Strategic Planning

Strategic Planning Committee
Minutes/Notes - Wednesday, March 6, 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

Doug shared, as a possible idea from another college, creating a 'discussion draft' of a strategic plan, accessible on the Web to alumni and parents.

White Papers
We discussed drafts of three white papers: Curriculum, Financial Aid, and Faculty and Staff. Drafters are working on new versions of Student Life and Community Life. Doug continues to make progress with the Budget white paper.

Doug will write a short blurb to be featured at the top of each white paper, including in electronic form (and a similar blurb to be featured on the Web page where we introduce all of the white papers as a group). The blurb will clarify that the white papers are to be regarded as drafts. Comments and corrections are very welcome. Doug will also send an email update to the campus community, perhaps once the remaining white papers are available on the Web site.

We agreed on a list of additional readers for each paper (below). The list below is not complete in two respects: first, it includes some folks who have already been consulted along the way; second, it does not include every such person or group who has already been consulted. (In short, it's an evolving list.)

The author of each white paper not yet launched on the Web will verify facts as needed. Then we'll go ahead and launch those papers to the Web - at the same time as we are speedily consulting with those listed below.

• Faculty and Staff: Welfare Committee, Employee Council, Dick Smith, Len Clark, Jonathan Diskin, Cherie Dolehanty, Bill Buskirk
• Admissions: Admissions and Financial Aid Committee, Jeff Rickey, Tom Kirk
• Student Life: Committee on Campus Life, Student Government leadership, Deb McNish
• Community Life: Committee on Campus Life, Student Government leadership, Deb McNish
• Financial Aid: Admissions and Financial Aid Committee, Budget Committee, Bill Buskirk, Financial Aid Task Force, Bob Arnold, Jeff Rickey, Dick Smith, Len Clark, Nelson Bingham
• Retention: Retention Coordinating Circle, Nelson Bingham
• Curriculum: Curricular Policy Committee, Faculty Affairs Committee, Len Clark, Bonita Washington-Lacey, Tom Kirk, Student Government leadership
• Budget: Budget Committee, Dick Smith
• Facilities: Dick Smith, Bill Mullin, Alice Lafuze
• Development and Alumni Relations: Avis Stewart, Kim Tanner, Karen Roeper
• Assessment: Assessment Committee, Nelson Bingham
• Liberal Arts: Curricular Policy Committee, Student Government leadership

The Road Ahead
Doug said he estimated we were about one month behind an optimal schedule. He proposed three key questions we needed to answer:

1. What's the report? / What's ancillary?
2. What's public? / What's not so public?
3. What's now? / What's later?

Some candidates for ancillary materials include: white papers, a budget model, a document titled "Earlham College Value and Perception," comparison groups with data, and an outline of potential priorities. (Dick Smith is currently working on a budget model and Mary Ann Weaver is currently developing one or more lists of comparison groups we might use in future.)

Sara and Monteze suggested we create a grid to evaluate Earlham perception and performance in various areas, on one hand, as against the importance of these factors to others. (The cells of the grid would be, for example, "high performance/high importance to others" vs. "medium performance/low importance to others.") We agreed it was important to base our priorities on the data that is available to us. This tool can help us organize our understanding of the data. Sara and Monteze will prepare the committee to walk through an exercise using this grid at our next meeting.

Doug named at least four audiences of our final report: students; faculty/staff, board, and alumni/parents/friends. Each audience will lead us to shape the report in a somewhat different way (e.g., we need to connect with the current reality of students; we need to engage with the faculty's agenda and the board's agenda; we need to energize potential donors). What can we circulate to the on-campus community (faculty in particular) by the end of March? It will be important for our report to make clear the college's value proposition - to energize us to work on the priorities we have identified. It will also be important that we have a clear understanding of our core competence/comparative advantage.

Next Meeting
Next meeting will be Wed., March 13 from 3:00 till 6:00 p.m. in Teague Library.