May 11, 2010
Institutional Priorities Committee
Minutes of May 11, 2010
2:00pm – 4:00pm
Library Community Room
Members Present: Rob Brodnick, Pat Cavanaugh, Phil Gilbertson, Brian Klunk, Gene Pearson, Marcus Perrot, Peggy Kay, Jin Gong, Mary Lou Lackey, Dan Shipp, Tom Krise, Lynn King, Nijack Duzgunes, Kim Heberle
Members Absent: Ted Leland, Matthew Downs, Ashley Stubblefield, Elizabeth Griego, Kelli Page, Francois Rose
The meeting was called to order at 2:05pm
Minutes: March 9, 2010 minutes were approved
IPC Charge and Membership:
Primary Intent: To have IPC become more strategic in it’s action. This will involve:
A. The President will join the IPC Committee
B. Will require IPC to meet more frequently at least for the first year. The committee will go back to a twice-a-month meeting schedule.
C. Membership changes: having one of the four faculty members be chair to the committee with Pat Cavanaugh, Vice President of Business and Finance, as Vice Chair. Also, adding two members to the committee, one staff and one graduate-professional student. Rob Brodnick and Marcus Perrot will continue to supply staff support to the committee.
D. Revisions to the charge:
1. Review and update the University strategic plan and monitor University strategy and progress toward goals. Pacific Rising will be going through a midterm revision over the course of the next 6 months.
2. Further the integration of strategic planning and budgeting processes by recommending institutional planning priorities and guidelines, ensuring that budgetary investments and allocations align to institutional priorities, and integrating campus and program level plans and outcomes into institutional strategy.
3. Establish the institutional strategic budgeting context by recommending budget models and strategies to achieve planning priorities, formalizing budget assumptions, reviewing drafts of the annual budget, and evaluating and improving the ongoing planning and budgeting processes as appropriate.
There will be a group that is formed that will report to IPC that will review alternative budget models.
Updates on the approved Budget:
Sacramento campus has almost a $700,000 dollar surplus that they are going to use to add to their legal reserve, insurance reserve, and capital improvement reserve as well as the program innovation fund.
San Francisco campus has a $382,000 dollar surplus that will be used for a capital improvement fund.
Stockton Campus has a $2.1 million dollar surplus and $1 million of that is going to be used for Sigma Chi, to help fund the $2.4 million dollar project to rebuild the house from inside out.
$315,000 will be invested in OIT.
$245,000 will help fund the Retirement Compliance Program.
$300,000 will go to the McCaffery Center to help with Student Life functions.
$245,000 will fund office relocations.
Strategic Action Plan:
Goal would be by October's board meeting to...
1. President Eibeck asked IPC not to generate new strategies and actions at this time, but still complete an accounting of the progress and status of each of the actions that currently exist.
2. Review strategies and actions. Each year, IPC suggests slight modifications to the strategic directions but more significant modifications to the actions. Over the summer on their retreats each of the divisions should take a look at the status of each action, consider which ones are complete, which ones need to be modified, and which new actions need to be added.
Before the first meeting in August, Rob Brodnick will prepare an update to the action plan. He will distribute an email to the Provost and Vice Presidents with instructions and due dates for the SAP update.
Program Planning and Self Study:
The committee reviewed the Program Planning Tracking sheet. I shows two tracks:
1. Academic Program Planning
2. Administrative (Co-curricular) Program Planning
The sheets shows when a Program Plan (Review) is complete, when it was extended, and when it is overdue based on the current schedule.
There are 3 stages to each Program Planning Report...
1. There's a self-study, and in the past that was a panel review
2. Review then goes forward to the administrator, which is a department manager or a Dean
3. Review then goes forward to a Vice President or Provost
The reports are then presented to IPC. Each of these stages must be complete for the entire process to be marked completed. This will be one of the first documents that the WASC team will see. They are going to randomly review recent Program Planning reports.
Brian Klunk gave a brief summary on how the University compares to other institutions and stressed three points:
1. Assessment of student learning be a centerpiece of program review for academic programs
2. External review is essential on all program reviews
3. That program reviews feed into planning and budgeting to understand how expensive programs are in comparison to other programs
He mentioned that Pacific is behind the most advanced institutions in terms of breaking out undergraduate compared to graduate and professional program offerings. We have not provided that level of detail at the program level that some institutions have. Student life is out in front, compared to other schools.
WASC's emphasis has been more on undergraduate academic programs. They do not accredit our individual programs, they accredit the institution, but will use the program reviews as a way of measuring the overall educational effectiveness of the institution.
Provost Philip Gilbertson thanked everyone for his or her hard work. He mentioned that he enjoyed working with the IPC Committee.