State Murray University Goals SubCommittee of the Strategic Planning Council Fall Planning MeetingNovember 1, 2006
The Goals Subcommittee of the Strategic Planning Council met in the Danny Harrison Conference Room to discuss the selection of Goals for the ve planning units for the academic year 2007-2008. Present: Michael Buckman, Michael Bokeno, Cindy Clemson, Jay Morgan, Carl Prestfeldt, John McDonald, Ed Thome, Neil Weber. Agenda Items: 1) Elect a co-chair to replace Gerry Muuka. This was deferred until a later date when more committee members were present. (2) Present initiatives already planned within each unit for 2007-2008 Co-Chair Thome had requested that committee members come prepared with brief summaries of initiatives which the university or their unit was preparing for the next year. He started off by reading a statement which Interim President Miller had made to the Faculty Senate about Regional Stewardship and monies which the University was going to be seeking to aid Murray State in this regard. This topic and the President Dunns interest in it was echoed by John McDonald. Overall, it was felt that this fell under Goal 4.6, with Goal 4.6 interpreted liberally by various planning units to include elements of Goals 4.1 and 4.3. Next, Dr. Weber referred to Question 1 under the Priorities for Action in the CPEs Action Plan for Murray State. Are More Kentuckians ready for postsecondary education? Among the subentries for this question are ones which address the supply of strong, qualied P-12 teachers. The discussion led to the choice of Goal 2.10 as the broad goal which addressed this specically and Question 1 in general. Finally, Karl Prestfeldt mentioned the Enterprise Resource Planning System, which would have considerable impact across all the campus. Goal 5.3 seemed to t this quite well. Further, was it decided by the committee that this tentative selection of overarching goals (2.10, 4.6, 5.3) be sent out to the entire membership of the Goals Committee for approval.
(3) Discuss the selection of Goals for the 5 Planning Units for 2007-2008, and how many goals to have in common across the 5 Planning Units. It was felt that each of these three (Goal 2.10, Goal 4.6, Goal 5.3) could be addressed by all units (as overarching goals), if the planning units were allowed to interpret them liberally. Further discussion of this is unnecessary unless the full Goals Subcommittee rejects one of these goals. (4) Discuss more fully what to do when a goal chosen by us for a planning unit does not appear to be addressable by the planning unit. Options discussed last time: (a) having them substitute a goal; (b) giving them a bye; (c) helping them with action steps to address it at least in some minimal way (as a support to other planning units, for instance). For this year, it is thought that each planning unit will have an opportunity to address each of these three goals, if the are given ...