Institutional Strategic Planning Council (ISPC)
Minutes – Friday, April 17, 2015 – 3:00 p.m.
205 Welch
Attendees: Sharon Abraham, Colin Blakely, Jim Carroll, Ted Coutilish, Tara Lynn Fulton, Ellen Gold,
Raouf Hanna, Judith Kullberg, Sue Martin, Desmond Miller, Murali Nair, Carl Powell, Christian Spears,
David Turner, Leigh Greden
Meeting called to order: 3:08 p.m.
Discussion and Actions:
President Martin welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced Leigh Greden as he has been helping
to support the work on the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan website has been updated and there is
continued encouragement to visit the website to review the plans progress and provide feedback. A
campus forum was held on March 31, 2015 to provide an update of the plan to the campus as well as
President Martin and Leigh met with Faculty Senate to provide an update which yielded positive
feedback. The plan is becoming more understood and implemented.
A handout was provided illustrating, as a review, the Mission, Vision, Core Values and Strategic Themes.
The handout also illustrated the suggested changes, (as noted in red) to the Goals and Objectives, based
on the last ISPC meeting.
Suggested changes:
Institutional Effectiveness
Goal 1: Foster a diverse, ethical, safe and respectful workplace that supports the university’s mission.
This suggested change was reviewed, voted on and accepted by the committee.
One additional objective was created under Institutional Effectiveness.
3.1.5: Continue to implement measures to enhance the safety of the campus and surrounding community.
The addition of objective 3.1.5 was reviewed, voted on and accepted by the committee.
A suggestion was made at the last meeting that “Process Owners” in the template for Plan tasks should be
converted to positions and titles, not individual names. This change was completed and illustrated on the
handout. This change was reviewed, voted on and accepted by the committee.
One additional objective was created under Service and Engagement.
4.2.3: Design and implement evaluations tools to assess community perceptions of, and the University
impact on the surrounding community.
Goal 4.2.3 was reviewed, voted on and accepted by the committee.
Leigh reported that other divisions (non-academic) and areas have been working on their individual Goals
and Objectives, using the template that was reviewed and accepted by the ISPC at their last meeting.
Most units have this work completed. Leigh reviewed some examples of tasks that have been prepared by
a few of the areas. (Handout provided)
All non-academic Goals and Objectives that have been received will be shared to the ISPC at the next
meeting. (Action Item)
1 David Turner explained how the Goals and Objectives from the individual departments and areas will
have to be loaded into “Simitive”, which is the new Performance Evaluation tool. This module within
Simitive will be on line beginning next year. At that time there will be training and pilots. By having the
goals and objectives of each area loaded within Simitive. Each area can easily align their performance
goals and objectives with their individual goals and objectives which map to the overall plan as
performance evaluations are completed with staff. Naturally, this will provide a means for tracking goals
and objectives and is a good backbone for tracking. Further discussion took place regarding a formal
monitoring of what is completed – a formalized process/procedure. It was suggested that perhaps another
column could be added to the Goals and Objectives template indicating “Task Completed” Leigh
indicated that he is color coding and layering the tasks as well to indicate overlap with areas. This should
be helpful for areas to understand when their particular goals affect another area (e.g., IT) this is also a
way of keeping the plan transparent. It was also suggested that an Executive Summary be formulated
and placed on the website. We do not want to indicate all tasks on the website as this can be bulky and
overwhelming.
A clarification question was asked with regard to who formulated the goals and objectives for each of the
academic areas/departments. It was determined that the goals and objectives that were provided were
most likely created based on the College or departments’ own Strategic Plans. These goals will now need
to be aligned with the overall plan.
It was noted that the COB recently had their AACSB Accreditation and they received kudos for
integrating the University Strategic Plan into their review process. Furthermore, the HLC (Higher
Learning Commission) recently highlighted our quality initiative as a fine example of work toward
Institutional Accreditation. (Handout provided)
A suggestion was made by a committee member to “name” the plan. There was some discussion to
continue with University Strategic Plan.
President Martin noted that a new Market Study should likely be completed in 2017, as suggested by the
firm that completed the previous Market Study in 2012. The results of a new study would indicate areas
of modification of the plan. Dr. Martin further noted that the Strategic Plan will reside in the President’s
office.
The role of the committee, going forward was discussed. (Handout of committee roster was provided)
What should the structure be as well as a communication strategy? Should there be relationship between
the University Budget Council and the ISPC? Is there a relationship now? Further discussion explained
that University Budget Council makes decisions on a larger scale versus the individual goals and
objectives that are identified in our plan. Budget Council makes decisions based on larger directions and
policies in terms of priorities.
Is there overlap in the roster and is there representation from the HLC Accreditation team (we are
scheduled for a review in 2017)? There was discussion about the University Assessment Council and that
they should be more connected with the ISPC. Should we have more description on our Roster in terms
of which areas and individuals represented? Should there be term limits? It was suggested that a larger
committee is better than a smaller committee to insure that we are far-reaching to the campus as a whole.
The discussion then turned to the possibility of creating a sub-committee to monitor the plan and keep the
plan live, updated, integrated and moving. It was suggested that some other universities be reviewed to
determine how they are maintaining their plans. (Action Item)
2 3 Adjournment:
• Next meeting date – Friday, April 24, 2015 – 10:00 a.m.
• Meeting adjourned – 4:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Casey Wooster
4