Strategic Planning

Strategic Planning Committee
Minutes/Notes - Wednesday, January 30, 2002
Teague Library

Present: Margaret Hampton, Wes Miller, Sara Penhale, Newell Pledger-Shinn, Rick Foreman, Tamara Clark, Monteze Snyder, Paul Ogren, Tamara Clark, Doug Bennett, Bob Southard, Kirsten Bohl

The minutes of January 23 were approved.

Staffing
Doug announced that Kirsten Bohl would be a staff liaison to the committee. He also reported that he and Tamara Clark had spoken about her workload during her final semester at Earlham. Tamara will continue on the committee, but will scale back her involvement somewhat.

Interdisciplinary Programs
Doug distributed a handout sketching four options for interdisciplinary programs at the College: (A) informal arrangements; (B) term interdisciplinary chairs; (C) regular interdisciplinary chairs; (D) program clusters. There was a general sense that (A) is "business as usual" and doesn't work well. Some programs are currently using versions of (C) as well. (B) and (C) are in some cases departures from current practice, but (D) represents the only radical change.

Some common questions emerged, including: how best to support planning, evaluation, and leadership responsibility in each model. In the case of (B), continuity is also an issue. Other issues include: how to ensure contributions from other departments; how to address status differentials between programs and departments; and how to address the fact that departments are "coin of the realm" and often closely tied to how students and faculty see themselves and their studies.

Baseline assumptions for planning:

• The current model doesn't work; some change is needed.
• We will always have an issue of critical resources (never feels like we have enough teaching staff).
• It's hard to imagine change that doesn't involve adding teaching positions
• Programs vary, but adopting a common model would have strong advantages.
• Interdisciplinary programs are an EC strength and should be supported and sustained. (Our aim is to sustain the programs we currently have.)

Other ideas: What if we went in another direction completely, away from interdisciplinary programs - toward a model of, "Spanish with a focus in Latin American Studies"? What if we redefined a "major" to be, say, 6 prescribed courses + 6 courses of a student's own choosing? Is "interdisciplinary study" at Earlham a description of program design, or is it embedded in the way we teach - or both?

Doug volunteered to write a piece that would summarize some of the issues discussed so far.

Candidate Priorities for New Campaign Resources
Doug shared a handout summarizing a list of candidate priorities for new resources raised through a campaign. This attempts to be a "whole menu" of items for which we'd consider raising resources over the next 5-7 years.

What should be added?

• off-campus study (while we already level the playing field more than many schools, travel to & from many locations remains an issue; May Term is a separate issue)
• compensation norms for existing faculty & staff positions

Further Consultations and Discussions

• Fine Arts. Is scheduled for Mon., Feb. 4 at 12:00.
• Religion and Philosophy. Kirsten will contact & schedule.
• Board of Trustees. Board chair Mark Myers will name an ad hoc board committee to participate in the strategic planning process. Rick, Paul, Monteze, Newell, Sara, Wes, and possibly Margaret will join that board committee on Thursday afternoon, Feb. 21 from 2:00 till 5:00 at Norwich Lodge for a strategic planning workshop. SPC members are also invited to attend a session with the full board on Friday morning, Feb. 22. (The board meeting times will focus on bringing the board up to speed with the committee's work so far. Then the ad hoc board committee will review and comment on the draft strategic plan in mid-March.)
• Cross-cutting themes. We decided not to schedule any cross-cutting discussions at present. Our current focus should be on completing the 11 white papers and producing a draft report by mid-March. After the white papers are written, we may come back to the idea of some cross-cutting discussions (e.g., first-year experience, enrollment/ideal size, academic excellence) that would be designed to help the committee integrate information and suggestions on topics likely to appear in the final report. Some worry was voiced that community members may be waiting to be asked, "But what should we do?" or may be wondering if their input has been heard. Circulating the white papers - and in particular the "issues lists" at the ends of each paper -- may be a good way to share feedback with the community and simultaneously gain additional input.

Discussion of Draft White Papers
We discussed drafts of the Facilities and Faculty/Staff white papers and made suggestions for edits.

Next meeting will be Wed., Feb. 6 from 3:00 till 6:00 p.m. in Teague Library. (Doug will participate by conference call.) We'll review first drafts of the Curriculum, Student Life, and Community Life white papers. We'll also review drafts of other white papers that have changed significantly since last review.