HUNTER COLLEGE
SENATE STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes: December 15, 2010
Committee Members
Members Present: Philip Alcabes, Judith Aponte, Eija Ayravainen, Barbara Barone, Elizabeth
Beaujour, Sarah Bonner, Sandra Clarkson, Robert Greenberg, Jacqueline Mondros, Elizabeth
Nunez, Andrew Polsky, Vita Rabinowitz, John Rose, Bill Sweeney, Richard Stapleford, Len
Zinnanti
Task Force Members Present: Robert Buckley (Resource Development), Meredith Halpern
(Communications), Case Willoughby (Student Success and Engagement)
Consultants: Anthony Knerr, John Braunstein (Anthony Knerr & Associates)
Proceedings
Meeting called to order at 11:40 a.m.
I.
Approval of Minutes of November 24, 2010 SSPC Meeting
Richard Stapleford asked for corrections and amendments to the draft minutes. The minutes were
accepted and approved as submitted by unanimous consent.
II.
Individual Task Force Final Reports
Final task force reports (see TF reports at http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/strategicplan) were
presented for comment by the Committee. Discussion included the following:
Evolving Hunter University
Emphasis on improving public speaking (I.3.a.) should be weighted equally with
goal of improving student writing (I.1.a.).
Consider establishing collaborative partnerships with the academic support centers
(reading writing centers, science centers) to enhance quantitative reasoning skills (I.1.e.)
Noted that the Reading Writing Center is envisioning more collaboration with gateway
courses, since RWC has been relieved of CPE responsibilities.
 Goal of establishing internships within the Hunter community should be expanded
expressly to include expansion of internships at other CUNY campuses, acknowledging
differences between campuses (I.3.e.).
Section V, generally (“Foster an Academic Culture of Informed Planning and
Accountability for Results”): Should this goal be broken down into two points: (a)
1
assessment and (b) use of data?
Department chairs need certain data on a regular basis (rather than upon request).
Identify data to be automatically generated and regularly disseminated (V.11.)
Need to develop Hunter College “fact book,” following example of resource developed
by Queens College provost. This resource would serve interest of accountability,
generating truly useful information (reflecting facts back in a way that would be useful to
several constituencies). Also contributes to achieving larger SP goals of greater
accountability, transparency.
Suggestions were made about several goals and initiatives that might include specific
references to role of staff.
Student Success and Engagement
The co-chairs explained that the Committee used a lot of data from National Survey of Student
Engagement and CUNY Student Experience survey. The five clusters identified in the TF report
are derived from George Kuh’s work on student engagement and on the idea that there is a “web
of engagement.” Work focused on identifying changes that could make a large impact.
TF was asked to address level of faculty ownership of low retention rates. The Committee
discussed the idea that faculty are marginal to retention; that retention is not necessarily a faculty
role because highest priority of typical faculty is to be the best educator she can be. In this
model, retention is a by-product of good teaching. Responses to this idea included:
Insight reinforces importance of teaching and learning center.
Competing view is that retention is a faculty responsibility; view that it is not fuels
faculty disenfranchisement; students have intimate contact with far greater numbers of
faculty than student services; in disciplines, student relationships with faculty are
critically important to linking students to careers.
Faculty can also take specific measures that affect student retention, e.g., early
identification of at risk students.
The Committee concluded that:
TF report should explicitly identify retention as a goal, identify faculty as essential,
identifying different positions with respect to faculty and staff role in retention.
Every constituency at Hunter has a role in retention. In particular, need to assess
administrative functions that students cite as factors in decision to leave.
Keep in mind that poor academic performance is the primary reason students leave the
College.
Take student experience and other surveys seriously.
Hunter has several kinds of students (incoming freshmen, transfers); lack of single
standard “student” can be a strength in planning process.
Communications
The co-chairs indicated that the TF had no student representative, and gathered information
through ad hoc interviews of students. Their presentation of the report pointed to several
important lessons gleaned from the TF’s work, including:
Extremely limited student use of current website.
Communication gap with regard to new faculty and adjuncts.
Importance of getting information about Hunter to students that can increase their
institutional pride.
Resource Development
In addition to presenting a summary of their report, the co-chairs noted that 2010 was a
particularly good year for grants, partly due to economic stimulus, and noted the aggressive
posture of the Foundation.
JB asked the TF co-chairs to consider what kind of metrics could be used to assess progress in
area of strategic partnerships.
II.
Debrief on Senate Discussion of Preliminary Strategic Plan Framework
Barbara Barone (BB), noting that the discussion generally went well, expressed concern that
access to a draft mission statement was not provided to the Senate, and that the meeting time (not
a lunch hour) precluded attendance by staff.
The Committee addressed BB’s concern that specific initiatives regarding staff have not yet been
included in the draft document, suggesting, for example that the goal of strengthening mentoring
students is a faculty and staff responsibility by suggesting that the document be reviewed to find
places where staff can be specifically included.
At the Senate meeting, Pat Burke asked exactly how excellence in teaching was going to be
supported and rewarded, recommending that the College call on the resources of the School of
Education (e.g., video analysis for self and peer study) to that end. The discussion highlighted
the fundamental importance of including a recommendation for Center for Teaching and
Learning in final SP. Vita Rabinowitz indicated strong support of the Provost’s office for such a
Center, folding in the goal of strengthening ICIT, creating a Director of Assessment position.
John Braunstein asked the Committee to focus on where, how more metrics can be included in
the next draft SP Framework, raising the possibility of including a specific section of the next
draft that would make clear what magnitude of change we would like to see (e.g., goal is
x percent of students will be conversant in second language).
III.
Discussion of SSPC’s Draft Mission Statement (March 2010) and Preliminary
Statements of Vision and Values
Prior to the meeting, Andrew Polsky and Sandra Clarkson circulate the Middle States mission
statement. In considering this document, JB reminded the Committee that SP mission statement
should answer the question, what is this Plan’s purpose? Vision what is the Plan is going to get
us to. Mission statement raises certain questions that really need to be answered in the final plan.
Discussion focused on:
Need to capture the uniqueness of Hunter in mission statement. Especially:
(a) diversity of this place, where students create their own communities across
ethnicities, language groups, in a way that seems different from any other
place.
(b) high level of engagement of students in New York’s culture and how liberal
arts serve as a launch pad for that engagement.
Important to find a balance between description and prescription.
AK & Associates suggested that individual members of the Committee produce draft mission
AND vision statements (statement of aspiration for what Hunter will be in 10 years) for
consideration in January. These should be faithful to the evolving plan, picks up on some of the
robustness of the TF process. A summary of the key ideas presented in these draft statements
will be circulated in January.
IV.
Next Steps
“Mission” and “Vision” statement “homework” to be completed by Committee, then
summarized and circulated by AK & Associates.
Draft SP Framework will be reviewed with an eye toward including language relating to
the role of staff.
Work on “mission” and “vision,” and the work of all four task forces will be
incorporated into a new draft Strategic Plan Framework, consideration of which will be
the primary agenda item at the next SSPC meeting (January 19, 2011).
Planning of Spring town hall-type meeting on SP process will be an agenda item in
January.
V.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 1:17 pm.
Minutes submitted by Simone White, Administrative Assistant to the Committee