RPIPC April 1, 2011


Liz Havey

Recorder Email: 
Location of Next Meeting: 
Resources, Planning and Institutional Policy Committee
Minutes Text: 

Present: Bevan Burgamy, Chris Skelton, Lyndall Muschell, Edward Whatley, Pete Shields, Catherine Whelan, Liz Havey, Judy Malachowski, Susan Allen

Guests: Sandra Jordan, President Leland

Regrets: Jen Maraziti, Doug Oetter


Call to order:

4/1/11: Agenda approved

3/4/11: Minutes approved

Old Business:

Update on Share Leave Forums: the forums provided a look at three different options for managing shared leave and compared the three models. Participants were asked to share feedback on the three models. Expect RPIPC to see this in Fall, 2011

New Business:

                Mission and Strategic Directions: Driven by SACS accreditation approaching deadlines

  • Strategic Directions: institution has three year rolling goals in need of revisiting; requested input from campus community on current directions (see attachment)
    • 88 responses, most seemed happy with current directions, some suggestions for rearticulating and reordering for better clarity and representation of the current environment
    • Reordered direction #2 and articulated specific goals for undergraduate and graduate directions. #4, 5, and 6 remained largely the same
    • Directions drive Vice Presidents annual plans by linking their goals to the directions
      • Should trickle down to departments via programs and assessment
      • Must be broad enough to work with the diversity of units on campus
      • Departmental evaluations will include linking to directions
  • Student Government’s input has been sought
  • Priorities under the directions are elements to focus efforts in order to achieve directions
  • Direction 1: Campus Climate Clarification – last survey drew out student thoughts about the acceptance of religious diversity and that GC doesn’t fully support religious diversity or is not diverse enough
    • Current update: reversing minority student recruitment
    • Formed Hillel group and All Faiths Alliance
    • Want to see if student perception of acceptance has improved
    • Wants to keep diversity at the top of the radar
  • Direction 2: Some concern expressed over “workforce needs” in a liberal arts mission. This element is required by the  Board of Regents as a state university
    • Delivery can include online, variable time structions, alternative delivery options, etc. to cater to the part-time student
    • The focus on regional workforce does not preclude programs that support out of state students
      • Need to be able to show alignment between institution and programs
      • This is particularly pertinent for the institution’s acclaimed programs
  • Direction 3: Looking at the reputation of academic programs
    • Better assess learning outcomes
    • Better track students after graduation
    • Need to emphasize the accomplishments of student and faculty to encourage greater academic draw (not just a pretty campus)
    • Need to play up on our strengths to enhance the entire institution
  • Direction 4: has not changed much and in many ways is more like an action step
    • New leverage on external funding focusing on grants that integrate faculty and the community
    • Gives better grounding for the President to request federal funding
  • Direction 5:
    • faculty salaries survey continuation
    • staff advancement – brought a consultant to campus to develop advancement within job description to better retain outstanding staff
    • most are continuations
  • Direction 6: Capitol Campaign is almost complete
    • Want to get deans more involved with fundraising because of their contacts with alumni and professionals in the field
    • Leveraging faculty and staff for coordinated fundraising efforts to explain specific programs to secure gifts
    • Need to facilitate process improvement – faculty and staff will have opportunity to suggest changes
  • RPIPC agrees to endorse for senate discussion
  • Mission: In the last review, SACS was concerned over the mission – the mission is used when asking for money and developing new programs, it is driven by institutional values, and it must be concise but fully describe important endeavors
    • Mission Explanation
      • Unique niche in the system as one of few that does not accept all applicants, inclusion of graduate opens up beyond immediate state needs, emphasize unique learning environment, emphasize student and community centeredness
      • This mission is comparable to other missions in the state
      • Content is good, but wordy and hard to read
      • Divide into more sentences for clarity
      • Intended to be broad and vague to allow application across institution
      • Vast improvement from previous 3 page statement, but needs more simplicity and clarity
  • Values: helps guide internal population
    • current disconnect between directions and values with emphasis on Reason, Respect, and Responsibility – should be highlighted beyond now with inspired leadership
    • disconnect between the “providing” statement and the bolded statements
    • dislike for the phrase multidiscipline intellectual encounters
  • RPIPC has been asked to hold this for mission committee revision
    • Further questions: Is our intended audience going to be able to understand?
      • Accreditation bodies, peer, politicians, donors should be kept in mind
      • Reputation attracts students and parents
    • Further questions should be emailed to Dr. Jordan
    • Provost has vacant assessment position and needs someone to lead with directions, mission and reach out to the entire institution
      • Person will collect information, pull reports and move institution toward goals
      • Email options: Running out of space for storage; found three alternatives which were test run by volunteer faculty and staff (see handouts)
        • Results: hosting on campus was most favored, but cannot be managed because of storage issues. Other two options tied
        • Spam concern for outside hosting
        • Two USG institutions are using Google App, 7 using live.edu – no user concerns, some legal concerns with Google App
        • The current $30,000 spent on hosting will be re-designated within IT
        • Focus for on campus disaster relief, current email platform unstable
        • Privacy concerns with google
        • Concerns over learning a new system
        • One suggested that Microsoft systems are pretty standard and it may be wise to stick with that platform.
        • Connecting devices to the systems required instruction
        • IT staff far & away favored live.edu
        • Both platforms will support transition of date from exchange
        • Live & Google were selected as they gave the best flexibility and user options aligned with business needs
        • Summary:
          • Hosting off campus will reduce likelihood of email disaster with backups off campus
          • Live.edu provides better security
          • Live.edu provides similar interface to current email system
          • Live.edu already has contract with state, which will be reviewed and some local changes may be requested
  • Pete moves to vote for endorsement: All in favor of Live. Edu

Catherine is working on annual report, which is due 4/22. She will email committee her report and ask for feedback

Adjourned: 2:15PM

Action Items: 
Tentative Agenda: