HUNTER COLLEGE
SENATE STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes: October 27, 2010
Committee Members
Members Present: Judith Aponte, Eija Ayravainen, Barbara Barone, Elizabeth Beaujour, Sarah
Bonner, Sandra Clarkson, Sherryl Graves, Jacqueline Mondros, Elizabeth Nunez, Andrew
Polsky, Vita Rabinowitz, John Rose, Richard Stapleford, Bill Sweeney, Makram Talih, Patricia
Woodard, Len Zinnanti
Task Force Members: Meredith Halpern (Communications), Robert Buckley (Resource
Development)
Consultants: Anthony Knerr, John Braunstein (Anthony Knerr & Associates)
Proceedings
Meeting called to order at 10:42 a.m.
I.
Status Report on Overall Task Force Progress
Only one TF (“Emerging Hunter University”) had progressed to the reporting stage. Others were
still in the process of organizing. John Braunstein reminded the Committee that the goal was to
have written responses, roughly following the form of templates in TF plan, from each task force
before November meeting.
The Senate has been provided with a TF update, via Richard Stapleford’s October 13 preliminary
report.
II.
Individual Task Force Reports
The Evolving Hunter University (EHU)
Andrew Polsky (co-chair with Jackie Mondros) reported on the Committee’s work, including its
proposed membership, and outline of issues/priorities to be considered by TF and proposed to
SPC.
Committee’s reaction to proposed issues/priorities focused on:

TF should make some general statements about the character of students (these
statements might be informed by the mission statement) with more detail in student
success and engagement.

Appropriateness of treating teaching and research separately; TF needs to be
informed by sensitivity about link between research and teaching; how to talk about,
capture Hunter’s complexity in this area (nursing, education are examples of blended
or applied research doctoral programs).

Student success, experience goals are not clearly enough defined. Can we clarify how
we are communicating routes to success, other aspects of student experience at
Hunter?

Incorporating the PMP goals in the TF process: Hunter’s SP should articulate the
College’s own, collective aspirations and provide 80th Street with opportunity to
respond rather than using the PMP goals as a starting point.

The eight or nine points in the notes from the task force’s meeting might benefit from
some kind of grouping into two categories – perhaps along the lines of (1) faculty
development, teaching and research, and (2) the structural relationships of and among
Hunter’s programs and schools.

In general, the TF responses should include some “how-tos” that flesh how the goals,
describing the intiatives that should be undertaken to achieve them.
Student Success and Engagement
John Rose (JR) reported that he and co-chair Case Willoughby (CW) met informally with other
members to identify documents for distribution to the group prior to its first meeting, scheduled
for Monday, November 1. Some agenda items for first meeting include:

Formulating a working definition of student engagement. CW suggested one dealing
with level of student-faculty interaction.

Looking at comprehensive list of programs and activities that might support greater
student engagement. Determine: Who is being served? Who is not being served?
Look for patterns (transfer, age, income status, etc.).
Feedback from Committee:

Will TF specifically address the role of staff in engaging students? Will another TF
address it? To what degree should thinking about role of staff be included in
discussions of every TF?

Consider organizing inquiry around a few broad areas of focus (e.g. transfers).

Topic is so broad that the TF will need to focus on a limited number of priorities
(those that will make the biggest impact on improving services). Important to: (a)
identify the most relevant principles for student engagement at Hunter; (b) determine
who is adequately served well and who is less well served; (c) consider role of
existing centers, activities.
Resource Development
2
Len Zinnanti and Bob Buckley, co-chairs, reported on first meeting at which TF members were
brought up-to-speed on work of SSPC and discussed possible topics for consideration by TF
including:

State budget situation

Tying discussions to resource allocation and planning;

Role of philanthropy

Revenue generating initiatives (expansion of OneCard, development of retail
opportunities)

Development of corporate partnerships
Another meeting will be scheduled in the next week or two.
Communications
This TF’s membership has not yet coalesced. John Braunstein and Richard Stapleford will recruit
co-chairs so that the TF can meet November deadline.
In discussion of this TF’s mission, members of the Committee noted that “communication” was
originally conceived as communication amongst ourselves, but circled right back to students and
their engagement, during their Hunter experience (communication’s relationship to problems of
retention) and after graduation. There are virtual (website) and physical/visual (signage)
components of this problem. Big question remains: What is Hunter? Why is it good for you? TF
should work on creating expectations parallel to SP’s answers to these questions.
III.
Next Steps for Task Forces and Review of Logistical Challenges
See above re: providing guidance to Communications TF. Other TFs are well underway and
robust reports are expected at November meeting.
Hunter “Partnerships”: Discussion Questions Regarding the College’s Diverse,
Local Opportunities
IV.
Anthony Knerr asked the Committee to consider how to think about defining Hunter as a
identified characteristic of the Upper East Side, or how to delineate points of view about
Hunter’s identity that would drive resources to the College.

Noted that Hunter’s “campus” exists beyond its main buildings on the Upper East
Side. Thoughtful outreach to community around new building in East Harlem has
been a priority.

Danny Kaye playhouse used to draw community to Hunter Playhouse. There has been
a revival of programming there.
3
V.

There has also been outreach to restaurants, garages.

Hunter’s courses, like all CUNY courses, are open to senior citizen auditors.

Important to acknowledge tensions, perceived differences between Hunter and
surrounding community/ies.

Suggested that focus might instead be on unifying the Hunter student body through
exposure to NYC, Upper East Side and Hunter cultural opportunities; need to
recognize how/when Hunter’s best function is as an anchor, resource or service for
students and community.

Need for newsletter (tailored to needs of campus) and effective Hunter community
calendar.
Additional Business
The next meeting (November 24 from 10:30 am – 1:30 pm) will be dedicated to discussion of
reports from all TFs.
VI.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 1:08 pm.
Minutes submitted by Simone White, Administrative Assistant to the Committee
4