The University Committee met on Tuesday, May 5, 2009 in Molinaro Hall room D135.

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 3:35 by Dennis Rome, Chair.  Also attending were committee members Herb Colston, Peggy James, Farida Khan and Greg Mayer.  Gary Wood was present as Secretary of the Faculty.  Interim Provost Jerry Greenfield was present as an invited guest. 

Discussion with Provost Greenfield

Provost Greenfield gave the committee an update on the Department of Public Instruction’s investigation of the UW-Parkside Teacher Education program.

Next the group discussed the strategic planning process, beginning with the recently released draft mission statement.  The main concern of the faculty who participated in the e-mail discussion that followed the release of the mission statement, and of the University Committee, was that the statement contained no mention of research, scholarship or creative activity, and, having been told that the strategic planning process was going to be finished by June, it was unclear how much chance for revision there would be.  The Provost said that more context and explanation should have accompanied the mission statement and that the mission statement was being revised to address the concerns noted above.  He also pointed out that at the last Faculty Senate meeting he assured the faculty that there would be opportunities for wider input before anything was finalized, and that the appropriate governance groups would have to approve things such as a new mission statement or new program proposals that might result from the strategic planning process.

The Provost shared with the committee some strategic planning documents, including a draft of six strategic directions and a timeline for the process.  The strategic directions he described as ideas that have not yet been fully defined.  He said that the next step would be for members of the leadership team to present the strategic directions to various stakeholder groups, including faculty, to get input about how they might be defined and implemented.  Committee members wondered how this would occur given that the semester is ending and many faculty members are likely to be off campus.  Greg suggested that the strategic directions are just that, strategies, and the tactics to achieve those strategies are to be determined.

There were a number of questions about the process, including its apparent non-linear nature.  Shouldn’t a mission statement be finalized before specific strategic directions are proposed or does one not drive the other?  There were also questions about the “Strategic Plan document” and its “1-4 page version” that the consultant will write in June.  The statement that “This will not include details that will likely change” implies that there will be parts that will not change even though none of it has been reviewed by any governance groups.  Jerry said that the planning group was following a sequence of steps suggested by the consultant.  Given these and other questions about the planning process, he suggested that the University Committee meet with Ann Zanzig, the planning consultant. 

Peggy noted that the proposed timeline included no mention of approval by the Faculty Senate or any other University Governance groups, which can’t happen until September.  Jerry said that the schedule could be modified to include the necessary approvals.

Finally, the issue of faculty representation was discussed.  While committee members understand that there should be input from groups representing the entire campus community, the central mission of the university is related to the work of faculty and students.  Given that, committee members expressed concern that the planning process is being guided by a group that is only one third faculty.  Greg cited the analogy of the Chancellor Search and Screen Committee.  The Chancellor represents the entire campus, and all campus groups are represented on the committee; however, it is required that a majority of the committee members be faculty.

Dennis (a member of the strategic planning leadership team) said he understands why the process has taken as long as it has.  It takes a long time to achieve consensus.  He encouraged committee members to give the process a chance to work. 

As the meeting had gone beyond its regular time, the committee did not address any other items on the agenda. 

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

Submitted by,

Gary M. Wood

Secretary of the Faculty