UWC-Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
December 7, 2007

Members Present: Carl Hilgarth, Co-Chair, Dave Todt, Elinda Boyles, Robert Mendris, Brooke Miller, Steve O'Rourke, Chuck Warner, Barb Kunkle

Approval of Minutes: Elinda made a motion, second by Chuck, to accept the minutes of the November 16, 2007 meeting. They were unanimously approved.

Handout: Principles and Categories for Improving Academic Quality

Carl announced that there was no agenda and there would be no action items for this meeting, but the group would take a look at AQIP Category 7, Measuring Effectiveness, and Category 8, Planning Continuous Improvement. This will give us a chance to familiarize ourselves with how AQIP works. Dave distributed a handout of the AQIP Principles and Categories and explained the history, since this is now the alternate method of accreditation we're using for North Central Association.

Although this year's Presidential Charge to the committee referred to AQIP Category 7 as "Planning Continuous Improvement," it was noted that Category 7 is "Measuring Effectiveness." There was a lengthy discussion of the relevance of both categories and how both are critical to our mission.

Points of Discussion on AQIP Categories 7 & 8:
· Measuring is critical.
· Processes should be integrated.
· Coordinate and align the processes to find out how effective our planning is and be able to measure it.
· Need goals, with benchmarks to see if we've reached them.
· Communication!!
· Need a buy-in from staff.
· Need to instill confidence in the system by demonstrating it with measurements, as noted in AQIP Category 7.
· Committees are sometimes inefficient – they need an "owner" who is responsible, or a Process Owner.
· Discussed Resource 25, scheduling concerns, and what is considered the "Master Calendar" of Jeff Perez. Should invite him to a meeting in Jan. or Feb.
· Could make a mini AQIP project out of R25/calendar. Let's see a success.

The next meeting was planned for the first of February, 2008, since SSU will not be in session during the first Friday in January.
 

Strategic Planning Committee Notes
November 16, 2007

Members Present: Kitty Linde & Carl Hilgarth, Co-Chairs, Dave Todt, Elinda Boyles, Ed Kehres, Robert Mendris, Mark Mirabello, Brooke Miller, Brian Saul, Chuck Warner

Introduction of Members:
Kitty opened the first meeting of the year by asking the committee members to introduce themselves. She also pointed out that the new members should familiarize themselves with the AQIP Action Projects. Susan Montavon will provide the new members with notebooks that include copies of previous meeting minutes and handouts.

Approval of Minutes: Carl made a motion with a second by Chuck to approve the minutes of the last meeting, on June 1, 2007. They were unanimously approved.

SSU 20/20 Update/Chancellor's Master Plan:
Dave described how our SSU initiative was suspended by Chancellor Fingerhut as Ohio develops its own 10 year strategic plan for higher education. Three SSU 20/20 teams already had been meeting and we were about halfway through the process. We were at a good point to halt, however, as the teams had come up with a series of recommendations. We've delayed it for now, but when we receive Chancellor's plan and see how it impacts SSU, we can quickly make adjustments and be ready to implement them. Right now we're hoping for campus involvement in April by sharing our ideas, along with the state-wide plan, through a Campus Conversation.

Some ideas that came out of the 20/20 meetings were deemed important enough to move ahead with. For example, a master's degree in Teacher Education is ready to go forward. A bachelor of Health Sciences is not as far ahead, but they expect a preliminary proposal soon. An associate degree was put on hold because the Chancellor is considering the separation of associate degrees from 4-year programs. There has been discussion about the place of community colleges, although we still don't know how that will develop. We're not sitting idly by, however, and the President has been proactive, working with other universities.

They have been releasing one set of goals per week, but they are still generic, with little to (disagree with.) Still, we won't know until they get to the specifics how to react to the plan. We will need to respond then and this committee will be the focal point of that.

Carl has been getting calls from some interested organizations about the associate of technical studies that was submitted prior to these developments and a possible associate of health sciences. Dave pointed out that the process for approval of new degrees may be expedited now.

President's Charge to the Committee:
Kitty passed out copies of the president's memo and charge to the committee, and discussed some of the items individually. In particular, we should address "AQIP Category 7: Planning for Continuous Improvement." All the other charges listed would feed into that one. Carl offered examples of how others have developed continuous improvement programs. We should begin by taking a look at all the steps, identifying which ones are value added and which are shuffling paper. Where are we not following procedures? Then you must identify who is the "process owner" so you can work with that person to make it a value added process. So, we should look at the processes and identify some areas where can make improvements very quickly. We also need someone to work with us who is familiar with higher education to help us identify the process, undergo training, and work on ways of implementing and maintaining the goals. This is an integral part of AQIP and also fits with the way our accrediting agencies do it. The Process Owner is the one who makes sure that it is implemented.

Kitty said that Rita has given her approval to hire a consultant to work with the committee to come up with ideas. Carl suggested that there also has to be a buy in from all those involved. They need to understand that their contributions are valued and will not result in punitive action. However, any changes may affect positions and structure.

Dave pointed out that the wave of the future for accreditation is that they're becoming outcomes based. They want to see how we're making a difference, so AQIP is interwoven with continuous improvement. Rita wants us to look at this category.

Kitty pointed out that this was one of the difficulties with their Action Project to Improve Student Advising, while Elinda explained how much easier it was to accomplish this on the business side, by automating it through the system. It's all about how seamless we can make the whole process.

Action Project Reports

Action Project # 1 (Improve Student Advising):
Dave reported that we had hoped AP #1 would continue to move forward for a little longer, but Rhoni Maxwell-Rader is unable to take over as Action Team chair. There was a lengthy discussion about whether it should be declared complete and move on to a new project. The Team met the goal of creating and implementing a University College and also produced much data that can be passed on to the Retention Committee and to Student Affairs.

It was noted that advising is ongoing, so the Team's final report should explain how it has been passed on to other entities. Dave said that one thing we've learned, especially from this AP, is that an AP needs a clear charge and benchmarks to meet. We learned much from AP #1 and good things have come from it. Dave will work with Chris and the rest of the Team to close it out, acknowledging that while it accomplished much, it did not meet all of its goals. Carl suggested that we put it on our agenda for possible FA 07 retirement.

Action Project #2 (Scheduling Revisions for the Semester Calendar):
Michael Fiske is not interested in continuing to chair this project, so it's time to see if it also should be declared completed. Two of the goals that were completed were to establish a 5-day schedule for semester courses and choose the scheduling software.

Steve Midkiff has compared the FA 07 course distribution with FA 06 to evaluate the number of courses taught at various hours. Although there are still too many courses at 10:00 and 2:00, there is a smaller percentage of them in FA 07 than in FA 06. There are now many classes on Friday mornings, spreading the courses out better than before. It was noted that some issues have always caused problems for students, but now they're attributing them to semester conversion. Steve reports that one such issue, where all sections of a specific course are offered at the same time, is less of a problem now than in the past.

In answer to a question about how much control faculty members have over their class schedules, Michael replied that it's traditionally been the faculty's choice and only rarely do they have to ask a department to address a scheduling problem. Carl noted that his department took a practical point of view, using feedback from the Team. Engineering Technologies is reviewing the schedules of other classes first in order to set their schedules up to accommodate students.

Dave thinks there's still room for this Team to meet a few more times and will talk to Michael Fiske to get his opinion. Carl said we should find someone to continue to lead the Team and, as part of the process, look more at smaller scheduling issues that come up during the transition. He sees that this project could go on another year, to 2008-09.

Currently there are openings on this Team due to the retirements of Martha Rader and Steve Midkiff. Jonica Burke may be a potential chair and would add a fresh perspective. It was suggested that we might come up with a form for students to report semester conflicts so that we have concrete data, although it's too late for FA 07. Since those are the problems that chairs face, we should bring the chairs together to meet with the Team. Carl said that the main conflicts they find in his department are with the out-of-sequence student and the ½ hour course overlap.

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life):
The report has been submitted, but the project hasn't been officially retired yet.

Action Project #4 (Teaching and Learning Center):
Barb reported that since they are ending their first year of the TLC, she will attach a list of workshops, etc., to her final report.

New Action Project Proposals

Dave reported that last month's review of the new proposals narrowed them down to the three with the most merit. He has reworked them into a form closer to what AQIP has online, adding dates and how they will be monitored. All three of the new project proposals are still at the draft stage, however.

General Discussion: If these are the three Action Projects we want to approve, we need to get the Cabinet's take on them, especially about budgets and priorities. We need to begin at least two new projects, but we could start all three. Although their implementation would require considerable funding, we could also give the three Action Teams the charge to address the budget for their projects. Budget hearings are in November, and then the Cabinet addresses the budget in January/February. Carl asked if we could do enough work during the FA 07 term that there would be budget numbers by then. If we don't time them right for budget hearings the funding will have to wait.

There was also a discussion of what part UTAC (University Technology Advisory Committee) would play in the new proposals. The members of UTAC come from the entire campus, which has made it too large to meet regularly. Now may also be a good time to look at the role of UTAC on campus and how to make its constituency more representative.

Proposal A: Creation of a One-Card System on Shawnee's Campus
Carl suggested that the One-Card System may need to be implemented in steps. He recommended activating this proposal at first with a 6-month deadline to develop cost proposals to go to the Cabinet. He said that the proposal could begin in September with a short timeline at first and then possibly a 2-year process to implement it. This proposal could refocus UTAC's charge.

Proposal B: Campus Technology Upgrade and Assistance
This version is a combination of the proposals for a technology center and technology upgrade, and it made sense to add technical training as well. Barb suggested that we need to look at the short, medium, and long-term goals. The TLC could be a test bed and help train those who will introduce the technology to students. Budgeting will also be a major part of its implementation.

It was suggested that the technology upgrade could be incorporated into the Master Plan. Another suggestion was for us to digest the individual components a bit and then raise the proposal to a higher level by putting it together the way the Master Plan was done. There were also discussions of whether an Action Project like this could include some short term goals similar to the Quick Fixes. The team could identify goals that can be accomplished right away, in the near future, or 5 years away, for instance. Dave thought it was a good idea to focus on an IT Master Plan that includes short term goals, but would rather we begin to address them now.

Proposal C: Governance and Restructuring of University Committees
Since there has already been some reorganization of offices and duties along with the addition of new offices and areas such as the University College and Institutional Research, this is a good time to restructure committees. All of the reorganized areas need to fit into SSU's committee format.

Although this project should begin right away, it's not costly and we anticipate there are still more changes to come. By September we will have a better idea of the remaining structure. All agreed that in many cases people don't know the charge of the committee they're on or whom they answer to. Carl suggested that we go ahead with this project in the fall, possibly projecting a completion date of September, 2008.

New Proposal:
Jared offered another proposal suggestion, for a Wellness Program. He believes it could have a widespread impact from minimal investment and could really incorporate the students into the process. Barb said that this would go along with the plans of the TLC to set up workshops on yoga, nutrition, etc. Carl agreed that it would be low cost with high payback and benefit the university as a whole. He asked Dave if he could come up with a written proposal for fall.

SSU 20/20 Initiative:
Dave reported that the Futures Teams have been meeting regularly and are moving forward. In July Monica Manning will be here to craft their information into a draft strategic plan. A campus-wide conversation day is planned for October. Student Affairs wants to be involved in the event, which is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October 2nd.

AQIP Systems Portfolio:
Dave has been meeting with Jeff Perez to change the way the annual reports are done. Instead of the previous template, we will ask all academic programs for their student learning outcomes so that they'll be thinking ahead to the Systems Portfolio, which is due in October of 2008.

Master Plan:
Dave showed the Committee the plan that is going to the BOT. Since it shows the campus extending closer to the Portsmouth City Schools, Rita and Jan (Broughton, PCS Superintendent) have been calling the combined area "Portsmouth's Education District." He pointed out that the campus expansion/footprint will come first, and that much of the Master Plan can be expected to change, especially with the individual buildings.

Committee Name:
Dr. Morris has left the name decision up to the committee, but it should reflect what we do. There was a discussion of whether to go back to the original name, Strategic Planning, Budget, and Finance Committee and how much "planning" and "budget" have played a part in the committee's work in the past. It was noted that no matter what it's called, it's still the de facto Strategic Planning Committee. Carl will tell Dr. Morris that we would like to go by the title of the Strategic Planning Committee again rather than BAQIP.

Submitted by: Susan Montavon, Administrative Secretary, Office of the Provost
 

UWC-Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
June 1, 2007

Members Present: Kitty Linde & Carl Hilgarth, Co-Chairs, Dave Todt, Michael Field, Barbara Kunkle, Jared Shoemaker, Joe VanDeusen, Cathy Mullins

Approval of Minutes: Carl made a motion with a second by Kitty to declare a quorum in order to approve the minutes; unanimously approved. Jared made an omnibus motion, seconded by Joe, to approve all outstanding minutes. The vote was unanimous to approve the minutes of February 9, March 2, April 6, and May 4, 2007.

Action Project Reports

Action Project # 1 (Improve Student Advising):
Dave reported that we had hoped AP #1 would continue to move forward for a little longer, but Rhoni Maxwell-Rader is unable to take over as Action Team chair. There was a lengthy discussion about whether it should be declared complete and move on to a new project. The Team met the goal of creating and implementing a University College and also produced much data that can be passed on to the Retention Committee and to Student Affairs.

It was noted that advising is ongoing, so the Team's final report should explain how it has been passed on to other entities. Dave said that one thing we've learned, especially from this AP, is that an AP needs a clear charge and benchmarks to meet. We learned much from AP #1 and good things have come from it. Dave will work with Chris and the rest of the Team to close it out, acknowledging that while it accomplished much, it did not meet all of its goals. Carl suggested that we put it on our agenda for possible FA 07 retirement.

Action Project #2 (Scheduling Revisions for the Semester Calendar):
Michael Fiske is not interested in continuing to chair this project, so it's time to see if it also should be declared completed. Two of the goals that were completed were to establish a 5-day schedule for semester courses and choose the scheduling software.

Steve Midkiff has compared the FA 07 course distribution with FA 06 to evaluate the number of courses taught at various hours. Although there are still too many courses at 10:00 and 2:00, there is a smaller percentage of them in FA 07 than in FA 06. There are now many classes on Friday mornings, spreading the courses out better than before. It was noted that some issues have always caused problems for students, but now they're attributing them to semester conversion. Steve reports that one such issue, where all sections of a specific course are offered at the same time, is less of a problem now than in the past.

In answer to a question about how much control faculty members have over their class schedules, Michael replied that it's traditionally been the faculty's choice and only rarely do they have to ask a department to address a scheduling problem. Carl noted that his department took a practical point of view, using feedback from the Team. Engineering Technologies is reviewing the schedules of other classes first in order to set their schedules up to accommodate students.

Dave thinks there's still room for this Team to meet a few more times and will talk to Michael Fiske to get his opinion. Carl said we should find someone to continue to lead the Team and, as part of the process, look more at smaller scheduling issues that come up during the transition. He sees that this project could go on another year, to 2008-09.

Currently there are openings on this Team due to the retirements of Martha Rader and Steve Midkiff. Jonica Burke may be a potential chair and would add a fresh perspective. It was suggested that we might come up with a form for students to report semester conflicts so that we have concrete data, although it's too late for FA 07. Since those are the problems that chairs face, we should bring the chairs together to meet with the Team. Carl said that the main conflicts they find in his department are with the out-of-sequence student and the ½ hour course overlap.

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life):
The report has been submitted, but the project hasn't been officially retired yet.

Action Project #4 (Teaching and Learning Center):
Barb reported that since they are ending their first year of the TLC, she will attach a list of workshops, etc., to her final report.

New Action Project Proposals

Dave reported that last month's review of the new proposals narrowed them down to the three with the most merit. He has reworked them into a form closer to what AQIP has online, adding dates and how they will be monitored. All three of the new project proposals are still at the draft stage, however.

General Discussion: If these are the three Action Projects we want to approve, we need to get the Cabinet's take on them, especially about budgets and priorities. We need to begin at least two new projects, but we could start all three. Although their implementation would require considerable funding, we could also give the three Action Teams the charge to address the budget for their projects. Budget hearings are in November, and then the Cabinet addresses the budget in January/February. Carl asked if we could do enough work during the FA 07 term that there would be budget numbers by then. If we don't time them right for budget hearings the funding will have to wait.

There was also a discussion of what part UTAC (University Technology Advisory Committee) would play in the new proposals. The members of UTAC come from the entire campus, which has made it too large to meet regularly. Now may also be a good time to look at the role of UTAC on campus and how to make its constituency more representative.

Proposal A: Creation of a One-Card System on Shawnee's Campus
Carl suggested that the One-Card System may need to be implemented in steps. He recommended activating this proposal at first with a 6-month deadline to develop cost proposals to go to the Cabinet. He said that the proposal could begin in September with a short timeline at first and then possibly a 2-year process to implement it. This proposal could refocus UTAC's charge.

Proposal B: Campus Technology Upgrade and Assistance
This version is a combination of the proposals for a technology center and technology upgrade, and it made sense to add technical training as well. Barb suggested that we need to look at the short, medium, and long-term goals. The TLC could be a test bed and help train those who will introduce the technology to students. Budgeting will also be a major part of its implementation.

It was suggested that the technology upgrade could be incorporated into the Master Plan. Another suggestion was for us to digest the individual components a bit and then raise the proposal to a higher level by putting it together the way the Master Plan was done. There were also discussions of whether an Action Project like this could include some short term goals similar to the Quick Fixes. The team could identify goals that can be accomplished right away, in the near future, or 5 years away, for instance. Dave thought it was a good idea to focus on an IT Master Plan that includes short term goals, but would rather we begin to address them now.

Proposal C: Governance and Restructuring of University Committees
Since there has already been some reorganization of offices and duties along with the addition of new offices and areas such as the University College and Institutional Research, this is a good time to restructure committees. All of the reorganized areas need to fit into SSU's committee format.

Although this project should begin right away, it's not costly and we anticipate there are still more changes to come. By September we will have a better idea of the remaining structure. All agreed that in many cases people don't know the charge of the committee they're on or whom they answer to. Carl suggested that we go ahead with this project in the fall, possibly projecting a completion date of September, 2008.

New Proposal:
Jared offered another proposal suggestion, for a Wellness Program. He believes it could have a widespread impact from minimal investment and could really incorporate the students into the process. Barb said that this would go along with the plans of the TLC to set up workshops on yoga, nutrition, etc. Carl agreed that it would be low cost with high payback and benefit the university as a whole. He asked Dave if he could come up with a written proposal for fall.

SSU 20/20 Initiative:
Dave reported that the Futures Teams have been meeting regularly and are moving forward. In July Monica Manning will be here to craft their information into a draft strategic plan. A campus-wide conversation day is planned for October. Student Affairs wants to be involved in the event, which is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, October 2nd.

AQIP Systems Portfolio:
Dave has been meeting with Jeff Perez to change the way the annual reports are done. Instead of the previous template, we will ask all academic programs for their student learning outcomes so that they'll be thinking ahead to the Systems Portfolio, which is due in October of 2008.

Master Plan:
Dave showed the Committee the plan that is going to the BOT. Since it shows the campus extending closer to the Portsmouth City Schools, Rita and Jan (Broughton, PCS Superintendent) have been calling the combined area "Portsmouth's Education District." He pointed out that the campus expansion/footprint will come first, and that much of the Master Plan can be expected to change, especially with the individual buildings.

Committee Name:
Dr. Morris has left the name decision up to the committee, but it should reflect what we do. There was a discussion of whether to go back to the original name, Strategic Planning, Budget, and Finance Committee and how much "planning" and "budget" have played a part in the committee's work in the past. It was noted that no matter what it's called, it's still the de facto Strategic Planning Committee. Carl will tell Dr. Morris that we would like to go by the title of the Strategic Planning Committee again rather than BAQIP.

Submitted by: Susan Montavon, Administrative Secretary, Office of the Provost
 

Members Present: Kitty Linde, Co-Chair, Dave Todt, Michael Field, Barbara Kunkle, Chuck Warner, Brian Saul, and Jared Shoemaker

Announcements: With no quorum, the meeting will only be an informational meeting and approval of the minutes will wait until our last meeting of the quarter on June 1^st.

Action Project Reports

Action Project # 1 (Improve Student Advising):

No report.

Chuck answered questions that had come up at last month's meeting. He reassured the committee that all quarter records will be converted to semesters. They will not be inaccessible and the course histories will remain intact when transferred over on the planned date of June 18^th. There is also a tape backup at OSU and we can decide how long it should be kept. The biggest challenge for semester conversion is the billing system through the Bursar's Office.

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life):

We're still waiting to retire this project.

Action Project #4 (Teaching and Learning Center):

Barb hopes to submit the final report by the end of the quarter. There was a discussion about ways to assist the center to move forward from the initial establishment of the TLC.

New Action Project Proposals:

Dave distributed copies of the Action Project Proposals that have been submitted so far:
1. Create a One-Card System

2. Graduate Education Programs in Math, Science and Intervention Specialist Education

3. Governance and Restructuring of University Committees

4. Focused Program Review

5. Establish a Technology Assistance Center for Students in the Library

6. Creating an Emphasis on Alumni-University Partnerships

7. Expansion of Recreational Facilities

8. Planning for an Effective Institutional Research Office

He noted that none are from faculty, although we would like to have more input from them. General Discussion: There was a suggestion that we should brainstorm ways to link together items that have been proposed and those that are already in place, such as the Library's proposal for a technology assistance center and programs offered through the Teaching & Learning Center. We could also combine them with a multi-media and technology training system for staff. Although we should address each proposal individually, we may need to put some ideas together and craft them into a viable project. The Cabinet will then choose which projects they are able to commit resources to.

Proposal Discussions:

One-Card: The main obstacle to the proposed One-Card System would be cost, estimated at around $200,000 - $300,000, while we haven't invested enough in equipping our classrooms with technology yet. It may be possible to package the card system with other technology initiatives. The One Card System is the one thing students always request when surveyed, and could provide us with student assessment data. We wouldn't have to implement all parts of the system at once, which may allow it to be added into the budget for a couple of years. Once the commitment is made, UIS and OIT are ready to go with it. The chief benefit would be service to the student for both on and off campus, printing, laundry, access to events, etc. and should help with recruitment and retention. It could also help with security, access control, and efficiency. This is a popular idea if all the details can be worked out.

Library Center: The consensus was that a center could benefit both students and staff, but could be combined with other proposals. The library has identified a location and could begin the Technology Assistance Center with additional staff, computer, and student employee resources. If proposals are combined into one project, it might be a good idea to divide it into phases, beginning with a planning phase to see how it could also be tied into an operational plan for technology in the classroom and the TLC as well as the Student Success Center. We could begin by prioritizing and then the university could provide input. There are concerns about whether combining proposals will lengthen the time for completion and also add to budget concerns. Adding a planning phase may help to address all the issues of accommodating students, faculty, and staff and also show us what technology will be needed in classrooms, the library, the TLC, and the SSC. Dave will draft something for the next meeting.

Governance and Restructuring: The idea of making committee structuring more coherent is an idea that is already being explored by Dr. Morris and others. Making it an Action Project may raise its importance campus-wide. The consensus was that it's a worthwhile proposal and that all Action Projects don't have to be huge and expensive.

Recreational Facilities and Programs: This proposal was discussed at length in a previous meeting. It might be a good idea to begin with sports that are already sanctioned by our conference and that have low start up costs.

Graduate Programs: Various master's degrees were discussed, but would not do well as an Action Project because state approval of master's degrees is really out of our hands.

Institutional Research: It's so far along now it shouldn't be the top choice. Much of establishment of the office is already done.

SSU 20/20 Initiative:

The BAQIP Committee will be very involved in this program. Dave reported that the committees have had good meetings so far. The three Futures Teams will identify strategic opportunities. It was mentioned that there is a potential overlap with Action Projects and 20/20 initiatives, but the scope of 20/20 is probably too broad to be considered as an Action Project on its own.

BAQIP Committee Name:

A change of the committee name will have to wait until there is a quorum.

Budget and Academic Quality Improvement Planning Committee
(formerly the Strategic Planning, Budget, and Finance Committee)
April 6, 2007

Members Present: Kitty Linde and Carl Hilgarth, Co-Chairs, Dave Todt, Kristi Jarrell, Steve O'Rourke, and Robert Mendris

Announcements: Carl announced that, with no quorum, this would only be an informational meeting.

Action Project # 1 (Improve Student Advising):

Rhoni Maxwell-Rader is the new chair, but the group hasn't met yet.

Action Project #2 (Scheduling Revisions for the Semester Calendar):

Kitty reported on a recent meeting of the Semester Conversion Committee, where there is a concern that all of the quarter records will be "wiped out" after the system changeover on August 17th. It's Dave's understanding that the quarter records will still exist in the system, but they won't be live. There should also be a tape backup at OSU. Robert also believes that these records can be saved and will talk to Barb Conn about it. He said it should be easy to set up one computer that could still access old records. Dave will check into this issue and feels it would be a mistake to wipe out the historical record. Other discussions centered on ways to ensure that student records are readily available for advising purposes, possibly by printing out audits of all students beforehand.

Another issue that should be addressed is finding a practical way to communicate with students, both traditional and non-traditional, even after they graduate or withdraw. Faculty should be included also. There should be an inexpensive way to provide a lifetime forwarding service, which is done at other universities.

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life):

Dave is unable to retire this project until he hears from Dr. Morris, but we have received new proposals to replace it.

Action Project #4 (Teaching and Learning Center):

We have not received the final report yet from Barb Kunkle, although the project is completed.

SSU 20/20 Initiative:

Dave updated the committee on this project. They have hired Monica Manning as a consultant and will bring her to campus for a three day kickoff event. They are currently working on the charges for the steering committee and futures teams. The BAQIP Committee will be involved by reviewing the results before they go to the Board of Trustees.

Master Plan:

Dave passed around the final Master Plan picture, which also ties in with the timeline chart. Points of Discussion: The plan is very dependent on the programs that are chosen and what will be most beneficial for them – what is the priority for students, etc. The infrastructure document that goes with it won't be ready until June. The documents will be put on our website once the plan is approved by the Board. Bonds will be issued for the buildings and will be available soon. Recognizing the need for a student center even predates the Master Plan. We're also limited in banquet and function space, as well as student office and recreation space. The architect is engaged and the plan is to break ground in FA 07 or WI 08. Dr. Morris wants to make sure students have input, but they aren't here in summer. In response to a request, Dave said he would try to get a line drawing version of the Master Plan for committee members.

AQIP Systems Portfolio:

Dave reported about his experiences as a reviewer. He found that some campuses do their Systems Portfolios like the old self-studies, but his inclination is to do ours differently. He'd like for it to be reviewed by campus groups after it's written by a smaller writing team.

New Business:

Process for soliciting new Action Projects: Dave will reissue the request for additional proposals to add to the three submitted so far. Kitty suggested that we add a note that proposals should address the budget issues or show that they've considered the financial impact.

1. Planning for an Effective Institutional Research Office. Discussion: This will happen whether or not it's an Action Project, but its potential is great.

2. Expansion of Recreational Facilities. Discussion: This is more about establishing a football program, which would need a major commitment of funds or an endowment. It would attract some new students, but there are other issues that would have to be addressed. Problems that have been discussed in the past were the potential loss of scholarships and whether football would monopolize resources.

3. Establish a Technology Assistance Center for Students in the Library. Discussion: The center would be set up in a very public place in the library and serve students during the extended library hours. The library is serving as a de facto center already. It was suggested that this should be a fast track item and would benefit everyone. It may be able to tie in to the University College, Staff/Faculty Development, or Recruitment & Retention. The issue of staffing would have to be addressed.

BAQIP Committee Name:

A change of the committee name will have to wait until there is a quorum.

Future Meetings: May 4th, June 1st

Members Present: Kitty Linde, Co-Chair, Dave Todt, Michael Field, Kristi Jarrell, Chris O’Connor, Barbara Kunkle, and Robert Mendris

Announcements: Kitty called the meeting to order and pointed out that there were not enough members in attendance to make a quorum. The minutes of the February 9th, 2007 meeting were accepted without changes on a motion by Barb and a second by Kristi, but the vote will be held until the April meeting. She also directed the committee members to Dr. Morris' State of the University address on the SSU website. Many of the initiatives in the speech affect this committee. Dave said there was also a summary in the Daily Times. The address shows the thrust of her initiatives, which committee members should be aware of. Things are happening so fast that we will have to be "flexible and agile" in order to keep up with them. Kitty reported that Dr. Morris has asked the committee to reevaluate the Mission Statement as well.

Action Project Notes: When asked if we can revamp the Action Projects, Dave said we have the opportunity to both initiate projects and also to modify them. He also said that, although all of the first Action Project leaders were from the Strategic Planning Committee, they don't have to be committee members. Leaders can choose whether or not to attend the meetings. The Action Project leaders could designate someone on BAQIP to report for their group.

Dave announced that Rhoni Maxwell-Rader will take the position of chair of Action Project #1. Both he and Rhoni believe that the scope may need to be reassessed and the project extended. President Morris will make the appointment soon. Kitty suggested that Rhoni should be invited to a BAQIP meeting as soon as the appointment is finalized.

Robert Mendris reported on some of the issues they faced in coming up with a scheduling system. The discussions centered on anticipating future conflicts during the implementation process. Chris said that some chairs have been using a hypothetical student model to work through an entire degree and identify problems. With only eight semesters, it would be a good idea for all departments to use this type of model to work through each degree beforehand. The consensus is that the project should be kept active through the beginning of semester conversion in the fall and even to spring of 2008.

Although Steve Midkiff reports that the schedule is working in regard to rooms and times, there are many other departmental conflicts that could come up, especially with student schedules.

Action Project #3 is complete and Dave handed out copies of the final report. Now we need to work on the selection process for new projects. He has been working on a process that would include soliciting ideas, which would be reviewed by BAQIP and forwarded to the President. It would also require the selection of a team leader and identifying resources.

The discussion centered on the details for soliciting ideas, maybe with a call for proposals. Although some may submit ideas without explaining how they fit into the mission, that would be BAQIP's role. The idea is to generate ideas that may create brainstorms that could then be sent back to campus until we come up with a complete project idea. The process should be open and not restrictive. A call for proposals will be a reminder to the campus that this is still an ongoing process. It was noted that we would like to get governance committees and students involved as well. We should also take another look at previous Quick Fix ideas that came out of the original gathering. Rather than restricting the proposals to specific categories, we should ask for big ideas and worry later about how they fit into AQIP categories. Dave will send the notice, asking for input and giving a deadline for submission.

Chair Barb Kunkle reported that we now have the center, but not the structure and people to operate it. There are still organizational issues and challenges to work out. It would help if they could find ways to get more people involved in running the center. There are wonderful facilities and several active Learning Communities, but it's difficult to keep asking those members to do more. She believes they need a mechanism to get more active people with special skills involved. The sustainability wasn't built in.

Kitty asked if Barb had a timeline for issuing the final report. Barb suggested that we provide a template for the reports. Dave said that she could take the annual report that was already turned in and add some reflection, assessing the successes and opportunities that have come up.

Dave distributed handouts of the new initiatives and gave a short summary of each. He will expand on the topic at the next meeting. Dr. Morris will appoint a steering committee and ask the departments for more input. Since the BAQIP Committee has representatives in all the constituency groups, we will play a central role. Dave also sees that the recommendations of the steering committee will come back to BAQIP before being presented to the BOT, to make sure the process is as transparent as possible. Dave and Kitty will also talk to the individual governance groups.

Dave reported that one of the requirements in AQIP is to submit a Systems Portfolio, which is due in October, 2008. Although a group met to work on it last summer, it will be a major effort to put together the final version. A team will then review us, but there are no penalties and it won't change our status. We'll receive good feedback from this process and there's less pressure than the previous way. The ratings are "strengths" and "opportunities" and oriented toward improvement rather than penalty. Dave has already been involved in a review of another university and asked that committee members consider becoming reviewers themselves. The reviews are done at your desk through conference calls. Reviewers are paid $500 per review.

Dave also gave a short review of the Master Plan. There have been no changes since the last meeting. Jim Butz is still working on it for presentation at the next BOT meeting.

Some have questioned whether it was a good idea to change the name of the Strategic Planning, Budget and Finance Committee to BAQIP and whether it is confusing to those who are interested in following our progress and reports. Without a quorum to make a decision, the discussion will be continued at the next meeting

Future Meetings: April 6th, May 4th, June 1st

Strategic Planning, Budget, and Finance Committee
(Budget and Academic Quality Improvement Planning Committee Notes)
February 9, 2007

Members Present:  Carl Hilgarth & Kitty Linde, Co-Chairs, Dave Todt, Kelly Hatas, Kristi Jarrell, Cathy Mullins, Chris O’Connor, Jared Shoemaker, Joe Van Deusen, Chuck Warner, Barbara Kunkle, Robert Mendris, Brian Saul, and guest, Dale Taylor.

Announcements:  Co-Chair Carl Hilgarth welcomed the committee to the first meeting of 2007, and the members introduced themselves.  New members are Robert Mendris, Math Department, Brian Saul, Office of Admissions, and Kristi Jarrell, student representative.  The minutes of the June 2, 2006 meeting were unanimously approved after a motion by Jared and a second by Kitty.  The first item on the agenda was the Action Project updates.  

Action Project # 1 (Improve Student Advising):

Chris O'Connor reported that the team has been unable to meet this academic year.  Chris also announced his resignation as chair due to other commitments.  Carl suggested that the committee entertain a resolution of thanks to Chris for his service as chair of the Action Project #1 Team, which was unanimously approved.   

Points of Discussion:  Dave offered to coordinate the transition to a new chair.  He pointed out that many of the team's ideas have already moved forward due to semester conversion, but there is still plenty of work to be done in the area of student advising.  The group focused on finding a replacement for Chris and whether there is a process in place for this.  Dave said the initial appointments were made by the President.  There is not a set process, but it is part of the role of this committee.  Carl then read the Charge to the Committee.  Barb noted that members of the new Teaching & Learning Community headed by Teresa Redoutey and the Semester Transition Committee provide potential sources for a new chair.  The Action Teams aren't governance committees, so Dave will communicate with everyone involved before any action is taken.

Action Project #2 (Scheduling Revisions for the Semester Calendar):

Michael Fiske was unable to attend to make a report, but he will continue to move the project forward. 

Points of Discussion:  The Registrar's Office set up a practice schedule last fall and it appears to work.  Chuck said that all the course histories have been converted and departments have been testing them with few problems.  The date of the actual conversion hasn't been set.  A parallel strand of this Action Project is the work that other groups are doing, such as the Office of Semester Transition, directed by Barb Conn.  Barb Kunkle reported that the Teaching & Learning Center is working to put together three workshops for course planning.  Other staff, such as the academic secretaries, should be included in training sessions and workshops. 

Action Project #3 (Improving Student Life):

Dave distributed copies of the team's final report, which is ready to be approved.  The role of the BAQIP Committee is to review and discuss it before passing it on to the President.   

The chair, Jared Shoemaker, explained that it's more of a general summation since they decided not to give direct recommendations.  Student assessment is an institution-wide problem and should be made a priority.  This should be pointed out to the new Vice President of Student Affairs.   

Points of Discussion about Quick Fixes:  Student Government has been working on these projects in conjunction with the team.  Increased hours at the health clinic depend on scheduling with SOMC.  Health Club hours have only been increased by ½ hour, which should be footnoted in the report.  The team members are still working with area businesses to create discounts and/or coupon books for students.  They hope to finish a booklet by next fall that could be put in the orientation packet for incoming freshmen.   

Expansion of intramurals is limited due to lack of both facilities and staff.  It's also difficult to identify which activities the students want or the number of students living near enough to campus to participate.  Another issue is the lack of a multi-purpose practice facility.  The soccer field would be ruined if it were used for practice as well as games.   

Other Points of Discussion:  There was a discussion of whether to accept this as a final report with so much work to be done in the area of Student Life, but it was acknowledged that the team had fulfilled its original charge to identify areas of concern.  Carl proposed that the Committee receive the report of Action Team #3 as an official document and forward it to Dr. Morris. 

The next step will be following up on the recommendations, especially the need for assessment.  Dave said the governance structure is being revised.  There will be a new director of Institutional Research, and the role of the Assessment Committee may change.  It was suggested that the Action Team should not be disbanded at this time, but continue meeting to address Student Life issues.  This will keep our required three Action Projects intact while we identify a new Action Project #5 and allow time for open communication campus-wide. 

Dave reported that there's no set AQIP standard for completion of projects, although they do require an annual peer review, which was done in December.  The report of Action Team #3 was accepted by the Committee. 

Action Project #4 (Teaching and Learning Center):

Chair Barb Kunkle reported that the group has disbanded, but they've been too busy to submit the final report.  The Center is up and running and has invited a Woodrow Wilson Scholar for a campus visit who is the executive director of the Seeds of Peace.   

There are currently several active Teaching & Learning Communities.  Cathy plans to offer a grant writing workshop through the Center, which may also be of interest to students.  They're soliciting ideas that will address the real needs of the SSU community.  Barb pointed out that the TLC needs a substantive student voice.  They're still looking at ways to encourage student insights into Teaching & Learning.

Update on the University College:

Dale Taylor reported on the history of the UC idea and the large undertaking that began several years ago with Title III.  He explained that it would be a central advising area, with more academic advising and assistance than the Student Success Center and geared toward student retention.  Although all issues haven't been completely synchronized, some steps have been taken to make it a reality.  EPCC has approved three courses for the Student Success Center that didn't mesh well with the curriculum of other departments. 

Currently the SSC advises three groups of students:  Developmental, Pre-Health Sciences, and Undecided.  They're also talking to the Teacher Ed Department about making early Teacher Ed students a part of the University College, where they could help students pass the PRAXIS.  They are still working on a system so these students can be identified.  Dale has submitted a budget request to fund 1-½ advisor positions in order to handle the additional advising load.  He would also like to see a freshman experience course added to the schedule. 

Dave pointed out that the SSC is now under Academic Affairs to increase its academic role.  It was mentioned that students who place into developmental courses at some universities are placed into the University College because they're the ones who are most at risk.  Carl stated that there is a lot of potential in the UC format.  It could possibly be a place to house Individualized Studies students or non-traditional students such as those who are making a career change or coming back for refresher courses.   

New Action Project Ideas:

Dave passed out a handout with an example for a future Action Project, however, we would still like to solicit ideas that could be reviewed in an open hearing before making a decision.  The discussion centered on developing a written process to identify new Action Projects.  Barb suggested a call for proposals that could include a template for submission.  Dave, Kitty, and Carl will draft a process and present it to the Committee. 

Master Plan Update:

Dave gave a short overview of the Master Plan and showed where the APs had affected its development.  The Board of Trustees is also floating an $18 million bond.  Our enrollment is moving toward 5,300 students, so it will be up to us to prioritize for the master planner. 

Future Meetings:  The BAQIP Committee plans to meet on the first Friday of the month:  March 2nd, April 6th, May 4th, June 1st