Strategic Planning Implementation Steering Committee meeting minutes

Nov 9, 2011

Attendees:  S. Phillips, C. Bouchard, V. Delio, J. Dias, S. Faerman, S. Fessler, C. Haile, J. Haugaard, C. Herman, L. Krzykowski, E. Lifshin, L. McElroy, T. Minor, J. Reilly, T. Reimers, B. Szelest, K. Williams

Provost Phillips welcomed and thanked members of the steering committee.  Binders were given to new members of committee or members who did not receive a binder at the first meeting.  The Steering Committees’ role -- to evaluate, coordinate, and advise—was reviewed.  Each area targeted for initial implementation has been set up with a Working Group consisting of two (2) co-chairs and members of the University community including members of University senate and its various councils.  Each working group may invite consultants and/or new members to participate in the group.  A brief review of the timeline was also discussed.
Each Working Group reviewed its work and responded to questions from the Steering Committee about its activities and progress to date.  Handouts were provided that detailed the updates from each of the Working Groups.  A brief review follows:

Undergraduate Academics Working Group (WG1)

  • The group met four times and has begun to work on four of the six objectives included in the charge of the committee.  With respect to the objective related to General Education, the group feels that, at this time, its role should be to monitor the work of UAC and provide feedback to that Council, since UAC has been working on this issue for about a year.  In fact, UAC had developed a proposal last Spring, but various concerns with elements of the proposal kept it from moving forward through governance.
  • With respect to the objective related to the Writing objective, the group has been reviewing the Report of the Writing Instruction Task Force established under Susan Herbst.  The overall goal is to improve student writing and the discussion focuses on how much coursework and at what level is needed to develop a coherent program.  There is a need to find the right balance, and work with departments for assistance.
  • With respect to the objective related to the International objective, discussion is “on hold” while the group focuses on the Writing Objective.  When the group turns to this objective, it will hear a report from a group that attended an AAC&U workshop in Maryland related to this issue.  The workshop included 32 schools that were invited to take participate after submitting a proposal.  Individuals who attended the workshop include Ray Bromley, Tony DeBlasi, Sue Faerman and Irina Holden.

Student Engagement, Advising, Mentoring & Support (WG2)

  • The group met once to discuss the various charges.  Group decided to work in 2 subgroups (Advising Support and Student Engagement).  Both subgroups are meeting on a regular basis.
  • The Advising and Support subgroup is discussing (1) ways to get information to students for selecting majors through creating videos about the majors, (2) how advising happens in the major and is conducting a survey,  and (3) looking at the policies on terminal probation.
  • The Student Engagement subgroup is discussing the mentoring programs on campus and is working on an audit of our mentoring programs and those offered at other CUNY centers.  A survey of students on their mentoring experiences is underway.  The subgroup also discussed the various living and learning community initiatives that are currently on campus.

Student Recruitment and Enrollment (WG3)

  • The group met several times and their focus was on organizing and gathering information.  The group determined to work in two (2) subgroups ~ Expanding Access and Improving Academic Quality.  Each of the subgroups met to discuss their initial priorities.  Discussion of challenge in defining ‘who we would like to attract to the University at Albany’.
  • Discussions about working together with other Working Groups and invite the Media and Marketing Office to join the group.

Graduate Education (WG4)

  • The group has been working on evaluating graduate programs and how to recruit students.  The group is reviewing the program responses and is hoping to have a metrics available in January to be used.

Research (WG5)

  • The group met twice to discuss the priorities and gather information.  It was determined that the group will concentrate on two objectives:  increasing scholarships, improving administrative services.  They will break into two groups – each concentrating on one of the objectives.

Keeping Pace with Emerging Technologies (WG6)

  • The group met twice for discussions and awareness building, and a third meeting is scheduled.   They also discussed the IT organization.  Group will concentrate on the emerging technologies action step.  The group undertook an initial  walk-through of the implementation evaluation forms, drafting possible action steps. 

Faculty and Instructional Development (WG7)

  • The group has met several times to discuss their objectives which includes faculty engagement in undergraduate education; faculty development; and awards and incentives for faculty.  The group had also discussed career path rewards.  There were questions about the flow of funds from grant research projects.  The group will be breaking down into small groups for more discussions.

Evaluation Subcommittee

  • Bruce Szelest has agreed to chair the new subcommittee, “Evaluation Subcommittee” who will survey, detailing specific goals, objectives, resources, and responsibilities to determine the success of the plan.  The group consists of Bruce Szelest, Kevin Williams, and Sue Faerman who have met to review the survey charts received, blending the action steps and objective, and provide constructive feedback on the forms.  The purpose of the survey is to provide an aid in the assessment framework, provide a timeline, and help Working Groups in their progress.  The survey can also be used to track how the various working groups are doing.  All gathered information will be put on the wiki.
  • Subcommittee will work with Working Groups on benchmarks.

Next Steps

The Working Groups will continue to meet and progress toward their objectives.  The next Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for May 8, 2012.