Those in attendance: Frank Blecha, Al Cochran, Ronald Downey, Ruth Dyer, David Griffin, Allan Hastings, Dennis Kuhlman , Jan Leach, Denis Medeiros, Wayne Nafziger, Gwendolyn O'Neal, Tom Rawson, Tom Schellhardt, Chwen Sheu, John Struve, Steve Thien, & Ron Trewyn.
Copies of the handout related to the charge/context, today's agenda and a draft agenda for future retreat were handed out to those present. Copies of these materials were sent to committee members. Each member provided a brief introduction.
The Provost provided a brief review of the charge. He referred everyone to the "Yellow Sheet" in the handouts and noted that this may be one of the most positive, interesting, & productive project he has been involved with during his tenure as Provost. He noted that it couldn't have been done until recent changes allowed this to happen; potential financial changes have provided opportunities.
The Provost walked the committee through the changes. He noted the President's goal of becoming a top 10 land grant university (institutions without medical schools). Obtaining this goal is dependent upon what does "top 10" mean. We need to sharpen our focus on serving students and achieving a greater standing of our current position among universities. He noted that Kansans love us: students, alumni, and citizens. Much of our recent success is dependent on our having an effective strategic planning process. This includes the most recent committee's work (copies of this report will be sent to this committee's members). Past reports have focused on a set of broad themes and this has been an effective strategy (e.g., the new positions of Vice Provost for Research, Associate Provost for International Affairs, the Associate Provost for Diversity and Dual Careers, etc.). The work of the Strategic Planning Committee was focused on themes. We have not focused on academics since the Board of Regents' Role and Aspirations process and report. Since 1991, we have never focused on academic programs. The Targeted Excellence Committee is all about academic programs. We have a lot of high quality academic programs and some are nationally and regionally recognized. We need to make sure this process does not compromise the quality of these programs. Many academic programs that could enhance our reputation do not necessarily have high graduate or undergraduate enrollment levels. Clearly, graduate programs are the issue. Since 1987 K-State has gone from $20 million to over $80 million in extramural funding, but graduate enrollment levels are stable or down. We are not where we should be in graduate programs and we must improve. We are an outstanding undergraduate university; we are known best for our undergraduate programs and we must maintain this image. We are reviewing our academic quality through the Board of Regents' Program Review program.
The specific issues that must be addressed are:
Not all potentially important academic programs can be found in a program/department. We need to consider interdisciplinary programs and strategies. There are a lot of ways to think about this. While funding is important, we are not going to reallocate. A sub-group will develop funding strategies. Other universities have done this (we are not alone). Ohio State is an example and we can learn from them.
A subgroup has been identified to find out more about what others are doing in this area. Jan asked the Provost if we could bring in people to help in the general process. The Provost said yes. The Provost thanked everyone for agreeing to work on the committee. Jan asked the Provost to indicate the timetable for completing the work. He indicated any time from November to December 2002 was best, but the important things was to get it right. The Provost said the late 2002 time would be the best to hit the next legislative cycle. Wayne indicated he first thought that a report was needed for the March meeting (retreat), but now understands that it is not. The Provost indicated that the report will take time to complete, and indicated that the purpose of the retreat was to focus on the problem and define the work of the committee. The Provost noted that this was his interpretation of the charge and the retreat in March would help refine issues.
Allan wanted to know if the Provost wanted a listing of other programs doing the same things. The Provost indicated we need to know what distinguishes high quality programs. Wayne said that he was assuming that the November/December report would be produced and then later programs would be identified. The Provost said yes, first the process and procedures need to be identified (the Nov./Dec. report) and then a different group will use these procedures to identify programs. We need to align the fiscal process at the same time. The Provost mentioned the Ohio State competitive process, but noted we could do other things. He also noted that there is a big learning curve.
Jan, reiterated the thank you to the group and indicated that even though this is a big task, the people here understand it needs to be done. Jan noted that additional information will be mailed to the committee members. She told the group that another Task Force will be set up to identify specific programs, one of her roles is to keep this committee from trying to do identify the specific programs. We need to put aside personal interests and identify the criteria for identifying the program, not identify the programs.
Jan noted that the retreat would be March 15, 8:30 to 3:00 in the Ramada Inn. The agenda distributed at the meeting in the packet is a draft and the group members are encouraged to provide suggestions. Ron D. indicated he would have an e-mail list-serve set up. The Provost said he wanted the retreat agenda to be right. Jan noted she will be out of town over the next few weeks and will not be in contact, but will still provide suggestions and ideas to Ron D. or Ruth. Al asked if there are any interdisciplinary programs at K-State. The answer was yes and examples were provided (e.g., Genetics and Food Science). Jan noted that it is easier to develop and maintain interdisciplinary programs at K-State than other places. Ron T. noted that Ohio State may not be the best model. It was noted that the committee needs to communicate with the Faculty Senate on the work of the committee. Denis noted that Ohio State faculty were always suspicious about the process for identifying programs and that this was a potential problem. We need to avoid favoring our personal areas. Al asked if the deans have) provided input into this process. Ruth noted that the deans are invited to the March retreat. Ron D. noted the Dickeson Book as a source. The Provost pointed out that the context for the book - was that the author's home institution was under fiscal stress and they needed to reallocate money among their programs. While it is good reading for background, this committee needs to go further.
Chwen wanted to know if we would get background materials for the retreat. The Provost said yes. He encouraged suggestions for modification to the retreat agenda.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45.