Vision, Values, and Mission Task Force
Minutes for December 4, 2006
3:00 p.m. West – 9-110
1. Welcome, Minutes, & Purpose: Minutes were approved.
2. Presentation and discussion of the Values/Theme Data Sort Draft
The Core Editing Team accomplished the sort of Values statements on Monday, November 20, 2006. The statements, collected
during the Visioning Session on Learning Day, were sorted into the 6 emergent themes, duplications encouraged.
3. Presentation of the Draft Values and Definitions Statements (40 min)
The draft definitions/clarifications were discussed in detail.
* Why the Task Force “values” the revisions:
□ The existing Values statements included duplicate ideas and could be edited for clarity.
□ The existing Values statements created confusion between student learning, faculty and staff learning, and workforce and
partnership learning.
□ It is preferable and clearer to value nouns rather than verbs.
* Notes from the Task Force discussion:
□ Learning – TVCA does not refer solely to students. There was extended discussion on whether a reference to the core
competencies in “Learning” limited the Value to students. It was pointed out that in professional development activities at
the college, TVCA provides guiding principles for design. To believe that life-long learning is of value, and that a love of
learning infuses all we do, TVCA should be included.
□ People – “Safe environment,” and “inspires” were repeated comments recorded in Visioning sessions.
□ Diversity – “Embracing” was a repeated comment recorded in Visioning sessions. More than just an “understanding”
component to learning, it was felt that the introspective value should be highlighted.
□ Access – “Reaching out” was a repeated comment in Visioning sessions, and it suggests more than an open doorway, but
willingness on the part of the institution to seek and assist learning relationships. Access is our relationship to the community
(see below), and involves more than support for special needs, but support for all learners and external partners.
□ Integrity – “Respect” was a repeated comment in Visioning sessions. “Civic responsibilities” was also mentioned. The
“courage to act” was quoted by at least one Visioning respondent.
□ Community – This was cut from the edited draft. There was a sense in the Task Force that “community” was component of
both “People” and “Access.” In addition, the seven key points handout by the Data and Situational/Needs Analysis Task
Force states, “Defining community (which is, in fact, our middle name) is increasingly complicated and increasingly
important.” This is a crucial activity that will shape how we interact with “community,” yet “how we interact” is through our
values. For this reason, “our communities” was added to the “Access” value.
□ Additional concepts worth mentioning – Editing decisions by the Task Force were based on broad interpretations rather
than narrow ones. Language is imprecise, though, and narrow interpretations are more favored and more comfortable with
diverse stakeholders – so every stake has its place. The following concepts were mentioned during the discussion, and
though the Task Force felt the concept was included, there was a desire to avoid ambiguity, or just a joy in the lyrical phrase.
 “Wise stewardship of resources/environment.
 “Promoting service to others.”
 “Accountability.”
 “Meeting community expectations.”
4. Discussion: Mission and Vision
The Task Force reviewed both the Mission and Vision Data Sort. The discussion highlighted the fact that the Mission statement
received fewer comments during the Vision sessions and most, as can be expected, intimated toward greater specificity in detail.
Some repeated comments included mentions of “shared governance,” “flexibility,” “sustainability,” “evolving needs,” “customized
learning,” and “responsive.” Concerning both the Mission and Vision statements, the Task Force felt:
□ Mission statement – This should be the comprehensive, guiding purpose of the college.
 The existing Mission is comprehensive and expresses the guiding principle of the institution.
 It is not memorable or personal. It does not express “the reason we each get up and come to work every day.”
 Any revision to the Mission should be more than a list of statutory principles.
 The Mission should express how our values find expression in daily behavior. It is an ideal, of sorts, a desire. Example:
“All who come leave successful.”
□ Vision statement – This should be the unattainable, future goal. It is the place toward which we strive.
 The above definition was repeated in the comments from the Visioning session. It was felt by some that a future tense
was needed.
 The Task Force felt that the Vision statement should express a measurable goal. We should know when we get there.
□ Conclusions
 Since the existing Mission statement is comprehensive, thorough, and maintains a level of specificity, it could serve as a
comparative discussion point for campus meetings when the Values revisions are discussed. Are the broad
interpretations understandable? Is more specificity needed?
 The Values statements must serve as a catalyst for the Mission and Vision statements.
 Since both Mission and Vision statements are generally more broadly interpreted (though they need not be), the above
definitions of Mission and Vision should be shared and used to solicit input for draft versions.

Since there were some concerns of an inclusive and collaborative process, sharing Values revisions and soliciting input
would add transparency to the process. The existence of campus-based teams from the Communications Task Force
greatly facilitates this process. Task Force members are willing to assist in this.
5. Summary, Communications, and “To all a Good Night!”
All information needs to be conveyed to the Strategic Planning Committee, the Communications and other Task Forces, and the
college-wide community.
Have a pleasant and relaxing Christmas holiday!
Next Meeting of the
Vision, Values, & Mission Task Force
East Campus Tuesday, January 16 @ 2:00pm (Room TBD)