunnell

6:15 – 6:25 p.m. Introductions & Overview of Strategic Planning Sessions Mark Hilliker, University of Wisconsin­Extension, Portage County – Facilitator

6:25 – 7:00 p.m. Small Group Work to Identify Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, & Threats Strengths Group – Room 1; Weaknesses Group – Room 2; Opportunities Group – Room 3; Threats Group – Room 5 (3 rd Floor)

7:00 – 7:15 p.m. BREAK

7:15 – 7:30 p.m. Group Rotation 1 Strengths Group to Room 2; Weaknesses Group to Room 3; Opportunities Group to Room 5; Threats Group to Room 1

7:30 – 7:45 p.m. Group Rotation 2 Strengths Group to Room 3; Weaknesses Group to Room 5; Opportunities Group to Room 1; Threats Group to Room 2

7:45 – 8:00 p.m. Group Rotation 3 Strengths Group to Room 5: Weaknesses Group to Room 1; Opportunities Group to Room 2; Threats Group to Room 3

8:00 – 8:15 p.m. Group Rotation 4 Groups return to their original stations and review added information. Prepare to report findings to large group.

8:15 – 8:45 p.m. Large Group Reconvenes in Rooms 1 & 2 to Highlight Key Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats

8:45 – 9:00 p.m. Preview Session 2: March 8, 2007, from 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.

9:00 p.m. Adjourn

8

Appendix 5

University of Wisconsin­Stevens Point Strategic Planning Initiative: Spring Semester 2007

Session 1: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, & Threats

Monday March 5, 2007 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Conference Rooms 1 & 2, Portage County Courthouse Annex 1462 Strongs Avenue, Stevens Point

The first of three pre­planning sessions for institutional strategic planning at the University of Wisconsin­Stevens Point was held March 5, 2007 at the Portage County Courthouse Annex Building in Stevens Point. Participants completed an analysis of the institution's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. The following information represents the work completed by the planning group in the first session.

• This was a brainstorming session in which ideas were generated with no voting or consensus by the group.

• The items under each category of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats are not rank ordered.

• The ideas generated from this analysis are intended as background information for session two, drafting a mission statement and values statements.

• In the future, this SWOT can be referred to as the strategic planning process moves forward into the next academic year.

Purpose of the step: Internal strengths and weaknesses of the organization are identified, along with the organization’s external opportunities and threats. The analysis of these four elements, know by the acronym SWOT, is very useful in clarifying the conditions within which an organization operates.

Strengths: Strengths are internal resources or capabilities that help the University of Wisconsin­ Stevens Point to accomplish its mission or mandates.

• Strong academic programs, including International programs • Faculty/student ratio, with dedicated faculty • Campus­wide support for student success • Strong information technology • Student engagement and involvement • Facilities for Art, Natural Resources, and Sciences • Strong programs – regional and national prominence • Campus/community relationship

o Cultural activities o Adult student educational opportunities o Economic benefits

9

o Diversity o Rich employee pool attracted to the area

• Low student/faculty ratio • Committed faculty • High student retention, graduation rates, and placement • Excellent student organizations • Opportunities for student engagement • Academic and classified staff support for student success • "Small" campus community – cohesive • Sustainability commitment • Labor/management relations

o Alternative Discipline Program is a model for other agencies • Campus master plan • Lots of very competent and talented employees • Egalitarian culture • Information technology • Plan 2008 • Committed to wellness • Accessible faculty • Size of campus – compact • New faces and energy on campus – faculty and staff • Athletic programs and student athletes • Academic advising in certain areas • New University Center • Schmeeckle Reserve • Field Stations – Treehaven, Central Wisconsin Environmental Station • Great raw material – students • Shared governance • Friendly campus • Unique and prestigious program

o CNR, Communicative Disorders, Music Education, Musical Theatre, etc. • Overall Student Life Program • New Fine Arts Center • Strong commitment to undergraduate education • Stevens Point community – safe • Safe campus • International programs/travel abroad • Geography – location of campus

o No other 4­year campus in region • Cultural center of central Wisconsin

Weaknesses: Weaknesses are internal deficiencies in resources and capabilities that hinder the University of Wisconsin­Stevens Point's ability to accomplish its mission or mandates.

10

• Lack of trust between faculty and administration o Communication issues between faculty and administration

• Lack of adequate scholarship resources (freshman) o Merit and need based

• Behind on getting students ready for diversity o Culturally o Curriculum

• Behind on getting faculty and staff to deal with diversity • Physical appearance of the campus

o Visitor perceptions o Need to strengthen infrastructure services (more employees)

• Campus culture that resists change • Campus boundaries are limited • Not a 24/7 campus • Campus activities not well advertised • Town/Gown issues • Not enough resources focused on assessment • Not enough student voice on staffing decisions

o Hiring, retention, tenure o UW policy?

• Too many General Degree Requirements relative to other schools • Difficult to change with the times (cumbersome) for new curriculum, etc. • Inconsistent academic advising across campus

o Need improved advising o Faculty need more assistance with student advising

• Need solid relationships between students and faculty • Little understanding across departments and colleges of the utility of majors • Scholarly publications or students teaching, or more? • Lack of performance­based incentive, particularly for faculty, but across all areas • Filling teaching positions with academic staff instead of tenure track faculty • Duplication of services (separate maintenance departments for housing, centers, and

physical plant) • No new money – can't experiment with new programs. Have to cut to use dollars

somewhere else. • Professional development money is gone • High student fees • Residence halls not competitive with other campuses • "Chargeback" mentality

Opportunities: Opportunities are outside factors or situations that affect the University of Wisconsin­Stevens Point in a favorable way.

• Campus engagement and planning • Chance for curricular change

o General Degree Requirements, Majors

11

• Collaboration o Internal (on­campus) & External (off­campus)

• Enhance student experience • Fundraising

o Capital campaign, Madison, etc. • Improve advising (academic) • Acknowledge/Enhance diversity • "Tear down walls" • Interdisciplinary efforts • Strengthen shared governance

o Faculty and Student Government Association • Move from content to outcome­based learning • Increase classified staff ownership • Increase alumni donations • Reach out to transfer students • Reach out to non­traditional students • Planning

o Planning for change o Engage entire campus – planning o Examine enrollment issues o Learn from self­study and Higher Learning Commission o Chance to review GDRs/curriculum o Continue with Master Plan, including physical plant and aesthetics

• Examine SCH role on campus • Improve recruitment and retention of faculty and students • More flexible budget • Develop new majors and minors • Collaboration between Academic Affairs and Student Affairs • Capital campaign • Change how we teach

o More hands­on learning with business, agencies, others • New local civic leadership • Increasing involvement of parents in support of UWSP – partners in success • Globalization of business – more international opportunities for student and faculty • More favorable state political environment • Engage with more dual certification programs with international universities

(articulation agreements) • New role for our congressmen in Washington • Partnership with Centergy and business community • Midwest compact – more opportunity for high­quality out­of­state students • Involved in growth agenda

Threats: Threats are outside factors or situations that affect the University of Wisconsin­Stevens Point in a negative way.

12

• Rising cost of education, decreased financial aid, rising student debt (including student fees)

• Imperialistic expansion of two­year campuses, technical schools, and on­line universities

• Loss of resources (traditional age students, state funding) • Loss and turnover of faculty and staff due to retirement and predation • Rising energy costs and physical plant issues (facilities, residence halls, aesthetics) • Heavy workload and low (non­competitive) salaries for faculty and staff • No incentives to save energy from UW System or Department of Administration • Declining 18­24 age group • Increased competition

o On­line and for­profit schools (price point and competition issues) • Limited state funding • Increased federal oversight • Pressure for credit transfer from 2­year colleges and technical colleges • Perception of "deep pools" of private funding sources – may actually be a smaller pool

than we think (businesses, philanthropists). They may get tired of us asking for dollars. • Turnover at both UW System and UWSP

o Loss of history and knowledge • Predation of faculty and staff due to salary issues • Globalization of central Wisconsin businesses (local ownership no longer tied to area) • Perception that we are state supported – we are really state subsidized • Internal "squabbling" over changes in how we fund programs • Energy costs/Infrastructure (buildings, etc.) • Terror threat impacting international students and international programs • Anit­education movement/feeling at the federal and state levels • Rising cost of education plus decreased federal aid

o Rising amount of student debt • System reorganization (i.e. Extension/UW Colleges merger and shrinking staff at

System) • Not adapting to student needs • Too many credits for General Degree Requirements • Attack on Liberal Arts versus specialized education • Large majors and credits to degree • Negative climate from legislators • 2­year colleges offering B.A./B.S. • Recruitment of good administrators • Not adapting to changing environment (e.g. technology) • Increasing dependence on student fees • Degree credibility to hiring public

13

Appendix 6

University of Wisconsin­Stevens Point Strategic Planning Initiative: Spring Semester 2007

Session 2: Mission and Values

Thursday, March 8, 2007 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Conference Rooms 1 & 2, Portage County Courthouse Annex 1462 Strongs Avenue, Stevens Point

Agenda

6:00 – 6:15 p.m. Review of Session 1 Work & Check­in on Progress toward Planning Objectives

6:15 – 7:00 p.m. Mission Statement Development Individuals develop mission statement for UWSP in small groups. Use wordsmithing tool to develop group mission statement.

7:00 – 7:15 p.m. BREAK

7:15 – 7:45 p.m. Mission Statement Development Groups 1 & 2 work together to develop a combined mission statement. Groups 3 & 4 work together to develop a combined mission statement.

7:45 – 8:15 p.m. Mission Statement Development Meet in large group to combine mission statements from workgroups.

8:15 – 8:50 p.m. Values Discussion Meet in large group to develop institutional value statements.

8:50 – 9:00 p.m. Preview Session 3: March 12, 2007, from 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.

9:00 p.m. Adjourn

14

Appendix 7

University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point Strategic Planning Initiative: Spring Semester 2007

Session 2: Mission & Values Thursday, March 8, 2007

6:00 – 9:00 p.m. Conference Rooms 1 & 2, Portage County Courthouse Annex

The second of three strategic planning sessions aimed at developing a planning approach for comprehensive strategic planning at the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point, beginning in the fall of 2007. Objectives for the second session included developing a revised draft mission statement for the institution, along with an allied set of institutional values.

Participants worked through a three­part mission statement wordsmithing exercise. In part one of the process, participants worked in four small groups. Each participant drafted his or her own mission statement for the institution. Then, the small group developed a draft mission statement reflective of the key words and phrases identified in the individual mission statements. In the second part of the exercise, two small group worked together to develop a revised draft mission statement, combining the two draft mission statements drafted in part one of the process. Finally, the two draft mission statements developed in the second part of the exercise were used by the entire group as the foundation of a draft mission statement reflective of the large group’s thoughts.

The following draft mission statement for the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point was an outcome of Session 2.

v The University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point provides a dynamic environment that fosters creativity, discovery, and learning, preparing students to be contributing citizens in a global society.

A second objective of the planning session was to develop a set of institutional values supportive of the institution’s mission. The following values were identified by planning participants.

Values

• Sustainability • Respect • Wellness • Curiosity • Enlightenment • Creativity

15

• Lifelong learning • Self­expression • Service • Collegiality • Ethics • Community­minded • Trustworthiness • Student­centered • Diversity • Global awareness • Accountability • Responsibility • Tolerance • Scholarship • Sense of humor • Cultural appreciation • Appreciation for the Liberal Arts – embracing Liberal Art

16

Appendix 8

University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point Strategic Planning Initiative: Spring Semester 2007

Session 3: Planning Structure

Monday, March 12, 2007 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Conference Rooms 1 & 2, Portage County Courthouse Annex 1462 Strongs Avenue, Stevens Point

Agenda

6:00 – 6: 10 p.m. Welcome & Review of Session 2

6:10 – 6:20 p.m. Overview of Session III Objectives and Check­in on Progress Toward Planning Objectives

6:20 – 6:40 p.m. Presentation of Structural Approaches to Strategic Planning Mark Hilliker, Portage County UW­Extension

6:40 – 7:05 p.m. Rotation 1: Structural Approaches – Pros & Cons Group 1: Centralized Approach; Group 2: Decentralized Approach; Group 3: Hybrid Approach; Group 4: Break (Room 3)

7:05 – 7:30 p.m. Rotation 2: Structural Approaches – Pros & Cons Group 1: Decentralized Approach; Group 2: Hybrid Approach; Group 3: Break (Room 3); Group 4: Centralized Approach

7:30 – 7:55 p.m. Rotation 3: Structural Approaches – Pros & Cons Group 1: Hybrid Approach; Group 2: Break (Room 3); Group 3: Centralized Approach; Group 4: Decentralized Approach

7:55 – 8:20 p.m. Rotation 4: Structural Approaches – Pros & Cons Group 1: Break (Room 3); Group 2: Centralized Approach: Group 3: Decentralized Approach; Group 4: Hybrid Approach

8:20 – 8:50 p.m. Large Group Discussion on Structural Approach for Institutional Planning

8:50 – 9:00 p.m. Overview of Session 4: April 26, 2007, from 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.

9:00 p.m. Adjourn

17

Appendix 9

University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point Strategic Planning Initiative: Spring Semester 2007

Session 3: Planning Structure Monday, March 12, 2007

6:00 – 9:00 p.m. Conference Rooms 1 & 2, Portage County Courthouse Annex

The third of three strategic planning sessions aimed at developing a planning approach for comprehensive strategic planning at the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point, beginning in the fall of 2007, was held on March 12, 2007. Objectives for the third session included assessing a variety of structural approaches to strategic planning used on the campuses of UW­System schools across the state.

Participants reviewed and assessed three structural approaches to strategic planning: (1) a centralized approach; (2) a decentralized approach; and (3) a hybrid approach, utilizing both centralized and decentralized components. The following information was developed related to perceived pros and cons of each structural approach. Also, included in the summary are questions participants posed related to each of the structural approaches.

¥ Centralized Approach

v Pros:

• More efficient o Time and energy by larger campus community

• Fewer people to recruit for committee • Cohesion of plan may be easier to achieve • People who have to solve the problem are more involved • Can work around people who might toss up roadblocks • Stakeholders can be responsive: less pressure to create­move process along

v Cons:

• Top down approach • Less "ownership," more "observership" • More possibility for disenfranchisement • No external stakeholders on committee (as constituted at UWGB) • Disproportionate responses can lead to unbalanced feedback (i.e. low or no

response/follow through by a stakeholder(s). Skews responses. • Changes in administration can have a large effect on the process • Trust of representatives? Is group truly representative?

18

• May not fit the culture of the campus • Sacrifices quality for efficiency • Possible groupthink – closed process • Controlled by administration • Less efficient in the long­term • Promotes apathy • Not good for planning – better for implementation

v Questions Posed Related to the Centralized Approach:

• Who determines "stakeholders" and composition of stakeholder groups? • Should the stakeholder groups come together to meet with the planning

committee? • Should committee recommendations all go through governance? • Who selects committee appointees? • How is feedback solicited, shared, and used? • How big should the group be? • What is the leadership structure? • In centralized model, administration makes the decisions

¥ Decentralized Approach

v Pros:

• Could use our existing faculty governance (and other, SGA, etc.) structure with tweaking

• Workgroup membership more specialized • More people involved/ownership. Leading to fuller implementation of goals. • Issues thrashed out prior to moving to higher levels • Greater chance of understanding perspectives on issues • Minimizes level of distrust • Goals are more realistic, better matched to resources and opportunities • People at local level have direct input – they have a voice • More likely to include external stakeholders

v Cons:

• Too large a group in the planning group • Lack of central focus • Tendency toward inefficiency • False expectations (including available resources) about issues – who makes

decisions? When are decisions made? • Without strong coordination, difficult to keep large group(s) moving forward • Need to recruit many people for this process to work • Silo effect may play into planning process

19

• Is there enough campus energy to sustain all these planning initiatives? • Information overload = chaos • Lack of structure – hard to sustain

v Questions Posed Related to the Decentralized Approach:

• How are external stakeholders selected? • What role do external stakeholders have? • Who pushes this process forward? • Who chooses committee membership and their management? • Need clear process, especially about decision making • Who makes tough calls? • How is representation determined? "Senate or House?"

¥ Hybrid Approach

v Pros:

• Fits campus culture o Can fit – adapt a model

• Steering Committee – oversight • High participation • Wide stakeholders • Cross­organizational committees • Feedback built­in • Combines oversight with participation • Parallels Accreditation Steering Committee • Allows for internal and external members • Can be more adaptable since it is a combined model • Chancellor's Committee (UW­Stout) can act as a referee, raise issues, be a

source of guidance, and a process driver • Broad stakeholder groups could be developed to focus on institutional goals • Affords more people to make suggestions to the people making decisions

v Cons:

• More information = more confusion? • Too many "chefs" • No specialized committees • At UW­Stout, no external stakeholders on Chancellor's Committee • Communication vital since there is so much information • When/where is the endpoint? • Perceived empowerment?

20

v Questions Posed Related to the Hybrid Approach:

• Some external stakeholders are more external than others – e.g. Alums versus legislators

• Does hybrid model break down functional silos? • Is there a difference between making a suggestion and making a decision?

In large group discussion following the review and assessment of each of the structural approaches, participants agreed to have a working group develop fleshed out planning structures for potential use at UW – Stevens Point. These draft planning structures will rely heavily on components of the hybrid and decentralized approaches, and will be responsive to existing campus structures and decision processes. Draft planning structure alternatives will be shared with planning group participants for review and comment prior to the April 26, 2007 meeting.

21

Appendix 10

Strategic Planning Session Participants

Facilitated by Mark Hilliker, UW­Extension, Portage County

# Participant Group Representation 1. Karyn Biasca Accreditation Steering Committee Member 2. Linda Bunnell Chancellor 3. Beverley David Representative of Instructional Academic Staff 4. Anna Haines Member of Planning Coordinating Group 5. Fred Hebert Chair of GDR Subcommittee 6. Virginia Helm Provost & Member of Planning Coordinating

Group 7. Ron Hensler Chair of Curriculum Committee 8. Bob Kase Department Chair Representative – COFAC 9. JoAnne Katzmarek Department Chair Representative – CPS 10. Todd Kuckkahn Executive Director, Foundation 11. Bob Mosier Member of Planning Coordinating Group 12. Mary Mosier Chair, Council of Advisors 13. Jerry Naczek Classified Staff – Union Representative 14. Lisa Nelson Chair of Classified Staff Advisory Council 15. Randy Olson Chair of Academic Affairs Committee 16. Don Peters Community Member 17. Gerry Ring Chair of University Affairs Committee 18. Chris Sadler Chair of the Faculty Senate and Member of

Planning Coordinating Group 19. Carol Schulz Chair of the Academic Staff Council 20. Wayne Sorenson Accreditation Steering Committee Member 21. Padmanabhan Sudevan Department Chair Representative – COLS 22. Stan Szczytko Department Chair Representative – CNR 23. Robert Tabor Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs 24. Christine Thomas Dean Representative 25. Justin Timmers SGA Representative 26. Bob Tomlinson Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs 27. Mai Vang Director of Equity & Affirmation Action and Plan

2008 Representative 28. Zach Vruwink SGA Representative

22

Appendix 11

Strategic Planning Campus Review Group

# Appointee Group Represented 1. Elia Armacanqui­Tipacti Faculty member from COLS 2. Leslie DeBauche Faculty member from COFAC 3. Scott Frazier Exec. Committee of Faculty Senate Representative

& Faculty member from CPS 4. Lance Grahn Dean Representative 5. Carrie Heibler Foundation/University Relations Representative 6. Jennifer Hess CSAC Representative 7. Bob Holsman Faculty member from CNR 8. Laura Ketchum­Ciftci Student Affairs Representative 9. C.R. Marshall Accreditation Steering Committee Representative 10. Joan North (Facilitator) Dean Representative 11. Bill Rowe Business Affairs Representative 12. Angie Swenson Academic Staff Council Representative 13. Justin Timmers SGA Representative

23

Appendix 12

Mission & Values Review Group Minutes

4/3/07 @ 4 p.m.

Overview of the feedback à There were 286 hits for the electronic survey. à In addition feedback was received from several groups, including: CLS college, CPS college, CNR,

Student Affairs Directors, Career Services, Accreditation Liaisons, Residential Living, University Foundation, Alumni Affairs and University Relations and Communications and 19 community members.

Discussion on our role as a committee à Is our role to explore wording and possible new/improved mission/values? à Is our role to organize and present the various feedback to the other committee? à The group decided our role was to organize and present the feedback.

We are only looking at the feedback on the draft mission statement today.

Overall themes in the feedback on the present wording à The words “dynamic environment” elicited more negative response than any other words. à If the words “creativity, discovery, and learning” are to be kept—feedback was that learning should be

listed first. à Feedback was that “contributing” is perceived to be weak and should be changed. à Feedback indicated that “leaders” was preferred to “contributing citizens.” à Feedback suggested the addition of “sustainable” before the words “global society.” à Feedback suggested the word “foster” is overused and should be removed.

There were a few suggestions for re­wording and/or grammar. We will provide these to the Coordinating Committee.

A group of “gripes/joys” unrelated to the mission/values that came on the survey were pulled into a separate group.

Overall themes on the mission à 37 separate comments stated the mission was too general and was not specific enough to UWSP. à A variety of feedback from the broad community suggested the mission was too focused on traditional

students and should include various other roles/constituents such as community, non­traditional students, and faculty/staff. A separate list will be typed to share this feedback.

à A variety of feedback was received that certain concepts should be considered to be added to this mission such as sustainability/environmental literacy, diversity, wellness. See next bullet.

When we ended our meeting, we had the following categories still left on the boards with corresponding feedback categorized under them. These represent possible additions to the mission statement. à Critical/forward thinking à Unique à Academic Emphasis à Include Liberal Arts à Leadership à Technology à Acceptance à Diversity

24

à Scholarship à Service à Wellness

à Sustainability à Environmental à Students

We will return to these categories after we tackle the values. Perhaps some of these categories will show up in the values and not need to be added to the draft mission.

Next meetings are April 9 at 10­12 in CPS 109; April 11 at 10­12 in CPS 108; April 12 at 11­1 in CPS 109. At the next meeting. We will begin the values feedback analysis.

[Many thanks to Angie for this!!]

25

Appendix 13

Mission & Values Review Group Minutes

4/9/07 @ 10 a.m. Top 11 Values from the survey results & Deans & CNR & CPS 1. Student Centered­527 –Deans—CNR 133­­CPS 2. Lifelong Learning­504 –Deans—cnr 93 3. Appreciation for Liberal Arts­382 4. Global Awareness­366 Deans CNR 70­­CPS 5. Sustainability­299—Deans­­CPS 6. Respect­289 7. Scholarship­288 8. Ethics­278 9. Responsibility­269 10. Enlightenment­252 11. Creativity­203

Observations on the survey results from the ranking of the values à The committee observed that the top 2 values “student centered” and “lifelong learning” are set out on

their own with the largest numbers. à C.R. Marshall suggested a possible mission statement utilizing these top values, “We are a student

centered institution dedicated to lifelong learning.” à The committee also observed that values 3 and 4­“appreciation for liberal arts” and “global awareness”

were set out on their own with the second largest number of votes. It was suggested that these two values could be combined to form the second sentence of a mission statement to follow C.R. Marshall’s suggestion.

à The committee discussed what the results mean because not all constituents utilized the survey and therefore are not all represented in the numbers making these the top values. The example of the CNR department was given­this department did not utilize the survey but gave feedback in meetings instead. Bob Holsman shared that the top values in CNR were: 1. sustainability, 2. student centered, and 3. lifelong learning.

à Following this discussion, the committee decided that sustainability should be included in the top 5 values to reflect the CNR vote and the vote already recorded by the survey.

à Discussion also followed about how the top five values are specific to UW­Stevens Point and the other remaining values seemed to be general values.

Summary of the comments on the values à Once again, as we say with the feedback on the mission statement­the feedback asks the question, “What

makes UWSP unique?” à The feedback also stated there were too many values in the draft list and that there seems to be overlap

in the list of values presented. à Discussion took place about the meaning of sustainability and the question of “sustaining what?” The

discussion included that sustainability could mean a lot of things and the feedback seems to indicate that this should be narrowed to reflect the focus on the environment or this value at UWSP should be reflected in some way. The discussion included concerns that UWSP is not Northland College and our mission/values should reflect UWSP and not Northland College.

à Feedback stated that science was not adequately represented in the mission or values. The committee discussed the recommendation to add science to the value “appreciation of liberal arts” to read “appreciation of liberal arts and science.” A discussion followed about the historical and current meaning and interpretations of the term “liberal arts.”

Summary of the new values suggested in the feedback

26

à A group of “gripes/joys” unrelated to the values from the survey were once again pulled into a separate group.

à The feedback received that suggested additional values that were missing from the original list of values was analyzed. The committee worked to group the newly suggested values into like categories. As the committee worked on grouping these values, the following categories were left at the end of our meeting. The title of each category is the current draft title that the committee has come up with to encompass the feedback included in each group.

o Engaged Learning­this category included the combination of previous categories such as: academic excellence, critical thinking, and intellectual.

o Career Preparation­this category included the combination of previous categories such as: work world preparation, change, and technology.

o Ecological Stewardship­this category included the combination of previous categories such as: environment and stewardship.

o Citizenship­this category included the combination of previous categories such as: collaboration, engagement, leadership, service, and social justice.

27

Appendix 14

Mission & Values Review Group Minutes

4/11/07 @ 10 a.m.

à C.R. Marshall passed out an updated handout showing the values as ranked by the survey with the combined totals of specific departments that did not utilize the survey noted in the last minutes. The top 5 values on this ranked list are: 1. Student­centered (660), 2. Lifelong learning (597), 3. Global awareness (436), 4. Sustainability (432), and 5. Appreciation for the Liberal Arts (382.)

à C.R. stated that his guess was that number 1 and 2 would not test as statistically different and that numbers 3, 4, and 5 would not test as significantly different.

à The committee discussed our role in finishing the feedback for the mission and values at this point. The group discussed, “What is a mission?” and the answer, “what we do” was suggested. The group also discussed, “What are values?” and the answer, “why we do what we do/who we are” was suggested.

à The point was also made that there are many mission statements currently in effect for UWSP (the system mission, the select mission, etc.) and this new mission being crafted is not meant to replace those missions, but to be a shorter and more “catchy” way to describe what UWSP does.

à The committee discussed whether it is our job to interpret the results of the feedback and judge feedback given for the mission as a value and vice versa or whether is our job to indicate that feedback was received on certain concepts in the mission and/or value area and leave the decision of what is for the mission and what is for the values to the other committee.

Mission Statement Discussion à In a previous meeting the following amended mission was suggested:

UWSP provides a “dynamic environment” that “fosters” learning, creativity, and discovery to prepare leaders for a sustainable local and global society.

The words/phrases in quotations are ones that the committee received feedback on changing which are reflected in previous discussions/minutes.

à The committee looked at the remaining categories in the suggested additions to the mission statement. The feedback under each topic was read and discussed.

à The topic of critical thinking had a great deal of comments under it. The question was asked, “Doesn’t a liberal arts education include critical thinking­is that redundant?” It was also observed that critical thinking was not included in the original mission or values list and yet considerable feedback has popped up under both mission and values suggesting this be added. The thoughts under the critical thinking section were moved to the “engaged learning” section of the values feedback.

à The leadership category was discussed, but the committee felt this feedback was already represented in the suggestion to add “leaders” to the mission.

à The sustainability category was reviewed and discussed, but the committee felt this feedback was already represented in the suggestion to add “sustainable” to the mission.

à The environmental category was reviewed and discussed. There was considerable discussion on whether to move the comments under the environmental category to the “ecological stewardship” section of the values feedback. The feedback was moved to this category in values, but with three dissenting opinions and the note in the minutes that feedback was received in both the area of the mission and the values about the environment.

à The committee noted there was feedback from some people (3) that suggested adding strong majors/programs to the mission. The committee eliminated these from consideration, but noted the suggestions in the minutes.

à The committee discussed what the feedback on “academic emphasis” meant. The question was asked if it was obvious that we are a University and so we have an academic emphasis. The discussion on this that committee members heard were concerns about learning not being listed first in the mission or not being emphasized enough in the mission. And there were also concerns about the order of the list of values­since they were not alphabetical some people questioned if they were in order of importance and

28

were concerned that learning was reflected higher on the list. The observation made that the feedback contained in the “academic emphasis” category may be more of a comment on tone.

à The following concepts have considerable feedback on them for potential consideration in the mission and will be forwarded to the other committee: Liberal Arts, Diversity, Academic Emphasis, Environmental*, and Critical Thinking* (*these concepts were also represented in the values feedback.)

Summary of the new values suggested in the feedback à The committee reviewed the feedback in the “Ecological Stewardship” section and decided it was

applicable and was represented well by the current title. à The committee reviewed the “Career Preparation” section. Questions were raised in this category about

whether this is a value or an outcome. The title of this section was amended to “Competency in Career and Life Preparation.”

à The committee reviewed the “Citizenship” section. The committee observed that many of the comments in this section related to service and community and service and community­minded were both values on the list. An observation was made that if the scores of those two values were combined they would become the #6 highest value. However, it was also observed that this would not account for people who voted for both values and this may not be an appropriate way to utilize the results of the survey. The category was renamed “Community Involvement.”

à The committee reviewed the “Engaged Learning” section. The section had a large amount of comments on critical thinking (and as earlier mentioned, some of this had been moved from the comments to add critical thinking to the mission statement.) The section was renamed “Critical Thinking & Engaged Learning.”

The overall summary of feedback on the mission so far à In a previous meeting the following amended mission was suggested:

UWSP provides a “dynamic environment” that “fosters” learning, creativity, and discovery to prepare leaders for a sustainable local and global society.

The words/phrases in quotations are ones that the committee received feedback on changing which are reflected in previous discussions/minutes.

à The following concepts have considerable feedback on them for potential consideration in the mission and will be forwarded to the other committee: Liberal Arts, Diversity, Academic Emphasis, Environmental*, and Critical Thinking* (*these concepts were also represented in the values feedback.)

The overall summary of feedback on the values so far à The new values that have been suggested for consideration are: Ecological Stewardship, Competencies

in Career and Life Preparation, Community Involvement, and Critical Thinking and Engaged Learning. à The top five values ranked from the survey are: 1. Student­centered (660), 2. Lifelong learning (597), 3.

Global awareness (436), 4. Sustainability (432), and 5. Appreciation for the Liberal Arts (382.)

29

Appendix 15

Mission & Values Review Group Minutes

4/12/07 @ 11 a.m.

à The committee discussed our role again and whether we should suggest specific wording or just share the feedback we have heard.

à C.R. suggested adding an “executive summary” to the front of our report for the coordinating committee with the highlights of the feedback and suggestions.

Mission Statement Discussion à Joan noted there was feedback (noted in the 4/3/07) minutes that the proposed mission statement was too

focused on traditional students and not broader audiences like community, non­traditional students, faculty/staff, etc. The committee decided to share this feedback with the coordinating committee.

à There was discussion on the overall summary so far. Conversations included the suggestion to add “learning” or “diverse” in place of dynamic. There wasn’t a consensus on this re­wording, but the group agreed to emphasize the point that “dynamic environment” and “fosters” need to be changed according to the feedback.

à The group also discussed again how a very large amount of the feedback about the mission was that is was too general and not specific to UWSP. The committee agreed this feedback should be emphasized to the coordinating committee.

à Several committee members stated they like C.R.’s earlier proposed mission of, “We are a student centered institution dedicated to lifelong learning.

Values Discussion à Laura observed that the “character development” concepts once a large part of the feedback on the

values appeared to be missing from our summary. There were many sticky notes on these concepts, but they may have been disposed of already. The group decided to add “Character Development” to the list of suggested new values for the other committee to consider. Some of the topics included in that category are: ethics, respect, integrity, honesty, etc.

à Another discussion was that “Community Involvement” no longer seemed to represent the many concepts within it that dealt with citizenship. The group amended the title to “Community Involvement and Citizenship.”

The overall summary of feedback on the mission à In a previous meeting the following amended mission was suggested:

UWSP provides a “dynamic environment” that “fosters” learning, creativity, and discovery to prepare leaders for a sustainable local and global society.

The words/phrases in quotations are ones that the committee received feedback on changing which are reflected in previous discussions/minutes.

à The following concepts have considerable feedback on them for potential consideration in the mission and will be forwarded to the other committee: Liberal Arts, Diversity, Academic Emphasis, Environmental*, and Critical Thinking.* (*These concepts were also represented in the values feedback.)

à A large amount of the feedback on the mission stated it was too general and not specific enough to UWSP.

à There was feedback that the mission was too focused on traditional students and not other constituents such as community, non­traditional students, and faculty/staff.

30

The overall summary of feedback on the values à The new values that have been suggested for consideration are: Ecological Stewardship, Competencies

in Career and Life Preparation, Community Involvement and Citizenship, Critical Thinking and Engaged Learning, and Character Development.

à The top five values ranked from the survey are: 1. Student­centered (660), 2. Lifelong learning (597), 3. Global awareness (436), 4. Sustainability (432), and 5. Appreciation for the Liberal Arts (382.)

à As a final note, the review committee suggests the need to educate the campus community about this mission and values list­where it came from, why it is being done, etc. to address the many process questions that came back in the feedback.

31

Appendix 16

Values – Revised Weighted Scores

Value Weighted Score

Student­centered 660 Lifelong learning 597 Global awareness 436 Sustainability 432 Appreciation for the Liberal Arts 382 Respect 289 Scholarship 288 Ethics 278 Responsibility 269 Enlightenment 252 Creativity 203 Service 188 Curiosity 174 Community­minded 169 Cultural appreciation 165 Accountability 164 Wellness 146 Diversity 131 Collegiality 130 Tolerance 130 Self­expression 64 Trustworthiness 42 Sense of humor 20

32

Appendix 17

University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point Strategic Planning Initiative: Spring Semester 2007

Session 4: Mission/Values & Planning Structure Review

Thursday April 26, 2007 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Conference Rooms 1 & 2, Portage County Courthouse Annex 1462 Strongs Avenue, Stevens Point

Agenda

6:00 – 6: 15 p.m. Welcome & Review of Progress toward Planning Objectives

6:15 – 7:00 p.m. Presentation & Discussion Surrounding Draft Structural Approach to Strategic Planning at UWSP in the Fall Semester of 2007

7:00 – 7:15 p.m. Break

7:15 – 7:25 p.m. Mission/Values – Overview of Input and Recommendations Assembled by the Review Committee

7:25 – 7:55 p.m. Small Group Work on Mission/Values Draft

7:55 – 8:40 p.m. Large Group Discussion of Mission/Values Draft

8:40 – 8:50 p.m. Next Steps in the Strategic Planning Process

8:50 – 9:00 p.m. Questions & Discussion

9:00 p.m. Adjourn

33

Appendix 18

Draft #2 ­ Mission Statement and Values April 23, 2007

Mission UWSP promotes learning, creativity, and discovery to prepare leaders for a diverse and sustainable world.

Values Student­centered Lifelong learning Appreciation for liberal education Ecological stewardship Community involvement Critical thinking and engaged learning

34

Appendix 19

Sample Mission Statements

A. Development of a More Concise Mission Statement, in addition to the Select Mission Statement of UWSP, that is consistent with Vision 2015 ­ “UWSP: Connecting to the Future”

1. Examples of Mission Statements: Actual and Proposed

a. UW­River Falls: “Our mission is to help students learn so that they successful as productive, creative, ethical, engaged citizens and leaders with an informed global perspective”

b. Western Kentucky University prepares students to be productive, engaged leaders in a global society. It provides service and lifelong learning opportunities for its constituents. WKU is responsible for stewarding a high quality of life throughout its region.

c. St Cloud State University is committed to excellence in teaching, learning, and service, fostering scholarship and enhancing collaborative relationships in a global community.

d. Wartburg College (Iowa): “Wartburg College is dedicated to challenging and nurturing students for lives of leadership and service as a spirited expression of their faith”

e. UWSP Criterion Task Force Two: “To better society through intellectual growth and dissemination and application of knowledge”

f. UWSP Preamble to Communal Bill of Rights and Responsibilities (Chapter 9; University Handbook):

“The University of Wisconsin­Stevens Point is an academic community of individuals committed to the pursuit of learning, the acquisition of knowledge, and the education of all who seek it. The members of the community include students, faculty, staff, administrators, and support personnel.

The mission of the University is to stimulate intellectual growth through the discovery and dissemination of knowledge which commits its members to work for the application of knowledge beyond the physical boundaries of the campus for the betterment of all members of society.”

B. Development of a Statement of Core Values for UWSP: Examples

1. UWSP Values identified by Planning Retreat in February, 2004

a. Entrepreneurial, bold, risk­taking spirit b. Academic achievement c. Mentoring role that all UWSP faculty and staff members play for students

35

d. Commitment to helping all students to develop their full potential e. Wellness of faculty, staff, and students f. International experiences and programs to broaden students’ perspectives and

extend UWSP to the rest of the world g. Our institutional history

2. UW­River Falls Core Value Statements

a. Integrity: “We earn trust through honesty and ethical behavior b. Academic Excellence: “We help students attain their full potential as critical

thinkers, effective communicators and committed life­long learners by providing personalized, integrated educational experiences”

c. Inclusiveness: “We create an environment of mutual respect, professional behavior, academic freedom, and appreciation of individual differences and rich cultural diversity”

d. Community: “We intentionally cultivate leadership through community engagement and public service in the spirit of the Wisconsin Idea”

e. Continuous Improvement: “We strive for excellence through decisions based on information and analysis”

3. UW­Whitewater Values Statements

a. Commitment to the pursuit of knowledge and understanding b. Development of the individual c. Personal and professional integrity d. Commitment to serve e. Commitment to develop a sense of community, respect for diversity, and global

perspective

4. UW­Stout Values Statements

a. Excellence in teaching within high­quality student­centered undergraduate and graduate education involving active learning and appropriate technology

b. Scholarship and research within applied knowledge and general education c. Collaborative relationships with business, industry, education, community, and

government d. Growth and development of students, faculty, and staff through active

participation in a university community e. Diversity of people, ideas, and experiences f. Active involvement in shared governance, consensus­building, teamwork, open

and effective communication, and respectful, ethical behavior

5. UW­Oshkosh Community Values

a. Knowledge and Continuous Learning b. Diversity and Inclusivity

36

c. Quality and Achievement d. Freedom and Responsibility e. Engagement and Support f. Social Awareness and Responsiveness

C. Strategic Planning Websites ­­ University of Wisconsin System Schools

1. UW­Eau Claire: http://www.uwec.edu/chancellor/stratplan/ 2. UW­Green Bay: http://www.uwgb.edu/provost/aapcomm/strategicplan.htm 3. UW­La Crosse: http://www.uwlax.edu/StrategicPlanning/ 4. UW­Madison: http://www.chancellor.wisc.edu/strategicplan 5. UW­Oshkosh: http://www.uwosh.edu/strategicplan/ 6. UW­River Falls: http://www.uwrf.edu/strategy/ 7. UW­Stout: http://www.uwstout.edu/geninfo/stratplan.shtml 8. UW­Superior: http://www.uwsuper.edu/SPP/ 9. UW­Whitewater: http://www.uww.edu/acadaff/reports/universityplan.html

37

Appendix 20

UW­Stevens Point Mission Statements UW­Stevens Point shares in the mission of the University of Wisconsin System.

The mission of this system is to develop human resources, to discover and disseminate knowledge, to extend knowledge and its application beyond the boundaries of its campuses, and to serve and stimulate society by developing in students heightened intellectual, cultural, and humane sensitivities; scientific, professional, and technological expertise; and a sense of purpose. Inherent in this broad mission are methods of instruction, research, extended education, and public service designed to educate people and improve the human condition. Basic to every purpose of the system is the search for truth.

As an institution in the "University Cluster" of the University of Wisconsin System, UW­ Stevens Point shares the following core mission with other universities of the cluster. Each university in the cluster shall:

a. Offer associate and baccalaureate degree level and selected graduate programs within the context of its approved mission statement.

b. Offer an environment that emphasizes teaching excellence and meets the educational and personal needs of students through effective teaching, academic advising, counseling, and through university­sponsored cultural, recreational, and extracurricular programs.

c. Offer a core of liberal studies that supports university degrees in the arts, letters, and sciences, as well as specialized professional/technical degrees at the associate and baccalaureate level.

d. Offer a program of pre­professional curricular offerings consistent with the university's mission.

e. Expect scholarly activity, including research, scholarship, and creative endeavor, that supports its programs at the associate and baccalaureate degree level, its selected graduate programs, and its approved mission statement.

f. Promote the integration of the extension function, assist the University of Wisconsin­Extension in meeting its responsibility for statewide coordination, and encourage faculty and staff participation in outreach activity.

g. Participate in interinstitutional relationships in order to maximize educational opportunity for the people of the state effectively and efficiently through the sharing of resources.

h. Serve the needs of women, minority, disadvantaged, disabled, and nontraditional students and seek racial and ethnic diversification of the student body and the professional faculty and staff.

i. Support activities designed to promote the economic development of the state.

The select goals and responsibilities of UW­Stevens Point are to:

• Provide a broad foundation of liberal studies and selected degree programs in the fine arts, humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences, imparting the heritage of human civilization, critical intelligence, and the skills necessary for

38

a lifetime of learning and upon which education in the professional fields may be built.

• Provide undergraduate professional programs in communicative disorders, teacher education, home economics*, the visual and performing arts, paper science, and natural resources with emphasis on the management of resources.

• Provide graduate programs in teacher education, communicative disorders, natural resources, home economics*, communication and other select areas clearly associated with this university's undergraduate emphases and strengths.

• Provide programs in wellness and health promotion. • Provide quality undergraduate and graduate instruction through innovative

methods using print and non­print library resources, computing, communication technology, and direct student assistance.

• Expect scholarly activity, including research, scholarship and creative endeavor, that supports its programs at the associate and baccalaureate degree level, its selected graduate programs, and its special mission.

• Cooperate with UW­Extension in the development and coordination of statewide outreach programming, integration of the extension function into the institution, and appropriate and adequate recognition of those involved in outreach activities.

*The former home economics programs are now offered as child and family studies, dietetics, early childhood education, family and consumer education, human development, nutrition and interior architecture.

From Catalog ­­ online

39

Appendix 21

Strategic Planning Structure

Organizing committee

Work group

Work group

Work group

Work group

Work group

STRATEGIC PLANNING STRUCTURE DRAFT 4­18­07

Steering and Communications committee

Decision Making group

Decision Making group

Decision Making group

Decision Making group

Decision Making group

Decision Making group

L

L

L

L

L

40

Committee and group definitions Committee and group definitions

l l Organizing committee Organizing committee l l Coordinate and monitor process Coordinate and monitor process

l l Steering and communications committee Steering and communications committee l l Communication with campus on goals and issues and Communication with campus on goals and issues and with working groups/faculty senate committees with working groups/faculty senate committees

l l Work group Work group l l Address goals or issues raised in planning process Address goals or issues raised in planning process l l Collect data, analyze, make recommendations Collect data, analyze, make recommendations

l l Decision Decision­ ­making group making group l l Act on recommendations coming from work groups Act on recommendations coming from work groups

Rationale for structure Rationale for structure

l l Parallels current governance structure and Parallels current governance structure and process used for accreditation process used for accreditation

l l Parallels current campus decision Parallels current campus decision­ ­making making structure structure

l l Aligns with current efforts Aligns with current efforts l l Flexible Flexible l l Decentralized Decentralized

Example of groups Example of groups

l l Working groups Working groups l l Current examples Current examples

l l Enrollment Enrollment management management

l l Council of advisors Council of advisors l l Plan 2008 Plan 2008

l l Future examples Future examples l l Mission and goals Mission and goals l l General education General education

l l Decision making Decision making groups groups l l Faculty governance Faculty governance standing committees standing committees

l l Line officers Line officers

41

Organizing Committee Organizing Committee l l 4 4­ ­6 people 6 people

l l Provost or designee Provost or designee l l Line officer Line officer l l Dean Dean l l Faculty senate chair? Faculty senate chair? l l Academic staff Academic staff l l Student Student – – SGA president or delegate? SGA president or delegate? Role Role l l Coordinate and monitor process Coordinate and monitor process

l l Continuous process Continuous process l l Accountable for goals getting accomplished Accountable for goals getting accomplished

l l Keeps process moving forward whether in planning or Keeps process moving forward whether in planning or implementation mode implementation mode

l l Monitor and recruit committee membership Monitor and recruit committee membership l l Reporting mechanism Reporting mechanism

Steering and Communications Steering and Communications Committee Committee

l l 10 10­ ­15 people 15 people l l Budget person Budget person l l Student Student l l Others?? Others??

l l Role Role l l Reality check Reality check l l Communication with campus on goals and issues, particularly Communication with campus on goals and issues, particularly recommendations that come out of working groups/faculty recommendations that come out of working groups/faculty senate committees senate committees

l l Communication with working groups/faculty senate committees Communication with working groups/faculty senate committees l l Liaisons with work groups Liaisons with work groups

l l Includes all appropriate constituents for review and discussion Includes all appropriate constituents for review and discussion l l Monitors and recruits committee membership Monitors and recruits committee membership

l l Meets as needed Meets as needed

Working Groups Working Groups

l l 5 5­ ­10 people 10 people l l New work groups formed on an ad New work groups formed on an ad­ ­hoc basis by hoc basis by Organizing and Steering and Communications Organizing and Steering and Communications committees committees

l l Role Role l l Address goals or issues raised in planning process Address goals or issues raised in planning process l l Collect data, analyze, make recommendations Collect data, analyze, make recommendations l l Communicate with Steering and Communications Communicate with Steering and Communications committee committee

l l Meets as needed to accomplish task Meets as needed to accomplish task

42

Decision Decision­ ­making groups making groups

l l Decision Decision­ ­makers makers l l Committees of faculty senate Committees of faculty senate l l Faculty senate Faculty senate l l Line officers Line officers

l l Role Role l l Act on recommendations coming from work Act on recommendations coming from work groups groups

Need answers to these questions Need answers to these questions

l l Stakeholders Stakeholders l l Who determines "stakeholders" and Who determines "stakeholders" and composition of stakeholder groups? composition of stakeholder groups? l l Steering and Communications committee Steering and Communications committee

l l How are external stakeholders selected? How are external stakeholders selected? l l Process to determine stakeholder selection Process to determine stakeholder selection

l l Some external stakeholders are more external than Some external stakeholders are more external than others others – – e.g., Alums versus legislators e.g., Alums versus legislators

l l What role do external stakeholders have? What role do external stakeholders have? l l Input to process, but no decision making power Input to process, but no decision making power

l l Committee structure Committee structure l l Who recommends committee membership and their Who recommends committee membership and their management? management? l l Organizing and Steering and Communications committee Organizing and Steering and Communications committee

l l How is representation determined? How is representation determined? l l Depends on issue Depends on issue l l Effected groups Effected groups

l l How big should the group be? How big should the group be? l l Depends on the issue Depends on the issue

l l What is the leadership structure? What is the leadership structure? l l Each committee can choose, but could recommend either Each committee can choose, but could recommend either consensus or majority vote consensus or majority vote

43

l l Process Process l l Who pushes this process forward? Who pushes this process forward?

l l Organizing committee Organizing committee

l l How is feedback solicited, shared, and used? How is feedback solicited, shared, and used? l l Steering and Communications committee decides on Steering and Communications committee decides on process, but could use Joan North process, but could use Joan North’ ’s review committee s review committee process process

l l Decision making Decision making l l Who makes tough calls? Who makes tough calls?

l l Faculty senate makes decisions on curricular issues Faculty senate makes decisions on curricular issues l l Non Non­ ­curricular issues are made by the Chancellor curricular issues are made by the Chancellor