• Print

March 1 2001

Institutional Priorities Committee
Minutes of meeting on March 1, 2001

Present: King, Brock, Cavanaugh Kruger-Divine, Fox, Benedetti, Kirkland, Oppenheimer, Meer, Stark, Gilbertson, Lundergan, Meyer (by phone)

The IPC regular meeting began at 12:20 on March 1. The minutes were reviewed and approved, except the schedule for the MVP review was to reflect that shown on the agenda for the March 1, 2001, meeting. Lydia Fox reported the MVP would be available on the web site for review to assist the discussion during the MVP review meetings.

No comments on the budget proposal for FY 2002 were given. Cavanaugh updated on the energy costs and described the plan to develop a "Green" Committee to steer conservation efforts across the campus, including energy conservation, recycling, etc.

Gilbertson reported that the dates over which the revised MVP would apply was discussed in Cabinet. The preliminary decision of the President after this discussion was that the MVP apply through 2010, as a multiple of 10 that also corresponds with the next accreditation review. Some noted the peak of the anticipated market occurs before 2010. Others thought the MVP should end with the campaign at a time the University would begin to plan for the next WASC review.

There was discussion regarding the context for the vision statement with much of the review centered on the meaning of the term "practical competence". Gilbertson asked that any technical edits should be forwarded to him for incorporation into the final version of the MVP.

The planning priorities of the MVP were reviewed with discussion centering on whether individual schools should have the opportunity to set their own aspirational goals and centers of excellence internally or whether they should be shared with the entire University community.

There was general agreement that the listing of specific areas of academic unit aspirations and specific areas of distinction should be excluded in the final version.

Meer said that the vision statement should be more bold, comparable to the Dental School’s "best in the nation". He argued the current vision was not as exciting as it needed to be to mobilize support and buy-in.

The need to refine the definition of "comprehensive university" and what makes Pacific’s model of a comprehensive university so appealing and valuable to prospective students. Meyer said that the value of a strong link between the liberal arts core and professional schools had to be better established. The description of the university as a comprehensive university without that linkage would leave the reader wondering "so what?" The reason why that linkage provides a value that is significant and special has to be better articulated.

The meeting concluded with a review of the MVP review dates and establishing of times for members to participate in those meetings.

The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.