• Print

April 12, 2011

Institutional Priorities Committee
Minutes of April 12, 2011
2:00pm - 4:00pm
DUC 211 A & B

Present: Francois Rose, Mary Lou Lackey, Maria Pallavicini, Chris Johnston, Cathy Peterson, Tom Krise, Peg Ciccolella, Matthew Downs, Jin Gong, Elizabeth Griego, Dan Shipp, Kelli Page, Gene Pearson, Nejat Duzgunes, Marcus Perrot, Nathan Quist, Robert Brodnick

Absent: President Eibeck, Patrick Cavanaugh, Ted Leland

Call to Order: 2:02pm

Minutes: Minutes for the March 22, 2011 meeting were approved with the correction of removing Susan Giraldez as a guest and listing her under present.

Announcements: Francois Rose announced that President Eibeck has appointed Gene Pearson as committee chair for 2011-2012. Provost Pallavicini mentioned that Francois Rose brought fun and positivity to the IPC committee this year and congratulated him on a tremendous job as Chair.

Institutional Effectiveness Framework: Pallavicini discussed institutional effectiveness and steps to improve program quality for both academic and administrative units. She mentioned that there is a need to adopt best practices across the three campuses for assessment, how to collect evidence, and how to interpret data. She proposed using community of practice concepts to provide hands-on advise and a support network for program review process. An Institutional Effectiveness Committee would have administrative and faculty members from all 3 campuses and would look at the quality of program reviews. Its primary function would be to compile a summary of all of the program reviews each year and submit the summary to the IPC.

The issue of faculty workload came up. The IPC discussed the possibility of restructuring certain committees and potentially reducing the number of total committees to better handle the workload.

IPC Process Recommendations: A subcommittee of the IPC was charged with reviewing the committee's process this year and making recommendations. Brodnick discussed the observations of the IPC process for the year and Pearson gave the specific recommendations:

1. Use the President's Planning & Budget letter to provide instructions to the community, identify priorities for investment, and outline criteria for the selection of proposals for potential funding
2. Provide more background information regarding recommendations provided IPC regarding each of the areas for investment.
3. Require greater connection between budget requests and priorities/institutional learning objectives [revised template]
4. Develop mechanism for cross-divisional requests [new template]
5. Develop criteria for evaluation and prioritization of requests
6. Start process earlier
7. Allow for more discussion of divisional and cross-divisional proposals
8. Facilitate more IPC interaction with Pacific community

Griego added that the committee should find an efficient way of inviting students into the process.

Brodnick mentioned two assumptions that the committee needs to be mindful of. One, that the current resouce allocation process depends on new revenue. And second that a new strategic planning process will launch in the near future that would hopefully produce outcomes and strategies that would set the criteria and standards by which IPC would judge recommendations for investments.

Brodnick suggested redrafting the Planning & Budget letter as the set of instructions for the process for next year. He suggested that he and Pearson update the draft based on the recommendations and present it to the committee at the next meeting.

Adjourned: 3:32pm