Strategic Planning

Strategic Planning Committee
Minutes/Notes - Wednesday, October 17
Teague Library

Present: Doug Bennett, Bob Southard, Margaret Hampton, Monteze Snyder, Rick Foreman, Sara Penhale, Tamara Clark, Wes Miller

Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Approval of 10/10 minutes
3. Letter(s) seeking input from faculty, students and staff
4. Key dates
Oct 18 (Thurs) half day work session for those available
Oct 23 (Tues) noon Science Div consultation
Other divisional consultations are being scheduled
5. The work of the SPC in the weeks and months ahead
6. Update on retention and some simple enrollment models

Discussion

1. We approved minutes of the 10/10 meeting, prepared by Doug Bennett

2. We approved a letter to students, faculty and staff seeking input to the strategic planning process. This letter, similar to but more generic than the letter to alumni and parents, will be the one we place on our website. (There will be a link to the alumni/parent version on the President's website.)

3. We discussed and approved a framework for a memo to be sent to faculty next week (Tuesday) outlining the ways that faculty can participate in the strategic planning activities. The memo will provide two web links, one to the overall strategic planning website, the other to the letter requesting input.

4. We discussed and approved a related strategy for a framework memo to staff. This memo will be sent as paper copies to those staff without regular access o e-mail. Attached will be a paper version of the letter requesting input.
Another aspect of this discussion was consideration of whether and how to engage staff in via an all-staff meeting. We agreed we would hold such an event, call it a staff forum (or some such) to distinguish it from an ordinary all-staff meeting, have staff break up into small, mixed groups for the discussion, and have some template or form for the discussion to encourage staff to discuss issues outside their specific work area.

5. We discussed the discussion held last week with Fine Arts. We concluded that our plan for holding such discussions went well. We also discussed whether we should be providing data to those invited into strategic planning discussions or simply provide an open forum for input and discussion. We decided that while we would continue holding the open for a we have envisioned, we would also try to write some factually-based 'white papers' on a variety of topics to use as a basis for a second round of discussions. We might try to prepare these for release by the beginning of second semester. These would be drafts, subject to revision, that we would draw on in preparing the strategic plan.

6. We noted that there are three kinds of activities we need to be engaged in: (a) holding open fora with faculty, students and staff and providing other opportunities for input (letters, strength/weakness exercises, etc.); (b) familiarizing ourselves with the current situation in a variety of topic areas we will discuss in our report; and (c) beginning to consider conclusions and recommendations we might make in these topic areas. Members of the committee are encouraged to think about which topics they might want to take lead responsibility for.

We agreed that if individuals speak to one of us to provide input, we will try to make a written note summarizing the contribution so that all can read it. We will keep a notebook of all contributions (letters, notes, e-mails, etc.).

Coming back to the current draft outline of the committee's report, we discussed what topics we might want to work on next in gaining familiarity.

7. We reviewed the committee's next meetings, which, after the discussion, include the following:
Oct 18 (Thurs) 9:00 to 12:00 working session for those available
Discuss student and community life issues
Oct 23 (Tues noon Science Div consultation (Bob, Sara and Margaret)
Oct 24 (Wed) 4:00 to 6:00 regular meeting: discuss aspirations planning
(diversity, learning and technology)
Oct 31 (Wed) 4:00 to 6:00 regular meeting: discuss academic programs
(gen ed, interdisc programs, etc.)

8. We discussed the fruits of a strengths/weaknesses of Earlham exercise Doug had conducted with members of the New Castle Rotary Club. On the strengths side, we noted they are more likely to use words like "excellence" and "quality" than on campus constituencies. On the weakness side, we noted they emphasized Earlham 's lack of visibility.

9. We discussed recent data on retention, and also a simple enrollment model Doug had developed.