• Print

March 7 2000

University of the Pacific
Institutional Priorities Committee
Minutes
March 7, 2000
Taylor Conference Room, University Library

IPC Members Present: Benedetti, Borlik, Brock, Cavanaugh, Chambers, Fletcher, Fox, Gilbertson (Chair), KruegerDevine, and Oppenheimer

Meeting convened by chair at 3:05 p.m. in the Taylor Conference Room.

  1. Minutes of the February 29, 2000 meeting were distributed. In II. E., PPC should read IPC. They were approved as corrected.
  2. Provost's Report:
    1. The Administrative Retreat is scheduled for August 28, 2000. The Provost reminded us the MVP is expiring as of July 1, 2001. The discussion offered many questions and suggestions.
      1. Should IPC take the lead in setting the agenda for establishing a new MVP?
      2. Should the University employ the services of an outside facilitator?
      3. Is August 28 too late to begin the process?
      4. Perhaps there should be a preliminary meeting in mid June.
      5. The Administrative Retreat should be followed up in the fall by a series of hearings.
      6. It is preferable to begin the process engaging a large audience, focusing the discussion in smaller groups as it progresses.
      7. Assessment of the current MVP is crucial before beginning the process.
      8. IPC should issue a report evaluating the progress made during the past five years. This would assist in soliciting campus commentary, response, and involvement as we look toward a new MVP.
    2. IPC is scheduled to meet with the WASC team Wednesday, March 29 at 10:00.
      1. Planning for that meeting followed.It was requested the meeting be at 9:00 rather than 10:00.
      2. As the charge to IPC is to oversee the budgeting and planning process, looking to the focused approach provided by the Planning Priorities is key.
      3. Due to time constraints, emphasizing the five major divisions within the Planning Priorities is preferable to addressing each of the sixteen priorities.
      4. It was determined that individual members of IPC would be responsible for addressing specific sections of the Planning Priorities.
        1. Fletcher- History of IPC and Assessment of Progress
        2. Brock- Section I. Heighten Academic Distinctiveness
        3. Fox- Section II. Improve Performance Through Assessment
        4. Oppenheimer- Section III. Strengthen Competitive Positioning
        5. Benedetti- Section IV. Assure Institutional Stability
        6. KruegerDevine- Section V. Expand External Relationships
        7. Gluskin and Meyers might address the participation of the other campuses, noting the administrative linkages with the other campuses are significantly increased
  3. Student Survey Results: With little time remaining, a discussion of the survey was begun.
    1. Students give high marks for instruction and academic advising.
    2. Satisfaction with the food service is up, but down from its highest rating.
    3. Lowest marks were given for study conditions and cleanliness in the Residence Halls
    4. It was noted the problem is with the reduced number of staff, not the staff itself.
    5. The renovation of Grace Covell will help address conditions.
    6. Students are dissatisfied with the social activities and environment of Stockton.
    7. The Provost would particularly like to address the Senior dissatisfaction with Career Services.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:05.