2001 Minutes College Planning Committee (CPC) November 30, 2001

College Planning Committee (CPC)
November 30, 2001
Committee members present: Bare, Boardman, Bradley (Chair), Cone, Green, Kaye,
Manuwal, McKinley, Paul, Ryan, Russell, Sukumaran, Trudeau, Weiss (ex-officio), West
Absent: Gustafson, Humann, Marzluff
Agenda topics:
• Review/approve minutes of 11/16 meeting minutes
• Updated work plan checklist
• Divisional structure discussions
• 12/10/01 retreat to revise CFR strategic plan documents
• CFR survey
• Update on Directions Committee
• CUH meeting follow-up
The minutes of the 11/16/01 meeting were approved with one correction.
Agenda materials contained an updated checklist for work unit work plans. B. Bare
encouraged all work units to complete a work plan. Although it was acknowledged that
the work planning cycle had begun slightly out of sync, it was agreed that a meeting to
review progress should be held no later than Spring 2002.
The committee briefly discussed the M&E Division vote to collapse CFR into a nondivisionalized college. It was reported that one rationale for the vote was the increased
opportunity for faculty to meet as a whole and discuss issues of common concern. D.
Manuwal said that the ES Division had not voted on this. The committee agreed that its
earlier assessment of divisional structure discussions -- "form should follow function" -remained valid and that the curriculum transformation project could ultimately drive
College structure.
A draft agenda for the 12/10/01 facilitated planning retreat to be held at CUH was
included in agenda materials and committee members were asked for suggested
changes or other input. The agenda was approved as submitted.
G. Bradley reported on the progress of the Charting Directions committee. He said that a final report had
been submitted and that President McCormick would provide a response to the committee's
recommendation. He said the report contained a working definition of a world-class CFR enumerating
specific characteristics, and that this information, if available in time for the 12/10/01 planning retreat
would be a useful guideline in developing goals and objectives.
The committee briefly discussed items discussed at the 10/26/01 CPC meeting. It was
agreed that membership on the CUH building committee be expanded to include
additional membership from the CPC (B. Edmonds is already a member); C. Ryan
agreed to serve, with C. Cone serving as alternate. It was agreed that C. Cone would
provide CPC representation on meetings with the architect re: Merrill Hall rebuild.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:30 p.m.
College Planning Committee (CPC)
November 16, 2001
Committee members present: Bare, Boardman, Bradley (Chair), Cone, Edmonds,
Green, Humann, Kaye, Manuwal, Marzluff, Paul, Russell, West
Absent: Gustafson, Ryan, Sukumaran, Trudeau, Weiss (ex-officio)
Agenda topics:
• Review/approve minutes of 10/26 meeting minutes
• CPC continued involvement in facilitating curriculum transformation
• CFR organizational structure
• 01-02 work plan process
The minutes of the 11/2/01 meeting were approved.
G. Bradley opened the meeting with a diagram of startling new wildlife research
showing that "as the crow flies" is a woefully misleading commonplace expression.
B. Bare commended the joint CPC/EFC effort to provide a forum for faculty discussion of curriculum
transformation, which culminated in the near-unanimous faculty vote on 11/7/01 to consolidate the
existing seven CFR UG curricula into two. G. Bradley asked for committee discussion on how the CPC
could best continue to play a role facilitating further progress on curriculum discussion. B. Bare observed
that CPC/EFC cooperation had been positive and that this model should continue. It was suggested that
a reasonable approach would be to provide periodic forums for the curriculum transformation committee
(to be appointed) to provide progress reports to and gain input from the CFR community. S. West said
that EFC cooperation in providing such forums is a good idea. Committee members agreed on the model
proposed. B. Bare said that his charge letter to the curriculum committee would also specifically request
periodic briefings to the CPC.
The timeline and structure of the Ad Hoc Curriculum Transformation Committee was discussed. As
stated in the email memo from B. Bare, nominations for membership by self or others were requested
from the faculty, as well as suggestions for student and staff representation, by noon on 11/21/01; the
committee will be formed during the week of 11/26/01. The committee's final report will be due on
2/15/02, with the faculty vote on the proposal on 3/15/02. The implementation phase will begin in Spring
02 and continue through the summer so that the new curriculum can be in place Autumn 02.
Discussion on curriculum consolidation included the following points and questions:
It was suggested that using the term "curriculum transformation" was more accurate and appropriate
than "curriculum reform." The committee agreed to try to use consistent language in this regard.
It was suggested that the makeup of the ad hoc committee was crucial -- that membership must
include those willing to move forward and not be merely protective of existing programs.
It was suggested that CFR must anticipate a backlash, at least from some external constituencies, if
dramatic changes in the curriculum occur. Two realities exist -- that of the workplace and that of the
academy -- at any point in time their expectations may not be completely in sync. What the degree is
called, and how the new curriculum is "sold" to external constituents should be considered carefully.
It was suggested that information on the external environment, e.g., knowledge areas considered
essential to the field by potential employers, be considered. Exercises undertaken by past CFR
strategic planning, including the initial survey, the Camp Long Retreat, and Futures Committee
analyses, have produced this kind of information. Additionally, the Pinchot Institute report is a useful
source of external expectations. B. Bare said that in his charge letter to the ad hoc committee, he
would certainly direct the committee to make use of these sources.
The committee discussed potential incentives for membership on the ad hoc committee, which will
involve significant time and effort. In addition summer quarter work will be necessary to prepare
material for revised or new courses.
The timeline for approval of the revised curriculum approval was discussed. L. Kaye said that this
timeline can be expedited with careful planning and good communication occurring among all the
necessary approving bodies.
The committee discussed current discussions in the College about changes in divisional structure. It was
suggested that form should follow function. B. Bare asked for a recommendation from the committee on
whether this was an issue that should precede or follow curriculum integration; the committee consensus
was that the major focus should now be on curriculum and that matters of CFR structure would properly
be considered after transformation and consolidation of undergraduate programs is achieved.
The committee discussed the 01-02 work plan process and reviewed the checklist of submitted work
plans. The committee approved the proposed CPC work plan, with minor modifications. It was agreed
that the CPC should facilitate a half-day forum in January for work unit leaders to discuss their work plans
and share information. Committee members agreed that similar meetings in the past had created useful
synergies and resulted in increased understanding of common goals and objectives. It was suggested,
and the committee agreed, that a more direct tie-in between work plans and measures of achievement
(i.e., performance criteria) was an important goal.
The meeting was interrupted by an evacuation [false alarm] of Anderson at approximately 3 p.m; further
items on the agenda were postponed until the next meeting.
College Planning Committee (CPC)
November 2, 2001
Committee members present: Bare, Bradley (Chair), Cone, Edmonds, Green,
Gustafson, McKinley (alternate), Manuwal, Marzluff, Paul, Russell, Trudeau
Excused: Boardman, Humann, Kaye, Ryan, Sukumaran,Weiss (ex-officio), West
Faculty also attending included: Agee, Allan, Bolton, Catlett, Fridley, Gara, Greulich,
Halpern, Henry, Hinckley, Hodgson, Johnson, McKean, Perez-Garcia, Schreuder,
Thorud, Wagar, Wolf
Agenda topic:
• Review/approve minutes of 10/26 meeting minutes
• Curriculum reform
The minutes of the 10/26/01 CPC meeting were approved, with one correction.
G. Bradley opened the meeting, clarifying that meeting procedure would be:
• presentation of the CPC/EFC task force curriculum proposal
• discussion of that proposal with input and suggestions from all attending
• vote on the proposal by the CPC, with final version approved to be presented to the
full faculty at the 11/7/01 faculty meeting
He reviewed the questions framing the CPC/EFC's recommendation, as posed in the
agenda materials:
9 Can we support a consolidated curriculum?
9 Can we support a two-curriculum model?
Environmental Science and Management
Paper Science and Engineering
9 Can we agree in concept on what the consolidated curriculum looks like?
9 Can we agree on an approach for developing a refined model for consideration by
the faculty?
He briefly summarized past and current activities focused on curriculum, including the
Camp Long retreat, facilitated by UW's Center for Instructional Development and
Research, that was attended by faculty and external stakeholders who hire CFR's
graduates. Other analyses have included the Futures Report, the Synthesis Report,
and assorted memos and emails from the Acting Dean, ad hoc faculty groups, and
individual faculty members. He discussed the concerns that currently make curriculum
reform a high priority -- CFR's seven undergraduate curricula with 19 possible paths are
too inefficient and cumbersome, in the view of upper campus administrators and UW
advisors, and make it difficult for CFR faculty to productively balance their multiple
responsibilities for tasks other than teaching -- research, advising, outreach, and
administrative duties.
G. Bradley reviewed the task force recommendations re: desired characteristics
(interdisciplinary; integrated; and experiential with opportunities for internships,
research, capstones, team projects, multiscale problems, flexibility, more electives, and
diversity) and desired outcomes (effective teamwork, analytical skills, problem solving
approaches, communication processes, social/economic/policy processes, biological/
physical/chemical structure, function and processes, research methods, professional
and environmental ethics, and computer technology and applications, and conflict
management). Continuing and enhancing links to CFR graduate programs and other
UW programs was also a high priority recommendation.
He discussed the task force-recommended conceptual model of an "Environmental
Science and Management" undergraduate curriculum built on the initial distribution of
desired outcome knowledge areas, enhanced at the core with application to natural
resource problems, and by the senior year developed into contextual "interest areas,"
more fully developed by a capstone project. The conceptual model also allows for the
3-2 option recommended by the Futures Report, which effectively links undergraduate
to graduate programs. The core of the conceptual model recognizes the important
intersection of the ecological (how it works), economic (products and services), and
social (how to decide) that provides the underlying rationale for the College as a
professional unit and gives its students a unique background among other UW units.
The importance of the context, "ecosystem management in an urbanizing world," is
enhanced by CFR's location in a world class "lab" with a multiplicity of landscape types,
natural disturbances, and recreational/industrial/conservation/cultural/ political research
areas, agencies, and associations in which CFR alum and faculty hold leadership
positions or expertise.
Discussion of the proposal included the following points and questions:
• The name "environmental science and management" was discussed in the context
of apparent PoE leadership in environmental education at UW. It was suggested that
CFR would not be allowed to use "environmental" in a curriculum name. Some felt that
it was basically a matter of claiming this leadership first, as PoE does not have a clearly
defined programmatic structure. The potential relationship of the proposed curriculum to
PoE was discussed. It was agreed that however the CFR curriculum is designed, future
cooperation with PoE was essential. The UW will have to come up with linking
mechanisms that will make this cooperation possible so that all participants in UW
environmental programs get credit for their contributions.
• There was discussion of whether CFR's strength is in "environmental science" or
"ecosystem science" (no general agreement).
• It was reiterated that the proposed model is a conceptual model and does not
identify specific areas of specialization or the required courses that these would
comprise. A curriculum committee will be formed, using input from work already
contributing to these discussions and other sources, to work out the details. Some
suggested that at least a proposed specific model be presented at the faculty meeting;
others felt that CFR should be agreeing only on a conceptual model at this stage.
• The 2-curriculum model, leaving Paper Science and Engineering as a stand-alone
curriculum was discussed. R. Gustafson said he was aware that this isolation of PSE
may leave the program vulnerable and that this is an issue that he will continue to
discuss with PSE faculty. It was pointed out that an argument could be made for either
the one-curriculum or two-curriculum model. PSE, with its concentrated chemistry
requirements and ABET accreditation parameters, can be viewed as sufficiently
different from other CFR programs. On the other hand, areas of commonality do exist,
along with the potential for PSE to contribute to CFR's integrating theme of
sustainability, especially with regard to research in alternate fiber sources, life cycle
analysis, and environmentally sustainable pulp and paper processes. It was agreed
that a recommendation from the CPC to the full faculty should be for the 2-curriculum
model, but with an added recommendation that the further integration of PSE to the
optimal level within CFR be specifically addressed.
• A discussion of the list of desired characteristics and outcomes resulted in some
changes in wording. It was suggested that avoiding specific interest areas in this list
would be preferable. There was a discussion of whether or not "conflict management"
was an interest area or a basic knowledge area.
• A discussion of the recommendation's graphic presentation resulted in some
changes: it was decided to present the core ("how it works," "what it produces," "how to
decide") with three intersecting circles of equal size rather than as the nested
chronological progression depicted.
CPC members present agreed by a vote of hands to present to the full faculty for a vote
the 2-curriculum conceptual model, with a name changed to "Ecosystem Science and
Management," and with the added statement that the optimal integration of PSE into
CFR be explored.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3 p.m.
College Planning Committee (CPC)
October 26, 2001
Committee members present: Bare, Boardman, Bradley (Chair), Cone, Edmonds,
Gustafson, Humann, Kaye, McKinley (alternate), Marzluff, Paul, Russell, Ryan, Trudeau,
Weiss (ex-officio), West; Excused: Green, Manuwal, Sukumaran
Attending by invitation: Hinckley, Ihrig, Menter, Nicol, Reichard, Seidelman, Thorud
Agenda topics:
• Review of minutes
• Discussion of CUH building program
• Preliminary report on CPC survey questionnaire
• CPC/EFC curriculum task group
Introductions were made; visitors attending by invitation to discuss the CUH building
program included: Executive Vice President Weldon Ihrig, Project Manager Norm Menter,
Senior Facilities Planner John Seidelman, CUH Director and CFR faculty member Tom
Hinckley, CFR faculty member Sarah Reichard, CUH staff member Sue Nicol, and Dean
Emeritus David Thorud.
The minutes of the 10/05/01 CPC meeting were reviewed and approved.
G. Bradley said the CUH building program discussion would be framed by three questions:
(1) Does the current building program encompass the expanded vision as expressed in
Acting Dean Bare's statement and the draft architectural program statement (included in
agenda materials) (2) Is the current allocated budget for the building program sufficient to
support the expanded vision as expressed in these two documents and (3) If the current
allocated budget is not sufficient to support this expanded vision, is there a reasonable
potential to ensure the necessary additional support through development/fundraising
efforts? He asked B. Bare to present an overview of his expanded vision statement for
CUH/Merrill Hall.
After a brief discussion of various drafts of the vision statement, B. Bare said that the draft
included in the agenda was his most recent statement of a vision for the CUH building
program, although others had been redrafting the statement with minor changes. He said
that he first articulated his expanded vision for CUH at a CUH retreat earlier this year,
where he said that the proposed unifying CFR theme of "sustainability" was well suited to
the College's interdisciplinary centers and that the sustainability of urban environments was
highly relevant. He said the tragedy of the Merrill firebombing had given rise to a rebuilding
opportunity with state and private donor funds that could enhance and expand the ability of
CUH to encompass broader programmatic aspects of the sustainability of urban
environments than is currently the case. He said CFR has the potential to become a worldrecognized resource for urban problem solving at a regional, national, and global level on
issues such as urban forestry, environmental horticulture, invasive plant species, arboreta
management, landscape restoration, riparian studies, the rural/urban interface
(management of wildfires, wildlife, and urban growth policies), urban stream restoration,
remediation of polluted industrial sites, and the sustainable management of industrial and
consumer byproducts. CFR initiatives and programs such as the urban ecology group,
wildlife program, streamside studies, recycling, remediation, and others could contribute
along with the existing programs at CUH. He also said that Bill Corbin, CFR Advisory Board
Chair, had suggested an addition to the existing Merrill Hall footprint to provide a "learning
center" facility in which to conduct forums and make CFR a widely-recognized resource on
these issues. Necessary funding for this enhancement, estimated at $1.5-2M over the
currently allocated (by legislature and UW local funds) $4.1M replacement cost for Merrill
Hall, could be the focus of a development fundraising effort. The draft architectural program
statement prepared by N. Menter speaks to this enhancement.
G. Bradley said question #1 (does current CUH building program encompass expanded
vision and draft architectural statement?) was open for discussion. He asked N. Menter,
Project Manager, to provide UW Capital Projects perspective on this question. N. Menter
summarized allocated funds to date: (1) an initial $.5M in UW emergency funds allocated
immediately after the fire to, among other things, stabilizing the structure, demolition, and
making temporary space available to displaced employees; (2) a $3M allocation by State
legislature; and (3) $1.103M allocated to the rebuilding project by UW local funds. The
project agreement signed after the fire for the approximately $4.1M building allocation is to
replace the lost 17,000 sq. ft. He said an architectural firm (Miller Hull) had been chosen
and the project was in the pre-design stage.
N. Menter said there is now a window of opportunity to (1) plan for updating and enhancing
the existing footprint to provide a "world-class" facility and (2) to consider the add-on
enhancement of a learning center. The cost for enhancing the existing footprint has been
estimated at $3.5M. (1) and (2) could happen simultaneously if funding allowed, or (2)
could happen later, as long as this potential was included in current plans. He clarified that
the $4.1M state/UW allocation allows appropriately for pre-design and design process
costs. The tight timeline for decision-making was stressed: decisions on enhancement of
the base building would need to be made by the end of December 2001; this would allow for
start of building in Spring 2003. In addition, planning now for the possibility of a learning
center is also crucial. J. Seidelman said UW Capital and Space Planning (CaSPO) is
working with the legislature to get the $3M appropriation fully committed. W. Ihrig said that
the key enhancement questions need to be decided within CFR, and that the UW core goal
is to recover the 17,000 sq. ft.
G. Bradley said that question #2 (Is the current allocated budget for the building program
sufficient to support the expanded vision) had essentially been answered in the negative
and that additional fundraising must take place to accomplish an expanded vision. He
asked L. Kaye to provide a perspective on question # 3 (If the current allocated budget is
not sufficient to support this expanded vision, is there a reasonable potential to ensure the
necessary additional support through development/fundraising efforts?) L. Kaye said that
the concept of a learning center has the potential to recruit substantial gifts. She said that
the projected seating capacity should be 150-200, rather than the 100 suggested in the draft
architectural program statement in order to make full potential of the facility. She also said
that the estimated $3.5M needed for "world class" enhancements to the existing footprint, if
marketed in a compelling way, could be raised. She stressed the importance of a carefully
crafted concept to attract large donors -- CUH has a very faithful and committed community
of small-to-medium range supporters, but none that currently have the potential to give the
substantial amounts required. She said that she was working closely with UW Development
to identify prospects and to develop a fundraising campaign.
The meeting was then opened to general discussion. Points and discussion that emerged
Neighborhood concerns about parking and other site impacts require careful look at all
possible alternatives. Several suggestions were made for various facility configurations,
including reconfiguring NHS hall to accommodate needed office space and freeing up
the enhanced Merrill Hall for public and program space, including the proposed learning
center. It was also suggested that, although in some cases the term "auditorium" had
been used to describe the add-on facility, the consistent use of "learning center" or
some other term describing a meeting or lecture facility should be used in order to allay
parking and congestion concerns. In looking at various configurations, existing contracts
with horticultural organizations through 2010 need to be considered, as well as some
current uses of CUH facilities that may no longer be accommodated, depending on the
final design.
The possibility of in-house design services and student help was suggested as a costreduction mechanism. It was clarified that student and other in-house input would be
sought whenever appropriate, but that this would probably not reduce costs in any
meaningful way and often had liability and other considerations.
Equipment and furnishings are now included in the building budget (approximately
$200K -- it was suggested that this could be released for enhancements and other addons, with a subsequent fundraising effort for these items.
It was decided during the meeting, with CPC consensus, that:
(1) A look at the entire CUH facility (existing, replacement, and enhancements) should be
undertaken with an eye to the best possible use of the space in terms of accessibility
and meeting the criteria of the expanded vision, including the "learning center" and the
incorporation of expanded aspects of urban sustainability
(2) A cost/sq. ft. estimate should be provided for the "learning center" as an add-on
(3) Meetings with Miller Hull should include, in addition to current CUH building committee
membership, CPC and other interested CFR parties.
(4) Pre-design document notebook should be made available for wide review
It was reiterated that including this more comprehensive and inclusive design process would
not adversely affect the timeline, as long as a decision can be reached before the end of
G. Bradley briefly presented preliminary results of the CPC survey questionnaire. He said
the survey revealed that most respondents felt comfortable with current CFR mission,
vision, goals, themes, and principles. He gave an overview of responses to various survey
questions ("what's going well," what's not going well," "curriculum focus," and
"grad/research program focus") and said that most responses fell into broad categories. He
said the full survey results would be published soon.
G. Bradley and S. West announced that a curriculum task group composed of CPC and
EFC faculty members would meet to develop a proposal for a proposed curriculum concept
to present to the next regularly scheduled CPC meeting on November 2nd. This, in turn,
will be presented to an all-College faculty meeting on November 7th.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:30 p.m.
College Planning Committee (CPC)
October 5, 2001
Committee members present: Bare, Bradley (Chair), Cone, Edmonds, Green,
Gustafson, Humann, McKinley (alternate), Manuwal, Marzluff, Paul, Russell, Ryan,
Sukumaran, Trudeau, Weiss (ex-officio). Excused: Boardman, Kaye, West
Attending by invitation: Hegyvary (Directions Committee)
Agenda topics:
• Process for strategic plan affirmation/update
• Develop CPC work plan for 01-02
• CPC administration (meeting schedule/work processes)
M. Trudeau presented a quick overview of CFR enrollment statistics for Autumn 02,
showing an increase in majors and enrollment and a record-high enrollment for a CFR
service course, CFR 101.
G. Bradley reviewed the committee recommendation from the 10/05 meeting to
develop a fast-track approach for CFR affirmation/update of previous strategic planning
efforts. He presented a proposal for accomplishing this task -- a 2-page survey that
would be made available to faculty, staff, and students. Survey responses would be
anonymous. The survey would ask respondents to identify what is going well and what
is not going well in CFR, to state what they like about the current mission and vision,
and suggestions for change, and to identify five goals for CFR to accomplish in the
coming year. Wherever possible, the survey would be presented in upcoming faculty,
staff, and student meetings, so that the historical context of the planning process would
be provided. In this fast-track scenario, a preliminary analysis of survey results could be
accomplished by the end of October. The survey responses would be made available
to the CFR community. The CPC would report to the Dean and the Management
Council on survey results and then incorporate the results into a proposed affirmation or
revision of the plan document. The Dean would present this proposal to the College at
an all-College meeting.
Committee members made suggestions for additions to the survey questions:
• Add two more questions (using the same format as the mission/vision queries) on
guiding principles and guiding themes
• Structure the responses along some gradient of approval/disapproval
• Along with identifying goals, ask respondents to identify how they would measure
goals achievement
• Have respondents identify themselves as faculty, staff, or students
A task group (membership: Bradley, Gustafson, Humann, Manuwal, Ryan, Trudeau,
and Paul) was asked to begin development of the survey.
The committee discussed the development of a CFR work plan for 01-02. The chair
presented a time-line diagram for reaching a revised work plan. The timeline was
framed in the context of three ongoing activities: Acting Dean Bare's request to
incorporate the theme of sustainability into CFR programs, the survey and subsequent
reaffirmation/ revision of planning process and achievements, and division and other
unit discussions re: goals and objectives. These activities would have a projected
completion date of approximately 11/10. The next step would be a work-planning event,
a CPC facilitated discussion among chairs, center directions, and other unit leaders to
discuss a work plan for each unit. The revised work plan could then be presented,
along with the proposed update of planning documents resulting from the survey at an
all-College meeting sometime toward the end of Autumn Quarter.
R. Gustafson suggested the projected timeline would be a problem for his division in
that the individual M&E programs would first need to discuss their individual goals and
objectives before an M&E-wide plan could be developed. S. Hegyvary stressed the
need for urgency in the College's planning and strategic efforts. She said that CFR was
in a vulnerable position, that the cost per CFR student was too high in terms of
faculty/student ratio, SCH production, and a number of other indicators. She said
integration of the UG curricula and streamlining of CFR graduate programs was seen by
upper campus as a needed step. She said the College should turn the planning effort to
their advantage by identifying and strategically promoting "points of excellence within
the CFR. Committee members suggested that:
• the Futures Report contained a reasoned, inclusive recommendation with regard to
UG curricula
• CFR should strive to be a leader in a focused and integrated environmental
education program on UW campus
• the survey should include questions either directly related to the Futures Report or
to curriculum integration
It was decided to include two more questions on the survey, asking respondents to
identify a smaller number of UG and grad programs that could be sustainable given
emerging constraints and that would emphasize CFR's "points of excellence."
The committee agreed that the next CPC meeting would include a discussion on the
CUH rebuilding program to help ensure that the program is compatible with CFR, CUH,
and UW long-term goals. The committee agreed to invite Weldon Ihrig, Norm Menter,
Tom Hinckley, and Sue Nicol to provide their perspectives on the project. In response
to committee members' questions about whether or not a decision had been made to
include genetic research in the planned rebuilding project, B. Bare responded that
because of security issues that program would be housed elsewhere on the UW
College Planning Committee (CPC)
September 24, 2001
Committee members present: Bare, Bradley (Chair), Cone, Edmonds, Green,
Gustafson, Humann, Kaye, Mason (alternate), Manuwal, Paul, Russell, Ryan,
Sukumaran, Trudeau, Weiss (ex-officio), West. Excused: Boardman, Marzluff
Attending by invitation: Bill Corbin, Sue Hegyvary, Phil Woolwine (Directions
Agenda topics:
• CPC charge (Bare)
• Summary of historical background and products of CFR strategic planning through
6/00 (Bradley)
• Institutional perspective on planning and relevance of CFR's past planning efforts to
UW and wider perspective
• CPC work plan
• CPC administration (meeting schedule/work processes): deferred to later meeting
The meeting opened with introductions and a welcome to members and chair of the
President's "Directions Committee" for CFR, attending the meeting by invitation. Chair
G. Bradley provided a brief overview of the agenda.
Acting Dean B. Bare outlined two major thrusts for developing common goals for the
College. First, he charged the CPC with facilitating and overseeing processes and
developing forums to promote strategic thinking at all levels throughout CFR -- to help
insure that all members of the CFR community think of common goals as they
contemplate decisions regarding each work unit's future programmatic directions.
Developing strategies to identify and prioritize important issues will provide a
comprehensive process for planning future directions. Second, the college's Workplace
Quality Committee would work to promote an organizational culture consistent with the
successful completion of these tasks. He clarified that the authority of the CPC was
advisory -- that it will make recommendations to the College Management Council for
discussion and referral to the appropriate decision-making authorities. He also noted
that planning efforts undertaken by CFR will need to coordinate with the Directions
Committee as that committee meets and makes a final report to the President, and to
continually benefit from the CFR's external advisory mechanisms, including the College
Advisory Board.
Chair G. Bradley presented a summary of the historical background and products of
previous CFR planning efforts from 1995-2000, including facilitated all-College meetings
in which statements of mission, vision, goals, and objectives were developed, the
development of CFR-wide targets and associated work planning processes, reporting
mechanisms, and performance criteria for measuring achievement of these targets, and
the development of various processes for prioritizing programmatic directions in light of
available resources. The discussion was framed in terms of recently articulated UW
institutional expectations for individual faculty accountability to departmental, college,
and University strategic goals. It was noted that the demand for accountability, both
internal and external, was a driving force behind all planning efforts and was likely to
become even more critical in the future.
The committee discussed the development of a work plan for the current academic
year. Items included: (1) scheduling all-College meeting to evaluate and reaffirm or
modify the approach, direction, and products of previous planning efforts; (2) scheduling
work plan meeting for CFR work units; and (3) developing forums for College-wide
discussion of important issues, both those currently identified by Acting Dean Bare
(CUH rebuilding program; capital campaign development initiatives) and those yet to be
identified by the community. Items (2) and (3) were touched on only briefly and will be
taken up at a future meeting. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to a discussion
of item (1).
Directions Committee members noted that a fast-track scenario for accomplishing item
(1) would be helpful -- that committee will report to the President at the end of
November, and a clearer sense of the level of "buy-in" within the College with regard to
mission, vision, goals, and processes of previous planning efforts would provide a
valuable context for their analysis and report. Is it just a matter of fine-tuning or will
major modifications be needed? CPC members agreed that a mechanism for assessing
"buy-in" could be developed fairly rapidly. Several committee members noted that the
CFR planning process has been essentially stalled for nearly two years; restarting it
necessarily involves some awkwardness in timing in terms of academic year and other
reporting cycles.
Directions Committee members were thanked for their input and insights. It was agreed
that Directions Committee members would benefit by attending CPC meetings, as well
as Workplace Quality