Strategic
Planning
Steering
Committee
meeting
Friday,
January
30,
2009
7:30
–
9:00
a.m.,
Brookside
Room,
Administrative
Center
Attending:
Chrisanne
Arnold,
Jennifer
DeHaemers,
Mary
Pat
Henry,
Mary
Lou
Hines,
Patricia
Markens,
Sarah
Morris,
Nancy
Murdock,
Bonnie
Postlethwaite,
Walt
Rychlewski,
Bob
Simmons,
Michael
Strait,
Steve
Stroud,
Lisen
Tammeus,
Jeff
Thomas,
Mel
Tyler,
Thad
Wilson,
Hugh
Zimmer,
Troy
Lillebo,
Larry
Bunce,
Gary
Ebersole,
Leo
Morton,
Cindy
Pemberton,
Tom
Poe,
Jeff
Ryberg‐Cox,
Maria
Meyers,
Juno
Friedman,
Margaret
Brommelseik,
Joy
Swallow,
Chris
Papasian,
Mary
Allen
(recorder)
Absent:
Adam
Brown
Paul
Cuddy,
Lawrence
Dreyfus,
Sandy
Gault,
Bridgett
Johnson,
Meghann
Martens,
John
Purk,
Jim
Sheppard,
Kevin
Truman,
John
Readey
Dr.
Hackett
convened
the
Strategic
Planning
Steering
Committee
meeting
at
7:35
a.m.,
and
advised
the
membership
that
the
focus
of
today’s
meeting
will
center
on
reports
from
each
of
the
sub‐committees,
as
well
as
next
steps.
A
writing
committee
will
be
formed
to
work
with
Dr.
Hackett
and
the
communication
staff
to
create
a
coherent
draft
stemming
from
the
work
of
the
sub‐committees.
Dr.
Hackett
will
discuss
this
aspect
of
the
committee’s
work
later
in
the
meeting,
and
will
at
that
time
request
volunteers.
The
current
financial
situation
has
necessitated
the
cancellation
of
Joy
Wheeler’s
contract.
Dr.
Hackett
acknowledged
Ms.
Wheeler’s
help
in
aiding
the
Steering
Committee’s
work
to
conceptualize
the
plan
and
work
at
hand.
REPORTS
FROM
THE
SUBCOMMITTEES:
Each
of
the
sub‐committees
was
represented
at
today’s
meeting.
Reports
advised
the
membership
of
progress
made
thus
far
for
each
sub‐committee
and
the
progress
toward
preparing
a
draft
by
early
March.
Members
were
asked
to
report
not
only
on
the
work
accomplished,
but
to
address
any
issues,
ask
for
feedback,
and
advise
the
general
membership
of
pertinent
information.
Dr.
Hackett
also
stated
that
this
time
should
be
used
as
an
opportunity
to
dialogue.
A
question
and
answer
session
will
follow
each
report.
Undergraduate
Education/Student
Success
‐
Cindy
Pemberton,
Mel
Tyler
Dr.
Hackett
introduced
Cindy
Pemberton,
Vice
Provost
for
Academic
Affairs.
Dr.
Pemberton’s
emphasis
is
on
undergraduate
education
at
UMKC.
Dr.
Pemberton
co‐chairs
this
committee
with
Mel
Tyler.
Mel
Tyler
reported
that
this
group
has
been
meeting
every
Friday,
and
remains
on
target
to
complete
a
draft
by
the
end
of
next
month.
After
looking
at
the
charge
for
his
sub‐committee
and
based
on
the
participation
from
the
membership
and
its
work,
it
was
decided
to
break
this
sub‐committee
into
two
groups.
Cindy
Pemberton
chairs
the
group
that
is
addressing
issues
surrounding
Undergraduate
Education,
with
Tamara
Murdock
serving
as
co‐chair.
Dr.
Pemberton
reported
that
the
overarching
goal
of
this
group’s
work
is
to
provide
excellent
academic
experiences
that
empower
all
students
to
contribute
to
a
dynamic
and
complex
world.
In
drawing
up
the
goals
and
objectives,
the
team
followed
the
University
of
Cincinnati’s
plan.
The
group
identified
the
goal,
and
then
worked
on
the
objectives.
Dr.
Pemberton
reported
that
her
group
is
working
back
and
forth
on
this
process,
and
even
though
it
appears
linear,
it
is
dynamic
in
scope.
Some
of
the
objectives
listed
may
overlap
with
others
and
the
1
sub‐committee
will
be
able
to
look
at
where
there
is
blending.
Her
group
will
continue
to
flesh
out
action
steps,
metrics,
timelines
and
issues,
as
well
as
sub‐goals
and
objectives.
Vice
Chancellor
Mel
Tyler
reported
on
the
Student
Success
component
of
this
sub‐committee.
The
group
started
by
listing
the
various
students
at
UMKC
in
order
to
set
the
contexts
of
the
sub‐
committee’s
work.
His
group
looked
at
student
surveys
and
the
work
of
retention
committees,
along
with
things
common
themes
that
the
group
could
address.
The
consistent
theme
from
students
reflected
the
sense
that
they
were
given
the
“runaround.”
The
committee
is
looking
at
the
possibility
of
creating
a
Student
Success
facility
where
students
can
go
to
conduct
student
related
business.
The
committee
will
give
more
thought
to
this
and
will
flush
out
the
timeline
today
when
the
committee
meets,
as
well
as
identify
all
who
will
be
involved
in
framing
this
(focus
groups
and
students).
Faculty,
staff
and
student
leaders
need
to
model
the
behavior
of
this
culture,
whereby
first
time
students
will
experience
this
behavior
from
the
first
day
right
on
to
the
end
of
their
stay
at
UMKC.
A
culture
should
be
in
place
that
conveys
that
the
student
matters.
Dr.
Pemberton
stated
that
we
need
in
place
a
framework
to
brainstorm
what
unique
attributes
we
have
at
UMKC,
and
that
we
can
in
turn,
contribute
to
our
students.
In
that
context,
Chancellor
Morton
reminded
attendees
that
as
they
work
through
this
process
to
refer
to
the
“Time
to
Get
it
Right”
Report.
The
strategic
planning
process
has
various
elements
that
relate
to
strategies
in
that
report,
and
the
community
sees
this
document
as
a
blueprint
for
what
needs
to
be
done.
In
that
respect,
it
is
beneficial
to
us
if
we
can
show
that
our
efforts
are
in
line
strategically
with
this
report.
Professor
Rychlewski
stated
that
is
it
is
critical
for
us
to
differentiate
ourselves
in
how
we
deliver
on
the
cultural
experience
of
our
institution,
focusing
on
what
makes
us
different
and
better.
The
Medical
School
students
are
paired
with
a
mentor,
and
this
system
to
cohort
students
has
been
successful.
Professor
Ebersole
suggested
looking
at
ways
to
keep
students
on
campus,
moving
us
from
a
commuter
campus
to
a
residential
campus
to
keep
students
here
and
interacting.
One
way
to
develop
that
culture
would
include
looking
at
each
of
our
buildings
and
incorporating
a
welcoming
space
where
students
can
assemble
before
and
after
class.
Professor
Wilson
suggested
including
students
who
participate
via
on‐
line
classes
to
give
them
that
same
sense
of
interaction
with
campus
life.
Mr.
Strait
mentioned
that
UMKC
encompasses
a
large
number
of
transfer
and
non‐traditional
students
and
the
need
to
look
at
alternative
structures
i.e.,
looking
at
curricular
structure,
accelerated
curriculum
(much
like
the
Med
School
has
in
place),
among
others,
as
well
as
a
cooperative
program
using
North
Eastern
as
an
example.
UMKC
already
utilizes
some
or
all
of
these
models
to
help
students
flourish.
Dr.
Pemberton
advised
that
this
falls
under
academic
excellence
for
all,
and
that
these
issues
will
be
addressed.
We
need
to
meet
the
needs
of
our
students
and
be
flexible
in
doing
so.
Life
and
Health
Sciences.
‐
Chris
Papasian
The
Life
and
Health
Sciences
subcommittee
has
met
twice,
spending
time
sifting
through
reports
to
see
what
can
be
incorporated
into
their
body
of
work.
Clearly,
two
categories
surfaced
in
preparing
objectives
and
actions,
1)
increase
efficiencies
and,
2)
increase
collaboration
across
campus.
One
of
the
objectives
reflected
on
the
draft
prepared
for
today’s
meeting
is
to
recruit
a
Life
Sciences
leader.
Questions
remain
including
why
has
this
not
been
done
to
date,
where
do
they
fit,
who
would
this
individual
report
to,
and
what
happens
to
Research
Services?
Would
this
office
be
reorganized
to
report
to
the
Life
Sciences
leader?
We
need
to
figure
out
organizationally
how
this
would
fit.
2
Life
Sciences
Graduate
Education
Initiatives:
We
want
to
incorporate
the
benefits
of
our
interdisciplinary
Ph.D.
program
with
a
discipline
specific
Ph.D.
program.
The
third
aspect
of
the
subcommittee
work
addresses
research
infrastructure.
We
should
look
to
pool
resources
so
that
resources
can
be
utilized
to
meet
everyone’s
needs.
This
is
where
a
Life
Sciences
leader
could
offer
assistance.
Core
facility
support
is
funded
in
part
by
central
resources
with
individual
academic
units.
Grant
support
infrastructure
faces
a
critical
dilemma
when
someone
leaves
the
university,
losing
essential
expertise.
These
are
the
three
broad
categories,
but
the
emphasis
remains
on
utilizing
resources,
and
how
to
get
things
done.
Performing
and
Visual
Arts
‐
Jeff
Ryberg‐Cox
Two
questions
provide
the
impetus
for
the
work
of
this
sub‐committee:
1. What
should
our
designation
as
‘Missouri’s
Campus
for
the
Arts’
mean
in
practical
terms
for
students,
faculty,
alumni
and
external
constituencies?
2. How
can
we
make
connections
between
the
visual
and
performing
arts
mission
of
our
campus
and
other
focus
areas
in
the
strategic
plan,
particularly
the
urban
mission,
campus
diversity,
science
and
technology,
undergraduate
education,
and
economic
development
plans?
The
committee
is
creating
baseline
communication,
using
a
survey
to
collect
feedback.
The
survey
was
been
sent
out
to
faculty
in
A&S
and
the
Conservatory
(making
up
the
two
main
constituencies),
and
will
be
forwarded
to
faculty
and
staff
groups.
This
survey
was
not
sent
to
external
constituencies.
The
group
is
up
to
speed
on
the
writing
task
and
brainstorming,
however,
there
is
some
fragmentation
to
overcome.
The
focus
remains
on
the
question
of
what
does
it
mean
to
be
‘Missouri’s
Campus
for
the
Arts,’
and
what
are
the
outcomes,
i.e.,
for
those
coming
here,
and
even
for
someone
in
the
Med
School.
What
role
does
this
statement
play?
It
was
so
noted
that
the
designation
was
officially
changed
to
include
“Visual”.
Dr.
Hackett
again
advised
that
the
strategic
planning
steering
committee
report
ties
back
to
general
education
‐
how
are
our
graduates
distinct
from
other
universities
with
this
designation
and
what
is
its
impact?
It
was
suggested
that
the
sub‐committee
should
solicit
feedback
from
the
Arts
Council
of
Metropolitan
Kansas
City
as
well
as
tapping
into
previous
reports
available
on
the
strategic
planning
website.
Urban
Mission
–
Joy
Swallow
Professor
Swallow
stated
that
the
term
“urban
mission”
is
one
of
the
most
misunderstood.
More
importantly,
UMKC
needs
to
own
the
term.
We
need
to
not
just
be
in
the
city,
but
of
the
city.
We
need
to
make
more
linkages
with
the
city,
as
urban
is
our
context,
and
we
must
hone
our
mission.
In
the
‘Time
to
Get
in
Right’
report,
there
were
perceptions
that
we
are
not
meeting
this
goal.
This
institution
needs
to
be
represented
as
a
whole,
and
not
just
from
various
units.
Two
hot
areas
are
technology
and
health
of
which
the
committee
will
see
where
areas
intersect
and
where
we
can
be
participatory
in
the
city.
The
question
was
raised
about
internships
with
area
businesses.
Professor
Swallow
stated
that
she
and
the
committee
see
this
component
as
important.
Chancellor
Morton
stated
that
with
respect
to
3
internships,
we
need
to
put
teeth
into
this
area.
This
has
been
a
struggle
at
the
trustee
level,
but
the
results
have
been
extraordinary
where
it
has
worked.
Many
of
our
students
stay
in
Kansas
City,
and
we
need
to
attract
the
best
and
brightest.
Students
have
told
us
that
working
with
sponsors
is
very
important.
Mr.
Zimmer
stated
that
the
third
paragraph
in
today’s
report
from
Urban
Vision
is
very
good,
and
that
we
can
build
UMKC’s
reputation
outside
of
Kansas
City
over
time.
In
meetings
with
ASU,
one
of
their
objectives
is
to
be
a
place
to
come
when
a
problem
surfaces.
We
can
build
that
same
system
if
developed
properly.
The
problem
in
urban
areas,
such
as
Kansas
City,
centers
on
education,
and
an
additional
obstacle
is
that
we
are
fragmented
in
terms
of
community.
UMKC
could
become
more
of
a
focal
point.
Professor
Rychlewski
stated
that
UMKC
could
have
that
reputation,
driving
individuals
to
us
to
get
their
questions
answered.
At
present,
we
don’t
own
that
in
people’s
minds.
A
member
of
the
committee
today
stated
that
it
might
be
beneficial
for
us
to
have
a
list
of
what
our
students
have
done.
Dr.
Hackett
stated
that
part
of
our
issue
is
positioning
ourselves
internally
to
enhance
the
urban
mission
and
engage
the
community.
Diversity
–
Tom
Poe
The
work
of
this
sub‐committee
is
in
its
early
stages,
and
a
more
formal
report
will
be
made
at
the
next
meeting.
The
sub‐committee
will
meet
this
afternoon
to
undergo
SWOT
exercises
to
identify
strengths
and
weaknesses.
Members
of
the
committee
were
invited
to
send
their
ideas
on
issues
surrounding
diversity
to
Professor
Poe.
Professor
Poe
requested
feedback.
It
has
been
discovered
that
we
all
use
the
term
‘diversity’
differently.
We
need
an
idea
of
what
it
means
and
what
are
we
really
saying.
The
first
step
is
to
define
for
the
university
what
we
mean
when
we
say
‘diversity’.
International
students
and
non‐traditional
students
(older
students,
parents)
have
not
been
included
in
the
definition.
The
second
issue
addressed
was
how
far
out
is
the
timeline
for
this
work.
Dr.
Hackett
reminded
the
committee
that
the
sub‐committees
can
select
their
timeline
–
either
short
(3
years),
mid‐term
(5‐10),
and
long‐term
(20
+).
The
long
term
is
more
difficult,
but
it
is
important
to
consider
as
we
map
out
a
plan
for
future
generations.
Short
term
goals
are
more
tactical
and
are
steps
to
take
us
forward.
Short
and
mid‐term
goals
are
those
used
to
move
the
university.
There
should
be
a
limited
set
of
big
goals
with
action
steps
under
said
goals.
We
need
to
look
at
the
big
picture
–
a
map
to
follow
over
time.
We
do
not
need
to
identify
everything,
but
again
focus
on
the
big
picture.
Again,
Chancellor
Morton
reiterated
that
we
are
trying
to
say,
“How
do
we
create
a
climate
where
every
student
can
be
successful,
feel
comfortable
and
accepted.”
We
need
to
educate
all
within
our
“campus
climate”
of
a
culture
that
is
accepting
with
respect
to
ethnicity,
religion,
gender,
race,
etc.
A
climate
of
support
needs
to
be
created
to
enhance
the
success
of
every
student.
Per
Dr.
Hackett,
we
could
end
up
broadening
the
definition
so
much
that
we
lose
sight
of
our
goals.
We
should
cultivate
a
climate
of
appreciation
of
differences.
4
Economic
Development
–
Maria
Meyers
Ms.
Meyers
reported
that
the
work
of
this
sub‐committee
can
be
completed
in
a
month’s
time.
The
work
of
this
group
addresses
how
UMKC
plays
into
the
economy.
The
committee
has
gathered
information
and
will
brainstorm
further.
What
is
key
is
that
we
cannot
plan
strategically
in
this
area
without
taking
into
account
the
community.
The
institution
does
not
come
into
consideration
in
terms
of
the
local
economy
and
is
seen
as
vastly
underutilized.
Much
of
the
work
to
be
done
will
consist
of
four
areas:
1)
working
with
President
Forsee’s
plan,
look
to
create
a
framework
for
economic
development
with
state
agencies,
key
industries
and
match
what
we
do
with
them;
2)
create
incubators
in
the
community
to
support
the
entrepreneurial
community;
3)
develop
good
research
–
more
research
areas
to
the
market
place
to
generate
businesses;
and
4)
build
the
work
force,
develop
programs
(internships,
etc.)
Curt
Crespino
will
come
to
their
next
meeting,
and
is
gathering
information
on
where
our
students
go,
who
they
are,
and
what
corporations
have
employed
them.
Science
&
Technology
–
Walt
Rychlewski
Professor
Rychlewski
advised
the
committee
that
the
minutes
from
the
Science
&
Technology
committee
are
posted
to
the
website
(on
Provost’s
website).
He
read
to
the
committee
the
eleven
key
priorities
drafted
by
the
sub‐committee
and
asked
for
feedback.
A
limited
number
of
copies
of
the
minutes
for
this
sub‐committee
were
made
available
for
today’s
meeting,
but
again
the
committee
was
directed
to
the
website.
Professor
Rychlewski
asked
the
members
in
attendance
today
to
review
the
eleven
items
and
rank
them
in
order
to
be
emailed
back
to
him.
His
sub‐committee
is
on
track
to
meet
the
schedule.
CONCLUSION
•
•
•
•
Dr.
Hackett
asked
for
volunteers
to
participate
in
a
small
writing
team,
and
asked
team
members
to
email
her
and
advise
her
of
their
interest.
The
next
meeting
is
scheduled
for
Feb.
20.
The
order
will
be
reversed
for
reports,
allowing
more
time
for
those
who
did
not
have
adequate
time
today.
However,
reports
should
be
brief.
At
the
next
meeting,
the
group
will
discuss
the
town
hall
feedback
for
the
draft
report.
Additional
steering
committee
meetings
will
be
scheduled
to
take
place
every
three
weeks.
Troy
Lillebo
provided
copies
of
the
‘Time
to
Get
it
Right’
report
and
its
sequel
for
those
in
attendance.
5