Strategic Planning Committee Minutes, May 20, 2002

Strategic Planning (SPC) Committee Minutes
June 3, 2002

MEMBERS PRESENT:: Bruce Morton, John Carlsten, Mary Noll, Mark Sheehan, Jon Wraith.

OTHERS PRESENT: Kathy Attebury.

ABSENT: Bill Brown, Kay Chafey, Betsy Centa, Jaynee Groseth, Greg Johnson, ASMSU representative.

Bruce Morton, Chair, convened the meeting at 3:00 PM. Vice Provost Joe Fedock attended the meeting to provide input regarding MSU's potential for growth (including capacity for additional students, physical plant capacity, expansion of the curriculum or growth within the current curriculum). There seems to be the assumption that there is capacity for growth at MSU. What is the empirical data that supports the assumption?

In response to a question, Vice Provost Fedock stated that there are internal and external factors that will move MSU's growth in certain directions. The external factors are not necessarily "good" or "bad" but because MSU responds in an opportunistic environment, these factors will help determine the direction of the university. Federal agencies such as NIH will continue to be significant drivers, as long as Montana's congressional delegation and the political environment is supportive of funding from these agencies coming to Montana. Although there will be growth in faculty positions, it is likely the majority of the growth will be in research faculty and professional positions. Additional faculty and research will influence distribution of physical space on campus.

In the past ten years, the student population has not experienced growth at the same rate as grant and contract activity. Does MSU want to have growth in student population comparable to growth in research activity? The number of graduate students at MSU needs to increase, but it is often more cost effective to have professionals work in research than it is to have graduate students, so faculty are not highly motivated to increase the number of graduate students. Although state funding to the university increases with increased graduate students, the money does not necessarily go to the department or individual directing graduate students to offset the cost of additional students. Low stipends for graduate teaching assistants also inhibit recruitment of graduate students. To accomplish funded research, it needs to be determined how to balance the most efficient way to complete the task at hand while educating students. From a planning point of view, a positive incentive structure needs to be developed for faculty to have graduate students.

MSU has a lower percent of graduate students than most land grant universities. MSU is a rural institution, which may contribute to this. In addition, there are fewer professional programs, such as an MBA, at MSU than at many comparative universities, and this may contribute to the size of the graduate student body.

Motivations for increasing the amount of research include institutional reputation and the opportunity for some funding flexibility within the university, but there are other motivations, as well.

It is not clear that research and instruction compete for the same funds. However, it appears that research and instruction do compete for space. It was agreed that a lack of long range planning has huge resource implications on instruction, because projects that begin in the research arena with research funding may over time come to depend upon state funding.

The observation was made that during the past several years, many tenure track hires appear to have been made upon research criteria, although these individuals are instructional faculty, also. If an individual is not the faculty member who would have been hired if the classes to be covered in the curriculum were carefully considered, there are major curricular implications. Concern was expressed for the degree of specialization of many new hires and their ability to teach basic courses in their general disciplinary area, given the nature of MSU as an undergraduate institution.

Where is the demand for growth within the undergraduate program and are hires being made based on this growth? There has been an increase in adjunct faculty during the past years, and offering classes for a growing number of undergraduates will probably be partially addressed by continuing to increase the number of adjuncts. It was pointed out that there is little incentive for tenure track faculty to teach at the freshman level, because, within the MSU reward structure, a class containing a large number of students is considered to be the same as teaching an upper-division class with a small number of students. Does this affect retention?

From a departmental viewpoint, what is the motivation for a department to increase the number of students, if the number of students increases faster than resources? "Growth pool resources" may help alleviate the problem, but this funding is not added to the base, and additional resources usually lag behind the increase in students.

There has been steady pressure for growth in some areas, but the institution has not decided strategically if that is where the university wants growth to occur. Some departments and colleges have capped the number of students, although it has not been determined if this is in the best interest of the institution. A new administrator could set different priorities for a unit with little oversight from the university. It appears the shape of the organization has heretofore been determined without adequate central vision or control.

In response to a question regarding what it would take to give the instructional area of the university the power that the research area appears to have in making decisions, the Vice Provost stated that the Provost should be designated as the "second-in-command" after the President and serve as the Senior Vice President (Dr. Chapman, during his tenure in the Provost's Office, had this title).

An evolving organizational structure is important, but it must be done within the framework of long-range and strategic planning. To create cohesiveness, administrative authority and responsibility need to go together. If an individual has responsibility for a program, that individual needs to have administrative authority, particularly in the area of funding.

What issues should the Strategic Planning Committee consider as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are discussed?

<>LI>Although a lot of decisions are within the control of the university, is appears the Board of Regents is making decisions that will make if more difficult for MSU and UM to achieve growth. Differential tuition will make it less expensive to attend the smaller units. During discussion, the point was made that although differential tuition may be problematic, it may not be unreasonable, since there is an assumption that attending MSU or UM is "value-added". Could some of the smaller units become more viable while increasing the integrity of MSU and UM because students would make more appropriate decisions about where to enroll and thereby be more likely to succeed?

• Organizational structures are important.
  
• Authority and responsibility need to go hand in hand at all levels.
  
• Although physical space has always been an issue, it is becoming increasingly so as funding patterns are changing.

As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:15 PM.