Meeting Minutes
August 27, 2002
Attending: Ron Downey, Mike Holen, Chwen
Sheu, Allan Hastings, David Griffin, Chuck Reagan, Brad Fenwick,
Wayne Nafziger, Jan Leach, Al Cochran, Frank Blecha, Dennis
Kuhlman, Marc Johnson, Steve Thien, Ruth Dyer, Tom Rawson, Gwen
O'Neal, John Struve.
Chair Jan Leach gave opening remarks. Her remarks
included general characteristics of programs that would move
K-State to a top-10 university. She also made special note of
her concern of not sending the wrong message to the campus community
that Targeted Excellence was a "done deal" by moving too rapidly
over the summer - she believes our deliberate approach will
allay those concerns yet still allow us to meet established
deadlines.
Al Cochran reported about progress on the Guiding
Principles draft:
- A draft "Foundations for Excellence: Principles, Philosophy
and Practices" dated August 26, 2002 was distributed.
- The draft is a distillation of the sentiments of all members
of the Guiding Principles subgroup.
- Dr. Cochran tried to be very clear on the charge to the
group.
- The group tried to keep the number of over-arching principles
as low as possible.
- Wording for the principles was chosen very, very carefully.
Questions and comments as a result of Dr. Cochran's
report:
- Comments were made that the subgroup did a good job and
has captured the essence of this process.
- Confirmed that these draft principles will appear on the
Provost's website.
- These principles are a very important foundation for the
rest of the process.
- Is the document ready to go out for campus comment? (yes)
- Do the four principles align with the broad themes in the
Executive Summary? (yes)
- Question: If we had the opportunity, where would we take
the university?
- Some initial concern of expecting to see more specifics
and action plans, but then realized that it is too early in
the process for this.
- It was suggested that the principles be footnoted showing
the Provost's website as an additional source of information.
- Concern expressed about Point D (Maintains administrative
processes and procedures that are flexible and nimble, and
which allow for rapid institutional responses to change)
in that normal faculty prerogatives (such as academic calendars
or credit-hour constraints) seem to be represented as administrative
responsibilities. Should the focus of this point be on the
"academic community" rather than administrators?
- Some confusion about the meaning of "administration" and
"administrator" -- and we should "operating" substitute?
Jan Leach noted that Provost Coffman does not
want the draft principles sent out until after Dr. Wefald's
State of the University presentation on September 13. She asked
that comments be forwarded to Dr. Cochran by September 9. Kudos
to the drafting subgroup for excellent work.
Brad Fenwick gave a report from the subgroup on
processes and development of standards and procedures for achieving
excellence:
- Dr. Fenwick distributed a graphic showing the flow of the
process.
- The subgroup has been tasked to look at processes at other
universities.
- The subgroup has developed a three-phase process (we are
currently at the first phase - Principles and Process. A Proposed
Work-Plan and Communication Strategy was distributed.
- It was particularly emphasized that the communication link
between the academic community and the Provost should be very
strong.
- Some concern expressed about the practicalities of the
Provost receiving comments directly from faculty and passing
those comments back to the working group.
Mike Holen reported on the subgroup charged with
identifying financial strategies toward excellence:
- The activities of this subgroup will occur later in the
process.
- It would be premature to identify specific funding sources
now.
- The subgroup recognizes that careful attention needs to
be given to well-thought-out sources of funding.
- About a dozen possible approaches to generate funding have
been identified so far.
Jan Leach: What are the next steps?
- Presented the Provost's draft Campus Discussion Process
and Time Frame.
- We should move this process ahead as fast as it can move,
being sensitive to the need to communicate with and bring
along the university community.
Next meeting:
- Should the group
come together before September 13 or not (not).
- We will go with
e-mail communication unless a groundswell of concern dictates
otherwise.
End