NCA Monitoring Report Update : University Council Minutes

The following items, related to strategic planning and hence the NCA Monitoring Report, are selected from University Council minutes, with the most recent minutes first.

October 29, 2001, Excerpt, University Council Minutes

  • Flow Chart: Flow chart was formatted by Martin Tadlock. Vice President Larkin distributed the draft copy of a flow chart. Discussion ensued. Specific placement of bargaining units was discussed. The committee made further suggestions for the logical flow of ideas and/or initiatives. The question of signatures or "sign offs" was raised. A new, simplified concept for initiatives/ideas was proposed. The group also proposed that minutes of the various groups reflect the action on any specific initiative/idea as proposals are sent along the process.
  • David Kingsbury moved that the proposed flow chart model be brought to each of the six committees. Pat Welle seconded. Discussion followed. Chris Brown requested information regarding the protocol for reporting this initiative to bargaining units. Various suggestions were made. Question was called. Motion passed unanimously.
  • Proposal for New Members on University Council: The question is: What is the procedure for placing new members on the University Council?
  • Are these meetings open? Dave Larkin has been asked. By consensus, Vice President Larkin will inform those interested that the meetings are open.

October 22, 2001

  • Motion to approve minutes of 10/15/01 (Pat Welle and second by Nancy Erickson) Discussion: Item #2: Change word "Policy" to "Initiative". Change 9 Step Initiative Approval Process to read, 8 Step Initiative Approval Process. Motion carried with these changes.
  • Agenda items for University Council: David Larkin asked Council for input of agenda items.
  • Planning Committees/Public Relations/President's Speeches: Considerable discussion of ways to give President Quistgaard things appropriate to say in speeches in keeping with planning process from the six planning committees. (Academic Affairs; Budget and Resource Allocation; Computing, Technology and Learning Resource; Outreach and Partnerships; Recruitment and Retention; Student and University Services).

    Highlights of discussion:
    To include broader picture rather than details
    Priorities
    Accountability
    Different things for different audiences
    Telling Our Story Booklet
    Information from Co-chair Retreat (David Kingsbury will have next week)
    Newsletter by Susan Hauser
    HRD Study - Lakes and Woods Corridor
    Steak - Sizzle categories

  • Policy Generation and Approval Flow Chart
    Change word "Policy" to "Initiative"
    Add double arrow with addition of Student Senate
    Motion by Martin Tadlock to adopt changes and bring back to meeting next week; seconded by
    Pat Welle; carried.

October 15, 2001, Excerpt, University Council Minutes

  • Motion to approve minutes of 5/7/01 (Gendreau and second by Erickson). Discussion: Item #3 should read: "Laurie Desiderato reported that the Academic Affairs Planning Committee continues to work on the request to add to the catalog information for students about assessment based on dimensions on student learning." Item #8: Delete: "Proposal Web Standards" Item #4: Discussion re "proposal" and "The UC is the next step for the approval process." Minutes are approved.
  • The University Council will meet each Monday from 9:00-9:55 a.m.
  • Committee Recommendations:

    Academic Affairs Committee ‹ Nancy Erickson

    Computing, Technology and Learning Resource Committee ‹ Ranae Womack

    Outreach and Partnerships Committee ‹ David Kingsbury

    Question re the location of their proposal. Discussion followed.

    Pat Welle referred to Initiative Approval Process (8 Step Initiative Approval Process drafted by Barbara Schuldt).

    Co-chairs want to publicly thank Barbara Schuldt for drafting the 8 Step Initiative Approval Process.

    Martin Tadlock read from NCA Report Experimental Planning Initiative, page 15 re University Council.

    Recruitment and Retrenchment Committee ‹ Richard Gendreau

  • Handouts were distributed.
  • Feedback and discussion; the University Council has looked at this proposal; has given favorable consideration, but not approved yet; to be disseminated to other committees; return proposal to University Council in three weeks.
  • Martin Tadlock referred to yellow handout, Committee Recommendations to the University Council, third page, last item - Redraft of committee charge ‹ Add: "Recommended " .
  • Martin Tadlock mentioned that saved monies might be put back for recruitment and retention.

May 7, 2001, Excerpt, University Council Minutes

  • Laurie Desiderato passed out ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW GUIDELINES and discussed same. This is the second reading of this proposal. Has been presented to faculty senate. Motion to adopt these guidelines (Erickson and second by Drexel) ‹ Motion passed.
  • Laurie Desiderato reported that the Academic Affairs Planning Committee continues to work on the request to add to add to the catalog information for students about assessment based on dimensions on student learning. Draft dated 3/28/01 was distributed.
  • o Endorsement for First-Year Experience (Kevin Drexel) has received an endorsement for this proposal from the student senate. This activity is slated for F 2002. The UC is the next step for the approval process. Co-hort learning clusters that are academically theme based with an opt-in block for transfer students (optional). Paid through (ultimately) through retention savings. Kevin indicated a goal of freshman to sophomore retention rate of 80%. Initial costs will be covered via student fees. Erickson moved approval/endorsement of Kevin ‘ s proposal. Second Welle. Motion passed.
  • Outreach and Partnership Committee report ‹ Kringen and Kingsbury. What do we mean when we use the term "outreach and partnership?" A booklet called "Telling Our Story" was provided. More faculty input will be sought during Fall Semester of 2002 and the information contained in this booklet and from next fall's research will be put in a web site. Shows that faculty members are doing many things.
  • Related matter is the receipt of a 3,000 dollar grant from Blandin to study how our grant process works. This will impact Outreach and Partnership.
  • General perception seemed to be that "Telling Our Story" is valuable information and that it is needed so that we can communicate all of the things being done at BSU.
  • (Computing, Technology, Learning and Resources) - recommendation to go ahead with some form of assessment. Recommendation to implement pilot study in F 2002. The recommendation is that assessment be undertaken (as concept) and that consultation be completed to determine the format and specific assessment to be initiated. Motion to support this proposal made by Womack pending the recommendation of the faculty senate. Second by Kringen. Passed.
  • Proposal to adopt the BSU web site design standards recommended by the Committee for Computing Technology, Learning and Resources. Offered by Womack as a "first step" in this process. Carl Baer has called for more discussion on this topic. Who, for example, is eligible to have a link. Asking for approval to send this on to the Executive Council. Womack moved to adopt the CTRL recommendations related to web-based standards. Erickson seconds. Motion passed.

April 2, 2001, Excerpt, University Council Minutes

The Academic Affairs Committee proposed a 5-year review checklist for Deans and Academic VP to help monitor departments. Also proposed having this checklist on the Web. Barb Schuldt brought up the issue of archiving and how consistently this information would be updated. The response was that the information would be gathered at the end of the academic year, assembled during the summer, and then be checked out through the Academic VP's office.

The Budget Committee submitted a re-draft of their charge as well as a draft of strategies, initiatives, and outcomes. The charge change reflects the committee's desire to move away from a review and report function to a fostering and participating function.

The University Calendar was discussed and planning committees submitted their vote tallies on the issue. Recruitment and Retention voted for a post-Labor Day start by 1 vote with 2 members abstaining. Academic Affairs voted for a pre-Labor Day start. The CTRL Committee voted to table the issue. Mr. Carl Baer suggested that each committee submit recommendations like this based on their charges, with accompanying justifications.

March 19, 2001, Excerpt, University Council Minutes

  • Discussion related to enrollment goals including enrollment driver ensued. Lists were produced (see below) for further discussion.

    Enrollment Goal - 5,000 students:
    On Campus
    Off Campus
    Student Mix
    Regional Need
    Programmatic Mix
    Retention/Timely Completion
    Service Area Support
    Scholarships
    Selectivity

Drivers:
Innovation
Service
Price
Excellence
Service to the Region:
Teacher Education
Consultation
/Partnerships
Distance Ed ‹ Access
Economic import
Entertainment & the Arts
Targets:
Students
Signature Areas
MnSCU
Legislators
Alumni
Community

Some questions to consider:
What is BSU's story?
What story do we tell and to whom?
Why are we different and what difference will it make for students who come to BSU verses elsewhere? 4
(Note- 65-70% of new students do not have a career direction. What should be the role of academic and career advising (career development)?

  • Sue Kringen presented an Outreach and Partnership proposal for committee review and consideration at the next meeting.

February 19, 2001, Excerpt, University Council Minutes

  • Calendar
    1. Council 6 requests Veterans' Day off
    2. Mixed messages from student body
    3. MnSCU institutions of the North all indicatea before Labor Day start
    4. Concern about NW Tech startup
    5. Discuss calendar with Planning Committees
    6. How late start affects sportsĄ$30,000 lost
    7. ResortsĄstudent employment is not seen to be much of an issue
  • Budget (Tom Faecke)
    1. Allocation model down $300,000 for BSU ‹ Governor's budget not allocation model, 22% tuition increase, $300 per semester, makes more students eligible for Pell and SUG
    2. Many universities are adopting Tom's formula that first distributes base and inflation, then reallocation formula for high and medium need students (Carl Baer)
    3. Need $70 billion to have no tuition increase ‹ this will not happen (Tom Faecke)
    4. Encourages smaller meetings to encourage information and participation coordination by Budget and Resource Allocation Committee
  • Funding Proposal for First-Year Experience
    1. Anticipate Fall 2002 implementation
    2. Retention savingsĄconservative estimates
    3. Correction on figures (Tom Faecke)
    4. Goals
      Develop cohort
      Reduce advertising load
      Provide framework for other faculty retention
      Academic performance learning information should be gathered from measures incorporated into the first year experience (Laurie Desiderato)
      Adequate fees will need to be instituted to cover much, if not all, of the proposed costs (Tom Faecke)

December 19, 2000, Excerpt, University Council Minutes

  • Committee members were asked by Glen Richgels to consider the proposal on the new campus network as this proposal was developed by the Committee on Computing, Technology, Learning and Resources (CTLR). Glen reported that the Faculty Senate unanimously approved a motion to purchase and install a network system upgrade. Glen spoke to the details of this proposal and explained what events have led to this point in time.
  • Jon Blessing spoke to the increased need for student involvement in decision-making.
  • Several people indicated that this issue has been discussed in student senate. Tom Fauchald offered his opinion that if the need for a quick decision means a streamlined or different process, then the perceived need for quick decisions may become more frequent. Several people asked reiterated their request that the minutes from all committees be posted on web and indicated that they are not there at this time.
  • Sue Kringen moved that the members of the University Council support the recommendation of the Computing, Technology, Learning and Resources Committee for the purchase and installation of a network system upgrade and that departments Be held harmless should any additional expenses arise (as stated in Attachment #1).
  • Glen Richgels indicated that he has been asked to expedite the WWW standards. Laurie Desiderato suggested that the staff in the Center for Professional Development (CPD) be involved in the development of better standards. Barb Schuldt said that she has been told that the BSU homepage does not meet the existing standards. Jon Quistgaard said it is also important to work with CEL and Bob Griggs.
  • Sue Kringen asked if there is a move to hire a Webmaster for this campus. Glen said there has been discussion about this
  • Jon Blessing expressed concern that information from this committee and others is not being widely distributed. Jon believes that students have a considerable amount of curiosity about these matters and that they experience difficulty in accessing the information and the written records that often result in policies. He believes that we need to be more proactive in disseminating information. Jon Quistgaard asked council members if they believe that the Presidents Newsletter is a useful method of disseminating information? A mixed response was received.
  • January 28, 2001 is the date scheduled for the release of the first edition of the Enrollment Management Newsletter. Kevin Drexel offered to include committee information in this newsletter.
  • Jon Blessing referred the committee's attention to the need to inform students. He suggested that students want more information and are not receiving it. Use of the Northern Student was discussed.
  • Dave Kingsbury suggested that a draft of the committee's charge and responsibilities be developed and disseminated. o There seems to be a need to decide who will do what in information dissemination. The President's Newsletter and Enrollment Management Newsletter were discussed on several occasions.
  • There is a pressing need to establish the next two-year calendar by end of January. The Academic Affairs Committee has spent time on this topic and has another meeting scheduled for this purpose. This topic will be going before the Faculty Senate at next meeting. Jon Blessing reported that there needs to be consultation with members of the Student Senate on the calendar issue. Retention Committee desires to be a part of the calendar discussions. Student and Administrative Services may wish to work at it. Barb Schuldt asked who makes the final decision.
  • Jon Quistgaard indicated that this decision is made by the President. Jon Quistgaard indicated that he will take what he is given to the Student Senate and invite the President of that body to a meeting of the University Council.
  • The implications of the academic calendar were discussed in terms of campus services such as Food Services, Athletics, Housing, etc. Laurie Desiderato said some of this has been done via email. Dave Kingsbury called for more information and more feedback based on the existing disagreement, range of opinions and lack of data.
  • Calendar will be assigned to those committees that indicate an interest. o Academic Integrity issue is becoming an increasing concern here and most other places. Jon Q. asked for a report from that committee by February.
  • Committee Reports were given:
    Academic Affairs
    Budget & Resource Allocation
    Outreach & Partnership
    Recruitment & Retention
  • Committee minutes are to be made available at next University Council meeting.

December 13, 2000, Excerpt, University Council Minutes

  • Glen Richgels presented information regarding I.F.O. Senate discussions of the draft proposal brought forward by the Computing Technology, Learning, and Resources Committee.
  • The Technology Committee voted unanimously to upgrade the net, based on information provided by Mike Smith. Components of the computer network are 5-years old. Mike Smith has created a plan updating what occurs "behind the wall." Cost is $450,000 for Academic/ Administrative areas, $200,000 for the dorms to upgrade. Sysco is working with the committee to "make a deal." This must be acted upon before December 31. The rebate is based on early action. Funding for the proposal comes from:
    $150,000 from dorm revenue
    $350,000 from student fees

    One reason for the upgrade of system is speed; another reason is capacity to connect to Connect Minnesota.

  • Mike Smith joined the discussion at 11:35 a.m. He reported on "I 2" Connect Minnesota with "I 2" advantageous financially. Mike described advantages and disadvantages regarding various choices -- adding "I 2" and answered questions from committee members regarding wireless. Mike reported that Sysco is the "Microsoft" for enterprise class requirements.
  • Further discussion ensured. The technology committee report will be continued in the Senate meeting, Monday, December 18. A meeting for the University Council is planned for Tuesday, December 19 to continue discussion of the issues.
  • Committee charges and strategic planning discussions were begun and will be continued on Tuesday, December 19.

NCA Monitoring Report Update/Related Documents

Budget Proposal Template

Policies or initiatives with an impact of $50,000 or more on the University's budget must complete a proposal to the Budget and Resource Allocation Planning Committee prior to action by other committees or individuals including the University Council, Faculty Senate or members of the administration. This includes all policies of initiatives that include additional positions, position elimination, unit reorganization, or major budget allocations.

Budget and Resource Planning Proposal: Outline for New Initiatives

  1. Description of the initiative:
  2. Justification for the initiative
  3. Description of the initiative's impact on the budget:
    Year 1
    Year 2
    Year 3
    Year 4
    Project annual costs:
    Projected annual revenues:
  4. How the proposal is to be funded (funding sources)
  5. People and positions directly and indirectly impacted by the proposal. Include description of potential hidden costs or savings (e.g. additional faculty/staff duties, enrollment impact, redirection of resources, etc.)
  6. Plans for assessing the effectiveness of the proposal and communicating the results to the university community:
  7. Alternatives if the proposal is not approved:

University Advancement, Student, Academic and Administrative Affairs Director's Meeting Agenda

Thursday, November 29, 2001, Ozawindib Room, 9:00-11:00 AM

  1. FY 02 Budget/Allocation Update (Jerry Amble)
  2. Capital Projects Update (Jeff Sande)
  3. Occupancy Update Information (Dale Ladig)
  4. Computer Service Update (Fred Hartman)
  5. Health Insurance Window (Dec 1-Dec 14)
  6. Annual Reports and 5-Year Review Updates (Directors)
  7. Research with Faculty and Staff/Student Opinions (Ivan Weir)
  8. Directors' Reports
  9. Other

BSU Today
Comments regarding this page may be e-mailed to jswartz.