Committee on Strategic Planning, Minutes
April 19, 2000
Committee members present: Anderson, Bare, Bradley, Catlett, Gustafson, Hinckley, Lippke, Morgan, Paul, Wagar,
Waldron
Topics covered at the meeting included:
•
All-College faculty meeting re: Futures Committee report
•
All-College spring recognition event
•
Graduate student forum update
•
CFR response strategy
•
Work plan process
•
The committee discussed the scheduled 5/5/00 all-College faculty meeting to reach agreement about
Futures Committee recommendations. It was suggested that meeting format should be minimal, but should
include a review of the recommendations, a discussion of their merits with an aim to reaching agreement,
via vote or consensus, on implementation, and a record of the proceedings.
In addition to the May all-College faculty meeting, the committee agreed that an all-College Spring recognition
event would be scheduled for late May or early June.
K. Waldron gave an update on the "graduate student forum" project, an informal group of CFR graduate students
who would be available to answer questions and provide a peer resource to undergraduates in the College. She said
the project was being coordinated by Roark Donnelly who will ask for graduate student volunteers. Opportunities
for informal gatherings will be developed; undergraduates will be asked what kinds of information they are most
interested in having. It was agreed that all technical advisory questions will be referred to OSS. T. Hinckley said that
a "fact sheet" for the CWR curriculum was being developed, and that this would provide useful information for
students.
The committee briefly discussed issues associated with a CFR "response strategy" for making sure that incoming
requests for information are answered or routed appropriately. One suggestion, an interactive Web mechanism, was,
upon further discussion, decided not currently workable as it actually might result in more requests that the College
can handle at this time. It was suggested that the RTI, which will need to be responsive to clients on forest
management tools, could initiate a monitored model in a limited setting that if successful could be expanded to the
rest of the College. It was agreed that more analysis of this issue would be helpful and that it is an important aspect
of CFR outreach and public service.
The committee agreed to schedule a Work Plan 2000-01 meeting in late May so that units of the College submitting
99-01 plans could share accomplishments for the past year and goals for the coming year.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m.
March 15, 2000
Committee members present:
Anderson, Bare, Bradley, Green, Gustafson, Hinckley, Lippke, Paul, Schiess, Wagar
Topics covered at the meeting included:
•
Planning for 3/31/00 budget discussions with Provost
•
Futures Committee
Budget discussion. The committee discussed the upcoming (May 31) budget discussion with the Provost. Consensus
at the February CSP meeting was that representatives from CFR who would take part in the discussion include the
Dean and Associate Deans, the Division Chairs, the CSP Chair, the Administrator, and two graduate students.
Following the format of the 12/16/99 letter from the Provost outlining the framework for the discussion, the
committee considered the following points:
•
Challenges for CFR include: UG enrollment; finding right balance between SCH production through
service courses and lecture/field/lab study courses for our majors; upcoming administrative change;
development, including the upcoming UW capital campaign; keeping up with technology; and developing
capstone experiences.
•
Opportunities for CFR include: new initiatives, including the rural technology initiative (RTI) and the
precision forestry cooperative; the possibility of CFR as a Cooperative Ecosystems Study Unit (CESU);
and the UW Restoration Ecology Network (UW-REN).
•
Connections between CFR activities and budget process themes have been developed. Themes include
increasing educational opportunities for state's citizens, preparing students to meet the demands of the
future, improving the state's environment, community, health, and economy. CFR's connections to these
themes include service courses, outreach, and research, interdisciplinary centers, K-12 cooperation, and the
RTI. It was agreed that these accomplishments should be a focus of the budget discussions, as background
for CFR request for funding.
•
CFR has a good level of preparedness with respect to upcoming program reviews and RCEP policies. [CSP
assisted in developing RCEP process; next program reviews: SAF-accredited forest management program
must submit interim status report by 8/15/00, CFR graduate program review scheduled for 2006]
Futures Committee (FC). The committee discussed possible next steps with regard to the FC report. One question
was whether the FC charge included developing implementable recommendations for a faculty vote. Input is still
being gathered via the FC web page; additional input could come from an all-College meeting prior to an all-College
faculty meeting to vote on recommendations. B. Bare agreed to contact the FC chair and request clarification on
next steps.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m.
February 16, 1999
Committee members present: Anderson, Bare, Bradley, Catlett, Cohen, Green, Gustafson, Hinckley, Lippke,
Morgan, Paul, Thorud, Trudeau, Wagar, Waldron
Also attending: Ewing, Ryan, Schmidt
Topics covered at the meeting included:
•
Update on dean search and campus visits
•
Agenda for all-College meeting
•
Futures Committee recommendations
•
Prototype revised FM curriculum
•
Role of centers in UW and CFR (continued from previous meeting)
C. Paul gave an update on the CFR dean search process and reported that three candidates, Bruce Bongarten, Daniel
Mazmanian, and Kristiina Vogt were scheduled to participate in campus interviews during March.
2
K. Ewing and C. Ryan gave a brief presentation of the Futures Committee report and recommendations on CFR
undergraduate education. The approach, they said, was to start broadly and to gather data by looking at other
programs, both on and off-campus, conducting interviews, and consulting other studies and reports, including the
Boyer Commission report and the core competencies/skills matrix developed at the Camp Long retreat. The report
presented several options, including a no-change option, a 3-2 year master's degree option, a graduate-program-only
option, an upper-division-only undergraduate program option, and an option that called for increased flexibility in
current undergraduate curricula, including combining several existing curricula by means of a common core
followed by optional pathways. The committee was reminded that the full report was available for viewing and for
comments at http://www.cfr.washington.edu/committees/futures/index.html
Committee discussion including the following questions and topics:
•
Programs on campus competing with CFR curricula [the program drawing the largest number of potential
CFR students appears to be conservation biology]. Do we compete; do we cooperate?
•
CFR needs to articulate clearly its unique contribution to the education and employability of students; what
differentiates our programs from other UW programs? [one possible formulation: "professional
management response to natural resources issues"]
•
How relevant is accreditation of programs to potential employers?
•
How can we get students into our programs early to facilitate graduation with no more than 180 credits?
The committee discussed a draft agenda for the 2/18/00 all-College meeting and approved a plan for a group
participation session to discuss the Futures Committee option of combining several existing curricula by means of a
common core followed by optional pathways. The committee was informed that the report of the CUH Review
Committee had just been delivered to the dean, and that a presentation of this report would also be on the all-College
meeting agenda.
Undergraduate student H. Schmidt gave a presentation on a draft revised FM curriculum prepared by a group of
students in the program. He reported that students feel unnecessary duplication in course work still exists and that
skills, such as technical writing, need to be built into all concept courses. Other recommended changes included
restructuring of some courses, changes in required courses for several FM options, and use of the Training Center in
Forks as a senior project option. Committee members encouraged the students preparing the draft to participate in
the curriculum exercise planned for the all-College meeting. It is anticipated that the Futures Committee will followup on these suggestions as well.
The committee briefly discussed the role of centers in the UW and the College, their relationship to academic units
and the guidelines for naming and establishing centers. The committee was reminded that it was undertaking this
discussion in response to a request by T. Hinckley, acting Director of CUH.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m.
January 12, 2000
Committee members present:
Anderson, Bare, Bradley, Cohen, Gustafson, Hinckley, Lippke, Paul, Thorud, Trudeau, Wagar, Waldron
Topics covered at the meeting included:
•
Graduate student forum (Waldron)
•
Portfolio of faculty positions
•
Equipment allocation
3
•
Next CFR biennial budget
K. Waldron presented a proposal for a "graduate student forum," an informal group of CFR graduate students who
would be available to answer questions and provide a peer resource to undergraduates in the College. She said she
had been approached by students who expressed a need for information about what being in graduate school is like
and how to prepare for the challenges involved. The first class of CFR 101 currently provides a brief opportunity for
a grad student to make a presentation; however, it may be that the first class day might be too soon for questions and
concerns to have evolved. The committee agreed that this kind of forum would enhance graduate/undergraduate
interaction, that Kim should continue working on the project, with facilitation from the Student Services Office, and
that some kind of assessment of the project and issues of continuity should be addressed.B. Bare presented the CSP
subcommittee's initial review of the portfolio of faculty positions. He explained that the subcommittee looked at
redundancies among the proposals as well as within the framework of present faculty capacity. He pointed out that
"redundancy" may be viewed from a contrasting perspective as a move to increase strength in a particular discipline
--- in essence, a strategic planning issue on which consensus must be reached at the College level. Initial
recommendations included:
•
Paper science position -- further development, with attention to developing ties with other CFR curricula
•
Applied horticultural science position - further development, with attention to strengthening ties with
existing expertise in the ES Division
•
Urban and community forestry - further development, with attention to clarification of the central discipline
involved and the possibility of ties with other CFR curricula
•
Hydrology/stream ecology/GIS - further development, in conjunction with overlapping position below
•
Wildlife/landscape/ecology/GIS - further development, in conjunction with overlapping position above
•
Applied silviculturalist - as teaching load generated by silviculture classes is not currently taxing faculty
resources, defer to future unless additional depth in silviculture is proposed
•
Applied information specialist - research or staff position would seem to be best use of resources here
•
Amenity/recreation management - agreement in principle, as amenity use of forests is increasing
•
Natural resource economist - agreement in principle, as unfilled courses exist and research possibilities are
abundant
•
Forest products business - as teaching load generated by marketing and forest business classes is not
currently taxing faculty resources, defer to future unless additional depth in forest products business is
proposed
•
Wildlife lecturer - proceed with "hunt" to hire a part-time lecturer to try out concept, but broaden expertise
area
•
Sustainable resources - could be recast as soils research faculty position; expertise being proposed
duplicates existing faculty resources; sustainability a concept that should permeate all CFR curricula -these links need to be established
Committee discussion included the following points and questions:
•
Faculty in both divisions have begun discussion of the portfolio
•
ES Division prioritized by vote and agreed that compelling case had been made for horticultural science
position
•
ME Division considered strategic directions in submitting its proposed portfolio positions
•
Strategic directions should consider where are we weak now and where will we be weak in the future
4
•
The construction of a matrix, identifying the biological, engineering, and social sciences involved in the
position descriptions, and identifying where else on campus this subject matter is taught might be useful
•
Faculty will continue to review and revise positions
The committee discussed the equipment allocation process, using the equipment review chart prepared by B.
Anderson that summarized equipment requests that met criteria and resulting prioritization of awards. There was
general consensus on the prioritization of requests and awards made.The process for the next biennial budget request
was discussed. It will be in the form of a conversation reflecting on: (1) the unit's challenges and opportunities; (2)
the status of the unit's strategic thinking; (3) connections between unit activities and themes articulated in budget
building framework; and (4) level of preparedness of unit with respect to upcoming program reviews and RCEP
policies. The committee consensus was that the Dean and Associate Deans, the Division Chairs, the CSP Chair, the
Administrator, and two graduate students would be involved in this "conversation."Continuance of the discussion of
centers and their relationship to the College was deferred until the next meeting.The meeting adjourned at
approximately 5:30 p.m.
December 8, 1999
Committee members present:
Anderson, Bare, Bradley, Catlett, Duffield, Green, Gustafson, Hinckley, Lippke, Morgan, Paul, Thorud, Wagar.
Also attending were Malcolm Parks and Loveday Conquest.
Topics covered at the meeting included:
*Discussion re: centers, led by Malcolm Parks, Assistant Vice Provost for Research
*Report on CUH administrative review (Conquest)
*Update on internal UIF (Thorud)
*Review of submissions to "portfolio of faculty positions"
The meeting opened with a discussion of the role of centers at the UW, led by M. Parks. Issues and questions raised
included:
*There is almost no written documentation governing centers. Centers are created by deans whenever a need to
create a metastructure to foster interdisciplinary research and/or outreach is perceived There is no "standard" model.
The only governing language in the UW Handbook concerns the naming of centers (i.e., to avoid duplication and
imprecision); however even this has not been strictly monitored in recent years. In addition, there is no official
policy on closing down centers.
*The Provost's Office is, however, currently focusing some attention on centers, and in December 1999 distributed
guidelines updated from a 1988 directive that includes procedures for naming centers, as well as very general
guidelines for their creation. [M. Parks provided the committee with copies of this document, as well as a revised
"Self-study format for review of centers and institutes".]
*Funding centers has always been complex, with difficulties arising from cost recovery and indirect cost issues. As a
result, centers do better operating with a conservative fiscal bias, identifying resource streams and strategically
balancing resources and expenditures.
*No strong and clear guidelines exist to distinguish between centers, cooperatives, consortia, or institutes, although
some informal distinctions may be made.
*Centers (and similar entities) do perform a valuable function and reinforce the value of interdisciplinary work.
*An inventory of UW centers is planned by the Office of the Provost.
L. Conquest reported on the progress of the CUH Review committee. She said that the committee had thus far met
with grad students, curatorial and horticultural staff, faculty teaching in the EHUF curriculum, Department of
Botany faculty, and WPA Director John Wott. Future meetings will include alumni, CUH donors, WPA staff, and
5
external constituents. She said that it was becoming apparent to the committee that many demands are placed on the
center by a multiplicity of constituents, and that finding a way to meet them, including prioritization, will be a
challenge.
D. Thorud reported on the internal UIF proposal to be jointly made by CFR and CoFS to provide increased GIS
support and instruction. Use will be made of the GIS lab in the new Fisheries building, and the proposal will involve
personnel from both Colleges, including Phil Hurvitz (CFR) and Miles Logsdon (CoFS). By pooling limited staff
resources, it is hoped that some economy of scale savings be realized.
The committee briefly touched on the submissions to the "portfolio of faculty positions." B. Bare said that twelve
proposals had been submitted [copies of the proposals were provided to committee members], including the
following faculty positions:
*Assistant or Associate Professor in Applied Horticulture Science
*Assistant Professor of Urban and Community Forestry
*Tenure track position in hydrology/stream ecology with GIS and remote sensing skills
*Tenure track position for a natural resource/environmental economist
*Professor of sustainable resources *Tenure track quantitative wildlife landscape ecologist
*Wildlife diversity specialist (a.k.a. "crocodile hunter")
*Assistant Professor of Forest Products Business
*Tenure track Professor of Paper Science and Engineering (in general area of advanced papermaking technology
and specialty grade development)
*Assistant Professor of Silvicultural Operations
*Assistant Professor in silviculture, management, and engineering information technology processing
*Tenure track position in recreation and amenities management
B. Bare said the next step would be review by a CSP subcommittee of volunteers, who would do an initial review,
ask for clarifications where necessary and who may suggest that similar proposals be pooled. Faculty would also
review the portfolio at upcoming faculty meetings. Following the period of review and comment, comments and
priority rankings of the divisions and the CSP would be forwarded to the Dean and the Elected Faculty Council. It
was pointed out that the twelve submitted proposals did not cover areas in which there may be a need for future
faculty positions, e.g., forest genetics, forest biotechnology. However, proposals can be submitted at any time, as
well as updates and revisions of previous submissions.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:45 p.m.
November 3, 1999
Attending:
B. Anderson, B. Bare, G. Bradley, L. Catlett, R. Gustafson, T. Hinckley, S. Morgan, C. Paul, P. Schiess, D. Thorud,
M. Trudeau, K. Waldron
Agenda items covered:
Student Services plan
CSP input to curriculum conversations
CFR standing committees/nominations for at-large positions
CFR equipment purchase plan
Faculty vs. institutional responsibilities
M. Trudeau presented a summary of the comprehensive Student Services plan, focused around the ten steps
identified as essential to a successful academic program. The steps are: targeting, recruiting, admissions, orientation,
advising and retention, curriculum, project development and research, examination and qualification, placement, and
monitoring. The plan also identifies the key players (i.e., Student Services, faculty, staff, and alumni) essential to
successful accomplishment of each step. Copies of the plan were included in agenda materials. Some specific
elements of the plan were presented, including:
6
Increased targeting of high school students
Use of SAT/ACT/GRE search services for potential students
Expanding Arbor Day Fair to include events aimed at recruiting students
Personal recruiting calls by faculty members
Expanding orientation activities
Assignment of peer advisors
Improving CFR's "time to degree" statistics
Externships with professional alumni
Developing clear and uniform process for Ph.D. exams
Improving exit surveys
It was noted that more UW-wide recruiting efforts were being undertaken, after a long period of the institution
simply assuming potential student interest. The committee discussed the possible restructuring of orientation,
including developing an orientation event for undergraduates and developing a revised vehicle for grad student
orientation. The committee agreed that the plan was thorough and that it's success depended on increased
involvement by all members of the CFR community. It was recommended that both Division Chairs discuss this
plan with their respective faculties and that Divisional efforts addressing any of the ten steps be consistent with the
OSS plan.
The committee briefly discussed how it might provide input on strategic matters currently under review by these two
ad hoc committees. Inasmuch as the CSP has sought and continues to seek background/context information
regarding challenges, opportunities, expectations, and trends from within and external to the UW, it was agreed that
the committee, via Dean Thorud, would transmit a brief and succinct compilation of materials to the Futures
Committee summarizing prior research and thinking on these matters. It was noted that during the October 29, 1999
meeting of the CFR Visiting Committee the chair, William Corbin, suggested the Futures Committee research
current external trends to provide a context for its recommendations, and that continued interaction between the
Visiting Committee and the Futures Committee would be useful in providing part of that external perspective. It was
also decided that Jim Agee, chair of the Futures Committee, be invited to a special CSP meeting scheduled for
November 17, 1999 to provide another forum for conversation about strategic directions for the College. The
committee deferred discussion of how it might appropriately provide input to the CUH Review Committee until a
later date.
The committee reviewed nominations for at-large positions on CFR standing committees and made assignments
based on this review. The goal was to allow for the greatest number of individuals in the CFR community a chance
at service. Therefore, depending on the relative abundance or scarcity of nominations for any particular position:
*not all nominees who served during 98-99 and renominated themselves to the same committee for 99-00 were
reassigned
*nominees who requested service on more than one committee were generally assigned to only one, in order to
increase the chance for others to participate
*to encourage student participation, where multiple student nominations occurred, more than one student was
assigned to a committee
* for lack of nominations, some positions remain unfilled
The committee also determined that the Computer and Educational Technology Committee would benefit from one
at-large faculty position from each division. The committee also discussed ways to heighten students' awareness of
possibilities for service on CFR committees. Assignments made were:
Academic Committee:
UG position unfilled; grad student members - Chrissy Scannell and Julie Nelson Operations Committee: UG
position unfilled; grad student members - Brian Cohen and Kim Waldron; staff member - Lynn Catlett Committee
on Strategic Planning: UG position unfilled; grad student members - Brian Cohen and Kim Waldron; faculty at-large
member - Al Wagar; staff member - Lynn Catlett Computer Resources and Educational Technology: UG positions
unfilled; grad student member - Stephen Brueggerhoff; faculty at-large members - John Marzluff/ES and Peter
Schiess/M&E Financial Aid Committee: UG member - Kevin Zobrist; grad student member - Kerri Mikkelsen
Library Committee: UG position unfilled; grad student member - Michelle Connor; staff position unfilled; faculty
at-large to fill vacancy -Graham Allan
7
Outreach Advisory Group:
UG members - Amanda Koss and Madhu Narayanan; grad student member - Kerri Mikkelsen; staff member - John
Calhoun; faculty at large member - Kathy Wolf
Workplace Quality Committee:
At large membership - Bev Anderson, Gordon Bradley, Linda Hegrenes, Becky Johnson, Cecilia Paul, Edie Sonne,
Geetha Sukumaran
External Initiatives Incubator Team:
grad student member: Wilhelm Welzenbach
The committee discussed a strategy for prioritizing requests for use of the $150,244 biennial equipment allocation
received by CFR. It was decided that a logical framework for requests for equipment funding arethe goals and
objectives reported in work plans submitted by divisions, centers, and other CFR units, with appropriate weight
given to urgency of accomplishing teaching and research objectives. Requests for funding should be made, in the
framework noted above, via email to Beverly Anderson in advance of the November 17, 1999 CSP meeting. Dean
Thorud suggested that $50K be reserved for the second year of the biennium to meet unforeseen needs.
The committee began a discussion of the increasing importance of balancing faculty vs. institutional responsibilities,
both at the UW-wide and academic unit level. Agenda materials included copies of: the 10/13letter from the Provost
discussing implementation of two ad hoc committees (faculty responsibilities and rewards/faculty salary policy);
amendments to Chapter 24 of the faculty code; and a synthesis developed by a Board of Deans Subcommittee of the
need for and the implications of strategic planning, along with a schematic diagram of how this integration might
exist from the individual faculty level to UW-wide mission and strategic goals. The committee discussed how it
might assist the division chairs to implement these changes. Tom Hinckley reported that he was planning an ES
Divsion workshop to discuss these topics; he offered to expand the workshop to include faculty from the M&E
Division and interested staff. The Dean agreed to fund refreshments provided at the workshop. It was suggested that
Steve Olswang be invited to attend and make a presentation. The CSP wishes to thank Chair Hinckley for offering to
include M&E faculty/staff in his meeting. We feel that it is very important to initiate discussion relative to the
Provost's letter as these new procedures represent a significant change in how individual faculty will plan their work
loads and be assessed for PMT.
New business:
A suggestion was made that a future meeting of the CSP be devoted to the topic of centers, their purposes,
organizing principles, and relationship to academic units. The committee agreed that this would be a useful
discussion.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5 p.m.
October 13, 1999
Attending:
B. Anderson, B. Bare, G. Bradley, L. Catlett, K. Duffield, C. Green, R. Gustafson, T. Hinckley, B. Lippke, C. Paul,
D. Thorud, M. Trudeau, K. Waldron
Agenda items covered:
Performance Measures and Benchmarking
Curriculum Transformation
Portfolio of Faculty Positions
New business
Performance Measures and Benchmarking
The committee discussed the work done on performance measures and benchmarking during the previous year. It
was reported that where it was readily available data were being collected for the 97-98 and 98-99 academic years. It
was noted that some of the performance measures involve self-reporting by faculty. The use of a standardized report
like the Annual Report of Activities by all faculty would appear to be critical in gathering consistent data on these
8
measures. In addition, the procedure for gathering date for faculty citation rate appears to need further work before it
can be usefully used. Once data on performance measures are complete, future work will include comparing our
performance with other benchmarking units. A work group will be formed to tackle this project, first determining
our benchmarking "partners," both UW and external, and then the five or so key criteria used for comparison.
Methods for collecting data from peer institutions could include direct contact, and five-year review and other
obtainable documents.
Curriculum Transformation
The committee was reminded that in keeping with the College's strategic vision of integration of undergraduate
offerings, the Dean appointed the Futures Committee (FC), whose charge is to "think broadly about the issues that
are likely to influence the next generation of undergraduate curricula in the College." The committee agreed that it
was appropriate to maintain contact with the FC and assist it in every way possible, and that a representative from
the FC would be invited to give a progress report at the next CSP meeting. In addition, the committee agreed that
insofar as the CUH administrative review in process touches on curricular matters, it would provide appropriate
input to the review committee if requested.
Portfolio of Faculty Positions
The chair reminded the committee of last year's work on this project. The purpose of the portfolio is to help the
Dean and the College prioritize the strategic importance of potential faculty positions and specialties. A description
of the process for developing the portfolio was sent to the CFR community during Spring 1999; it called for the
submission of proposals by October 15, 1999. The committee agreed that this project continued to be important and
useful, particularly in light of the current search for a new dean. The committee agreed that the closing date for
submission of proposals should be extended to Friday, November 19, 1999.
New Business
The committee briefly discussed possible new projects for the 99-00 academic year: Maintaining momentum during
the dean search process Further discussion of faculty vs. institutional responsibilities in light of UW administrative
interest in this topic Taking an in-depth look at the College's graduate programs Improving communication within
the College
A decision on which, if any, of these projects the committee would undertake, was deferred to the next meeting.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5 p.m.
April 14, 1999
Attending: B. Anderson, B. Bare, L. Catlett, K. Duffield, J. Fridley, R. Gustafson, C. Hamilton, T. Hinckley, S.
Morgan, W. Oswald, C. Paul, K. Waldron
Agenda items covered:
•
Graduate student input (presented by K. Waldron)
•
Faculty portfolio implementation (presented by C. Hamilton)
•
Reports on May 21-22 retreat (presented by B. Anderson, B. Bare, C. Paul)
•
1999-2000 targets, goals, and work plan (presented by B. Bare)
I. Graduate Student Input
Committee member K. Waldron was asked at a College Operations Committee meeting to poll graduate students on
the best means of ensuring graduate student participation in College committees and all-College meetings. She
reported that at a recent GSA meeting she received the following suggestions:
9
•
Students are inundated with email; preferred means of communication would be letters in grad boxes,
hearing from professors in class.
•
Information on participation at CFR events could be presented to new students at orientation, and at
Autumn all-College meeting.
•
Faculty could handpick students to attend and participate in certain events.
•
Additional information on upcoming events (in addition to simple calendar listing) could be provided on
Web site.
She also reported that: students are generally pleased with and grateful for access to Web-based course materials; a
certain amount of dissatisfaction exists with availability of tech support, but students are unsure what is causing the
problem. It was agreed that, since additional tech support would soon be available, the level of
satisfaction/dissatisfaction should be polled again after a few months with the additional support. Due to conflicting
commitments this quarter, she requested that W. Oswald serve as graduate student representative to the CSP and the
Operations Committee. The committee agreed.
II. Faculty Position Portfolio Implementation
C. Hamilton reported on the work of the Resource Allocation Task Force/Faculty Position Portfolio work group. As
background, he explained that this was a project continued from last year’s CSP work plan, which in turn was an
outgrowth of the 1997 FASAC report. The project’s goal was to develop a process for the "allocation of faculty
positions given available resources." In September 1998 the CSP’s Resource Allocation Task Force, which he
chaired, submitted its final report to the Dean and the CSP Chair, outlining a process for the creation of a portfolio
of proposed faculty positions. The report was reviewed and approved by the current CSP Faculty Portfolio work
group (B. Bare, G. Bradley, L. Catlett, R. Gustafson, C. Hamilton, D. Sprugel) and is now being forwarded to the
full CSP for consideration.
Elements of the portfolio process include:
•
Process that is inclusive and "allows all stakeholders in the future of the College to make proposals, directly
or indirectly, and to help in their evaluation…"
•
Process will benefit from past efforts in strategic planning, e.g., the determination of themes critical for the
College’s future.
•
Process includes the following steps:
•
o
CSP issues call for proposals for faculty positions
o
Groups of faculty (i.e., UG curricula, graduate program areas) submit proposals to CSP in a
standardized prescribed format (see below).
o
CSP reviews proposals, requests clarification if needed, and suggests pooling similar proposals
where appropriate
o
CSP distributes proposals to Dean and faculty for comment
o
Division chairs submit their own and divisional priority ranking of proposals with comments
o
CSP reviews rankings and comments and submits its recommendation to Dean and EFC, along
with full set of proposals and divisional rankings
o
Dean, advised by divisions, CSP, and EFC, implements positions as appropriate.
The portfolio will be continuously open for revision and update of existing proposals and the submission of
new proposals.
10
•
Criteria for evaluating the faculty position portfolio remain those developed by FASAC:
o
Academic instruction, current assessment of instructional needs at present and realistically
anticipated for future: particular areas include student and program-specific instructional needs;
faculty overload; employment opportunities relative to graduate production; demonstrated student
demand relative to current course availability; service course provision; potential integration of
programs and promotion of multidisciplinarity
o
Basic research: generation of public and private funding; strengthening of CFR mission and
themes; production of scholarly works/peer-reviewed publications
o
Public and professional outreach: contribution to public access to CFR-generated information and
programs; promotion of CFR programs to public decision-makers; timely delivery of applied
research
o
Other contributions to CFR: all faculty members expected to contribute to general welfare of UW
and CFR; some positions, however would entail contributions to specific administrative units (i.e.,
centers).
The CSP’s consensus was that the process outlined in the report was acceptable and would provide a good basis for
strategically filling faculty positions. It was decided that a call for submission of proposals should be issued, with a
due date of October 22, 1999. A date in Autumn Quarter 1999 would allow for synergistic interaction with outcomes
from the May all-College retreat and from internal UIF development.
FORMAT FOR PROPOSALS FOR FACULTY POSITIONS
The following format is to be used for all proposals for faculty positions in order to make their evaluation as
straightforward as possible. Each proposal should have a total length of three pages. Pages beyond this length will
be discarded. Please submit to Professor Bare, Chair, CSP by October 22, 1999.
(1) Overview
(a) Name of position
(b)Type of faculty appropriate (i.e., state-funded tenure-track, research, lecturer, etc.); in some cases a leadership
staff position may be appropriate to meet a need, and should be similarly proposed and justified; potential creative
financing, e.g., combining state and soft money, should be considered here.
(c) Faculty group submitting (i.e., undergraduate curriculum group, graduate program area group, faculty group
defined any way, individual faculty)
(d) Date submitted and/or revised
(e) Brief description of position
Academic instruction
(a) Academic instruction within major discipline (i.e., courses, proven/anticipated enrollments, current faculty
overloads, required/directed for major(s) and program option(s)
(b) Academic instruction to other CFR, UW, and extra-UW majors (with same specificity of justification as in 2.a.)
Research
(a) Research within major discipline; significance to discipline and relationship to other faculty research
(b) Research relevance to other CFR, other UW, and extra-UW (including collaborative potential)
(c) Prospects for research funding (demonstrated or realistically anticipated, with sources)
Public and professional outreach
11
(a) Relevance to, and support from, professionals
(b) Continuing/public education
(c) Other public and professional service
Significance to future of CFR
(a) Relevance to CFR mission and themes
(b) Contribution to CFR competitive advantages, within and without the UW
Other
(a) Room and facilities available and additional facilities that would be necessary
(b) Additional points
III. Status Report: Planning for CFR Retreat
B. Anderson, B. Bare, and C. Paul gave the following status report on planning for the College retreat, May 21-22:
Action items accomplished:
•
Retreat announced at Winter Quarter all-College meeting, February 19
•
On-going meetings with CIDR [next meeting scheduled for April 15] to develop and refine agenda
•
Letter from Dean to CFR faculty, email, March 12 and hard copy, March 15
•
Memo from Dean to faculty with attached survey, March 25
•
Email message from Dean to staff and student with invitation to pick up and fill out surveys, March 25
•
Incoming surveys being tabulated
•
Location for retreat booked: Camp Long, West Seattle
•
Invitations for May 21 panelists in process [suggested for external advisory panel: Jennifer Belcher, Jim
Bethel, Tom Beyers, Bill Corbin, Jim Ellis, Dan Evans, Nancy Graybeal, Gerald Grinstein, Denis Hays,
Rick Holly, Ed Kelly, Dave Leland, Elliott Marks, Tom Mills, Dick Morrill, Grant Munroe, Glenn Pascall,
Cleve Pinnex, Bill Walters] and student/alum panel [Dan Bigger, Angela Cahill, Richard Robohm, Mark
Wishnie, Kim Brown, Luke Rogers, Julie Garrison, Kaleen Cottingham, Dave Wolfer, Doug St. John,
Dorothy Milligan, Gretchen Nichols, Martha Avery, Patti O’Brien, Dan Hinckley, Bob Alverts, Cassie
Philips, Tom Friberg, Eric Anderson, Tim Brown, Kim Waldron]
Action items outstanding:
1.
Reminder to faculty, staff, and students to return surveys by April 16
2.
Mail additional readings [Pinchot Institute draft article, "Evolution of Forestry Education in the United
States"’ NSF booklet, "Shaping the Future"; UW Office of Educational Assessment survey result graph
showing importance of specific skills/major course content to students and alums
3.
Further development of agenda/group exercise processes
4.
Complete membership on panels
5.
RSVP request
6.
Mail finalized agenda to faculty, staff, and students
12
A draft agenda, implementing the purpose of the retreat, was also presented for committee review. The day-and-ahalf retreat is intended to accomplish two basic objectives: evaluate present CFR delivery of curricula in context of
present and future needs (with input from external advisors, alumni, and students); and construct conceptual models
of curricula (existing or proposed) meeting these needs. Committee members made suggestions for additional panel
members and for specific wording in the draft agenda. It was decided that in the following weeks the sequence of
information mailings about the retreat should be: week of April 19th, additional readings; last week of April, agenda
and RSVP request.
IV. 1999-2000 Targets, Goals,and Work Plan
The committee briefly discussed a process for formulating targets, goals, and a work plan for 99-00. A review of the
98-99 all-College targets, along with a partial list of accomplishments was reviewed. Additional accomplishments
were added. T. Hinckley reported that the ES division was using the 98-99 work plan to formulate individual faculty
and divisional goals. It was decided that the Dean, with input from CFR community should
reaffirming/revise/develop 99-00 targets, using 98-99 targets as starting point. A work plan can then be developed
using divisional and center input that integrates targets and division/center goals.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m.
February 17, 1999
Attending:
B. Anderson, B. Bare, G. Bradley, L. Catlett, K. Duffield, J. Fridley, C. Green, R. Gustafson, T. Hinckley, B.
Lippke, S. Morgan, C. Paul, P. Schiess, K. Waldron
Agenda items covered:
•
Report of UIF 1% Reduction Work Group (presented by B. Bare)
•
Reports on curriculum transformation (presented by G. Bradley, and R. Gustafson)
•
Agenda for 2/19/99 All-College meeting
•
Formation of work group to address faculty portfolio and discussion of its charge
The committee discussed the report of the UIF 1% Reduction Work group. B. Bare reported that the work
group had, during two meetings, discussed the development of guiding principles that CFR might adopt to help it
decide how the 1% reductions should be taken. He reminded the committee that:
•
The 1% reduction is permanent and is effective 7/1/99.
•
The reduction may be taken in faculty, staff, or operations.
•
CFR must submit its detailed budget plan to the Provost by 2/22/99 with an explanation of the anticipated
impacts of the cuts on CFR programs
•
The total budget cut (including staff benefits) CFR must take is $106,668 for the 1999-2001 biennium.
He said that all work group members (Bare, Bradley, Catlett, Gustafson, Lippke, accepted the basic principle that
CFR must think strategically in planning for current and future reductions. The work group recommended that four
equally applicable principles guide CFR’s contribution to the UIF:
•
Principle #1: All CFR budgets identified by the Provost as candidates for the 1% cut will be candidates for
their fair share reduction.
13
•
Principle #2: All CFR programs and cost centers will be evaluated using performance and RCEP criteria
and congruence with CFR mission, themes, goals, and objectives, with consideration for the planned
learning curve of each program. Planned budget reductions will be correlated with the results of this
evaluation.
•
Principle #3: Programs that are evaluated as low priority will be given the opportunity (within stated time
limits) to: (a) generate funds from alternative sources (b) consolidate with higher ranked program(s) and/or
(c) find other means to improve ranking.
•
Principle #4: Expedience may dictate that short term budget reductions be satisfied using a current unfilled
faculty position. This one-time, short-term solution should not be thought of as a precedent for future
reductions, which should be planned strategically, with Principles #2 and #3 taking precedence.
The committee discussed the proposed principles. Most of the discussion related to Principles #2 (the challenges
posed by such an evaluative process) and #4 (how realistically can the temptation to use this expedient solution be
overcome?). Questions and points raised included:
•
If a program consisting of only tenured faculty is identified as low priority, how could a budget reduction
be made in that program?
•
There may come a time when CFR does not have a vacant faculty position, or the only vacant positions are
in programs identified as high priority – a good reason to have additional strategies.
The committee agreed to forward the work group’s recommendations to the Dean.
The committee discussed curriculum transformation. R. Gustafson reported on the capstone project underway in
the M&E Division. He said it was in the planning phase, and that several faculty were working on a USDA
matching challenge grant. He said that input would be sought from programs in the ES Division. G. Bradley
reported on planning for the curriculum retreat to be held in April or May ‘99. He said that that discussion of the
topic was planned for the 2/19 all-College meeting, with a notice that surveys and reading material would be
distributed and that results of the survey would be tabulated before the retreat. The retreat (planned as a day and a
half exercise somewhere off-campus) would include
•
reporting on survey results and other background material
•
input from the CFR Visiting Committee’s new Academic Programs work group
•
a session in which, based on the foregoing input, desirable curriculum concepts/ applications/topics/skills
are identified
•
a session in which conceptual models of curriculum are developed
The committee discussed a draft agenda for the all-College meeting. It was approved with minor modifications.
The committee discussed the formation of a Faculty Portfolio work group. The group would be charged with
completing the work begun by an earlier CSP task force on resource allocation, during 97-98. This earlier
subcommittee had recommended a process for "allocating faculty positions given available resources" that included:
•
a call for proposals for faculty positions in a prescribed standard format (provided in the memo of
recommendation)
•
clarification and pooling/combining similar proposals where appropriate
•
review by Dean and faculty of both divisions
•
prioritizing and ranking by means of an evaluative process (based on FASAC criteria)
14
•
review by Dean and EFC
•
continual updating and revision of the "portfolio" as appropriate.
Suggested membership on the Faculty Portfolio work group included: Bare, Bradley, Hamilton, Paun, Sprugel. B.
Bare said he would contact those who were not CSP members.
The next meeting of CSP was scheduled for April 14, 3:30-5:30, Anderson 22.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:30 p.m.
January 20, 1999
Attending: B. Anderson, B. Bare, G. Bradley, L. Catlett, J. Fridley, C. Green, R. Gustafson, T. Hinckley, B. Lippke,
S. Morgan, C. Paul, D. Sprugel, D. Thorud, K. Waldron
Agenda items covered:
•
Final review of draft CFR Performance Criteria (presented by B. Bare)
•
Report on citation counting using the Web of Science (presented by C. Green)
•
Reports on recruitment, retention, curriculum transformation (presented by G. Bradley and T. Hinckley)
•
Formation of work group to address the 1% UIF budget cut and discussion of its charge
The committee discussed the draft CFR Performance Criteria, which included changes incorporated by the
Performance Criteria Subcommittee at its 1/15 meeting. Guiding principles reiterated for the criteria were:
•
Data must be relevant to CFR and UW goals
•
Data must be easy to access
•
OPD ("Other People's Data") preferred
•
Data are collected for academic/fiscal year, unless otherwise noted
•
Division/College data frequently an aggregate of individual faculty data
•
Each year's data set will be accompanied by number of State-funded faculty,
number of Research/WOT faculty, number of staff, and number of TA quarters
funded
The committee discussion resulted in the following changes to the draft criteria as presented:
•
Ph.D. graduates are counted under both "Undergraduate/Graduate Teaching" and "Research" headings
•
Additional data to be collected under the "Center" column are "Graduates/year (Ph.D.)" [graduate students
affiliated with a particular center] and "Total Gifts Received (by year" [gifts to funds specifically directed
to a Center's use]
B. Anderson and C. Paul agreed to begin collecting data available from UW sources.
The committee agreed that the following terms require specific definition and asked the subcommittee to provide
these:
15
•
Distance/correspondence
•
Average class size
•
Five-year graduation rate
•
Undergraduate retention
•
Number of UG involved in research
Committee member C. Green reported on citation counting using the Web of Science. She provided a draft
"methodology for Web of Science citation counts" to aid faculty in reporting, and said she would continue to assist
developing the methodology but that faculty members would be responsible for doing their own searches. It was
decided that citation rate would tentatively remain as a performance criteria, but that what is being counted and how
needs to be clearly defined. Once these parameters are decided, citation rate might be added to the data collected on
the CFR academic profile. C. Green also reported that she was working on getting citation rate date for CFR as a
whole.
T. Hinckley and G. Bradley provided reports on the Curriculum Transformation Subcommittee.
•
T. Hinckley reported that the group working on the recruitment and retention aspects of this subcommittee's
charge had scheduled its first meeting.
•
G. Bradley reported on meetings with the UW's Center for Instructional Development and Research
(CIDR) relating to curricular transformation and integration. He said that CIDR, along with a CFR working
group, had been talking about ways to initiate a CFR-wide conversation on curriculum. D. Thorud said that
the resources available from CIDR would be a useful tool for furthering discussion on curriculum, a
discussion that would be beneficial to strategically thinking about the College's future direction. A diagram
of a proposed process was presented to the committee.
The committee discussed how the proposed process might fit into currently ongoing curriculum projects in
some areas. It was pointed out that the CFR Visiting Committee's new structure will include a working
group on curriculum, and that this will be an additional useful input to the process. It was decided that talks
with CIDR would continue and that an announcement of the process would be an agenda item of the
Winter Quarter all-College meeting on February 19.
B. Bare announced the formation of a work group to address the 1% UIF budget cut. He said that the College's
response to the Provost was due on February 22, 1999. Criteria guiding the work group's deliberations might include
the RCEP and performance criteria and the College's mission, vision, themes, goals, and objectives. Committee
members volunteering to participate on the work group were: B. Lippke/B. Bare (co-chairs), G. Bradley, L. Catlett,
and R. Gustafson.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:45 p.m.
December 16, 1998
Attending:
B. Anderson, B. Bare, G. Bradley, L. Catlett, K. Duffield, C. Green, R. Gustafson, T. Hinckley, B. Lippke, S.
Morgan, C. Paul, D. Sprugel, D. Thorud, D. Whitney
Scribe:
C. Paul
Agenda items covered:
Report of UW strategic efforts (presented by D. Thorud) and discussion Draft CFR Performance Criteria (presented
16
by B. Bare) and discussion Report of Recruitment, Retention, Curriculum Transformation subcommittee (presented
by T. Hinckley) Report on RCEP discussion by the EFC (presented by D. Sprugel)
D. Thorud discussed the documents "1998-99 Goals for the UW," developed by the President's Cabinet and the
Board of Regents, and "Making Good Decisions at All Levels of the UW," the product of a subcommittee of the
Board of Deans.
The UW goals stress the role of strategic thinking and planning at all levels of the university from individual
departments to the university as a whole. The increased emphasis on strategic thinking is characterized as the "single
most important management change at the UW." The goals are (1) refining strategic directions; (2) enhancing
quality; (3) improving communication and cooperation; and (4) increasing resources and better utilizing existing
resources. All the goals have accompanying objectives and expected outcomes. One objective is that by July 1999
all colleges and schools will have strategic plans that serve as the basis for budget proposals, allocations of
resources, faculty hires, UIF and Tools for Transformation requests, and the like. D. Thorud said that CFR was far
ahead of most campus units in this respect.
The draft "Making Good Decisions" document was developed by a subcommittee which D. Thorud chairs. It
synthesizes the need for and the implications of strategic planning and presents a schematic diagram of how this
integration might exist from the individual faculty level to UW-wide mission and strategic goals. Four implications
arising from this "single most important management change at the UW" are (1) need for integration of strategic
thinking and planning across all levels; (2) importance of better training for chairs, as pivot point where broad
institutional priorities become connected to responsibilities of individual faculty; (3) need for shared information;
and (4) UW's measures of accountability should directly connect to UW mission and goals.
B. Bare presented the "final draft" performance criteria document developed by the subcommittee assigned to that
project. He reminded the committee that the three criteria that must be weighed for inclusion in the list are (1) what
do we want to know about ourselves; (2) what is their relevance to CFR goals and objectives; and (3) how easy will
it be to access data so that tracking becomes a sustainable routine operation. The draft matrix considered by the
committee is reproduced below. Discussion ensued, as shown following the draft matrix.
12/16/98
College of Forest Resources -- Performance Criteria
Organizational - Level
Fac Prog Div Coll
Undergraduate/Graduate Teaching
Student credit hours
x
x
x
Distance/Correspondence
x
x
x
All other
x
x
x
Average class size
Number of majors and minors
Graduates /year (majors & grad)
5-year graduation rate
Number of graduate committees (chair/member)
Quality of instruction (student evaluations)
Undergraduate retention
Number of UG involved in research
Placement (grad school/employment) rate
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Local
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
17
International
x
x
x
Fac
Fac
x
x
x
Ctr
Div
Coll
x
x
x
?
x
x
x
Services
Number (hrs/people served) public/professional service activities
Number working papers/trade journals
Number (hrs/people served) continuing public education instruction
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Distance/Corrspondence
x
x
x
All other
x
x
x
Research
Dollars raised
Number papers in refereed journals, proceedings, books
Citation rate
Development
Total Endowed Funds
x
Total Gifts Received (by year)
x
Note: Prog refers to one of six undergraduate or one of 13 graduate programs.
The committee discussed whether "number of graduate committees (chair/member)" was a relevant performance
criterion in discussing CFR performance as a whole. It is relevant at the individual faculty level for PMT purposes,
but the individual faculty measures in the matrix should be able to be aggregated upward to some meaningful CFRlevel measure. It was suggested that a meaningful CFR-level measure might be the number of committees outside
the College on which CFR faculty serve might be an important measure of CFR contribution to other academic units
and multidisciplinary goals. The subcommittee was requested to consider this criterion in light of comments
It was suggested that number of graduate students getting Ph.D.s was an important measure in the "Research"
category. In the matrix version under consideration this number had been folded into the "Graduates/year (majors &
grad)" criteria in the "Undergraduate/Graduate Teaching" category. An argument was advanced that this is an
important measure of research, as well as teaching activity. There was some discussion of including this number in
both places, as columns in the matrix aren't necessarily designed to add up to a numerical "total." The subcommittee
was requested to consider this criterion in light of comments.
The committee discussed the criteria relating to number of publications and citation rates. Particularly for citation
rates, the difficulty of reporting an accurate, meaningful number could be problematic. C. Green briefed the
committee on some of the pitfalls inherent in reporting this number. It was decided that (1) a clear definition of
"publication" and a clear statement of which specific citation rate is being reported (e.g., first author only, etc.)
should be developed and (2) that C. Green would assist the committee in developing a first step toward reporting
citation rate.
Where graduate students go on to teach and perform research might be an even better measure of CFR's contribution
than citation rate. It was suggested that the placement criteria might also include "academic" placement of PH.D
grads.
18
The question of which criteria could be measured at the "program" level was once again raised. As thinking on this
seems to change from meeting to meeting, it perhaps is a structural issue that might be explored in the future and
that for the present the obviously clear assignments of criteria to organizational level should be used.
It was suggested that "diversity" as a measure would be an important criterion to include in the matrix, since it
remains a UW-wide goal. It could be a measure for faculty, staff, and student recruitment and retention. It was
discussed whether "diversity" should include only gender/ethnicity measures, or whether other meaningful measures
exist. The subcommittee was requested to consider this criterion in light of comments.
Several members pointed out that the matrix does not contain any measures directly relating to staff performance or
productivity. The committee recognized that staff effort is an integral part of the College's teaching, research and
service output, and that measuring CFR "performance" implicitly measures the staff's contribution. Some
suggestions were to measure staff retention and longevity, although these would not strictly be measures of staff
performance, but of staff satisfaction. Performance of specific staff working groups, such as financial services,
might be measured with some common criteria, but the wide range of activities performed by the over 100 CFR staff
would make any broad or inclusive measures very difficult. The subcommittee was asked to look into this issue and
report back at the next meeting.
T. Hinckley briefly reported on the Recruitment, Retention, Curriculum Transformation subcommittee's progress.
The subcommittee has been focusing on the recruitment and retention aspects of its charge.
Recruitment efforts might include the use of CFR 101 as a recruiting tool; public relations activities such as the CFR
Web page and the new Tech TAs assistance in helping faculty develop Web pages; developing a more strategic use
of scholarships in the recruitment of new students; and making sure that advising materials at the UW and elsewhere
are effective. The subcommittee also recommends prioritizing recruitment activities on the basis of likely returns.
On-campus recruitment efforts, for example, have been shown to have greater value for the effort expended.
With regard to retention, the committee is exploring the strategic use of scholarships as a retention tool, as well as
enhancing alumni involvement in this activity.
The subcommittee is in the process of preparing a report to the whole committee.
D. Sprugel briefly reported on RCEP discussions by the EFC. He said that the EFC had discussed and developed a
process and that a final report would be forthcoming.
The next CSP meeting is scheduled for January 20, 1999 in Anderson 22 at 3:30 pm.
November 18, 1998
Attending: B. Anderson, B. Bare, G. Bradley, L. Catlett, K. Duffield, J.
Fridley, C. Green, R. Gustafson, T. Hinckley, A. Howells, B. Lippke, S. Morgan, C. Paul, D. Sprugel, D. Thorud, K.
Waldron, D. Whitney
The meeting agenda included a discussion of:
* Performance Criteria
* Recruitment, Retention & Curriculum Transformation Subcommittee Report
B. Bare opened the meeting by presenting the performance criteria developed by the benchmarking subcommittee.
[reproduced below].
College of Forest Resources -- Performance Criteria
Organizational - Level
19
Criteria
Individual
Program
Division
College
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Undergraduate and Graduate Teaching
Student credit hours
Number of majors (minors)
Graduates /year
X
5-year graduation rate
Number of graduate committees
X
X
X
X
Quality of instruction
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Undergraduate retention
Number of UG invlvd in research
X
X
X
X
Average class size
X
X
X
X
Research
Dollars raised
X
X
X
Number papers in refereed journals,proceedings, books
X
X
X
Citation rate
X
X
X
Number professional outreach act.
X
X
X
Number of public service act.
X
X
X
Number working papers, trade journals, papers
X
X
X
Continuing educ & dist. learning
X
X
X
Administrative activity
X
X
X
Service
Bare pointed out that the major criteria in developing the list were (1) what we want to know about ourselves, (2)
relevance to CFR goals and objectives and (3) ease of access to data so that tracking becomes a sustainable routine
operation. An open discussion on the draft criteria followed. The following points, suggestions, additions were
made:
* The GEI, or graduation efficiency index:
[# crdts for major - # crds transfer]/ # crdts earned at UW was an item the subcommittee considered and but decided
not to include. Since many CFR students transfer in from other institutions or academic units, this number may tell
us as much about those places as about CFR. It is a number over which we may have little control. It was pointed
out that the 5-year graduation rate, which the subcommittee did include, has the same problem. Several committee
members pointed out that since these are both numbers tracked by the UW it might behoove us to do so as well. In
some sense, both criteria could be related to a strong advising program. It was suggested that the GEI could be more
meaningful if it were limited to a "post-transfer" credit ratio. The subcommittee agreed to consider whether both the
GEI and 5-year graduation rate should be included, possibly in some modified formula.
20
* It was suggested that some form of job placement or employment rate criteria would be useful. An additional
subcategory under placement could be a place for tracking "local" and "international" placement in order to measure
how well CFR is serving the state and region and fostering global connections [both measures would be of interest
to the legislature].
*It was pointed out that for both the research and service criteria the matrix column belonging to "program" was not
well defined. There was a discussion on the frequent difficulty of assigning the performance of research and service
to any specific CFR program, because often they cross program boundaries.
* It was suggested that "center" replace "program" in both the research and service criteria.
* It was suggested that # of Ph.D. graduates be added to research criteria.
*It was suggested that "Development" be added as a column in the matrix, with the criteria of dollars raised in gifts,
endowments, and research. The committee discussed the difficulty in categorizing research "gifts" that did not go
through Grants and Contracts.
*The committee discussed the way in which various faculty publications were tracked - refereed journals in the
research column and working papers, proceedings etc. in the service column. It was pointed out that the distinction
between these are sometimes blurred. Total number of papers and publications distributed, in addition to those
published, was another suggested criterion. It was suggested that quantity and quality are not necessarily the same
measures. Committee members wondered whether citation rate was possible to track. C. Green said that the
methodology is not yet perfected and has the potential for misuse, but that it is being worked on. Citation rate by
first author and by academic unit would be the least problematic at this point and might be useful measures.
* Other criteria suggested were state$/SCH and state$/FTE at both the College and Divisional levels. The subcommittee will consider these.
*It was suggested that distance learning was a tool to accomplish several criteria and not a measure in itself. The
subcommittee explained that it was chosen to highlight the importance of this new technology. It was agreed to use
it as a sub-category under both Service: continuing education and UG/Grad Teaching:SCH; both "distance" and "onlocation" measures could be tracked.
The committee then began a brief discussion of the recruitment, retention, and curriculum transformation
subcommittee report. As time was short, thediscussion focused on the item concerning the Academic Committee and
itsfuture reconfiguration and mission. Some questions raised were:
* Should Division Chairs be involved in the committee?
* Should the Dean of Academic Affairs serve on the committee?
* How large should it be? A suggestion was made that it include one faculty member from each UG curriculum, one
or two students, and a representative from Student Services.
* Should the committee be proactive in curriculum development and integration issues?
These and other questions made it apparent that the discussion needed to continue. A suggestion was made to form a
smaller working group to focus
on this one issue.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:45 p.m.
Next meeting of the CSP will take place before the Christmas break. Probably will occur on December 16 at 3:00
pm in Anderson Room 22. All Committee members should hold this time for the meeting.
21
October 28, 1998
The first meeting of CFR's Committee on Strategic Planning this academic year was held October 28 in And Room
22 from 3:45 - 5:30 pm. Sixteen of the 18 Committee members were in attendance.
The topics discussed at our first meeting follow:
1) Formation of small work group to address the development of performance measures and bench marking for the
College. (Anderson, Bare, Bradley, Fridley, Paul, Sprugel)
2) Formation of a small work group to begin considering curriculum transformation issues pertaining to CFR
undergraduate programs. (Bradley, Green, Gustafson, Hinckley, Howells, Morgan, Whitney, Waldron)
3) Discussion of plans for absorbing the 1% UIF budget cut for the next four biennia.
4) Discussion of the development of a faculty portfolio.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Our plan this year is to work as a Committee of the whole. However, to facilitate efficient discussion, small work
groups (see above) will be formed to address each major item addressed by the Committee. These groups will be
small — consisting of 3-6 people. All members of the CSP will be asked to contribute to all discussions but the
work group will be responsible for meeting deadlines and producing reports. The CSP as a whole will review all
work group products prior to submission to the entire College community.
As CSP proceedings will be widely shared on email and the College web site, we will also seek contributions from
the entire CFR community as each work group goes about its business. Hopefully, this will encourage everyone to
participate. Therefore, as the work groups develop materials they will be distributed widely so that everyone has an
opportunity to comment. If you wish to communicate with the work groups contact Professor Bare for item #1 (see
above) and Professor Hinckley or Mr. Whitney for item #2. All comments and suggestions will receive
consideration. If you wish to participate in work group discussions please let us know.
Some meetings will be scheduled in the Commons to accept public comment and to discuss important items as work
plans progress. Stay tuned!
To provide you with some brief information on each of the above four items please read the following:
**Performance Measures and Benchmarking
We need to continue the work started by last year's CSP. As you may recall a task force of the CSP prepared a
proposal for dealing with this topic. The Division Chairs have asked the CSP to look into this as a top priority item
this year so that they can implement the plan. The CFR work plan for 1998-99 also assigns this task to our
Committee. It makes sense to discuss this issue first as so many of the remaining topics are dependent on what we
decide. Inter-University, peer forestry school assessment, inter-division, and individual faculty dimensions of this
issue must be addressed. Examples of existing or proposed performance measures used by the University or College
were disseminated to the Committee. If anyone wants copies of these documents contact Ms. Paul in the Deans
Office. If you wish to work with the group identified above (item #1) please contact Professor Bare.
**Curriculum Transformation
The Chairs and the Dean have asked the CSP to help with recruitment strategies and outcome assessments of our
academic programs. With our sharp decline in undergraduate enrollments this Autumn this is an important issue.
Continuing to work on our strategic vision of integration suggests that we also look into more efficient ways to meet
our educational goals. Clearly, we have an enormous degree of overlap at the undergraduate level that we need to
address. Integrated capstone case studies are but one element of a more integrated approach. We also need to
consider how to best market our programs while we consider the design of more efficient programs. Upgrading our
College web pages to better portray all dimensions of our curricula is also needed. Last year the CSP formed a task
22
force on program management that started to look into this issue. The work group listed above (item #2) asks for
your input as they begin to address these issues. Contact Professor Hinckley or Mr. Whitney for more information.
**UIF 1% biennial reduction
Another task outlined in the CFR work plan asks the CSP to propose a process and specific suggestions for dealing
with the 1% budget reduction. In addition, the Dean has asked us to undertake this important task on behalf of the
College. Soon after the new year, a work group will be formed to address this issue.
**Faculty Portfolio
Last year a third CSP task force, dealing with resource allocation issues, outlined a process for determining which
faculty positions and specialties are most important to the College if it is to achieve its strategic vision, meet its
goals, and foster its strategic themes. Using this as a starting point, we will work on developing a portfolio using the
process suggested. Sometime in early Spring, a work group will be formed to look into this issue.
The November meeting of the CSP is scheduled for November 18 at 3:45 - 5:30 pm. in Anderson Hall room 22.
B. Bruce Bare
cfr.washington.edu
23