| |JCU Home Page > About JCU | Mission | Academics | Campus Life | Athletics | Alumni | |
 |
 |
|
| • | |
| • | |
| • | |
| • | |
| • | |
|
TO: The University Community Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Fr. Niehoff thanked the members of the UPG who are leaving the committee: P. Lauritzen and A. Kugler. N. Santilli thanked the entire group for all of their work this year as well before adjourning the meeting at 9:55 a.m. ------------------------------------------- TO: The University Community Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Group at its meeting of April 27, 2007. Dr. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:38 a.m. in AD 48. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved without objection. D. La Guardia welcomed new acting dean K. Schuele to the group. N. Santilli told the group that Sasaki will be back Tuesday, May 8 through Thursday, May 10, and has 50-minute meetings scheduled back-to-back with each academic department. Fr. Niehoff distributed a reprint of the Vision, Mission, Core Values, Strategic Initiatives (VMCVSI) Statement noting that a few slight changes may have been made to the document since the group previously considered it. This version is an attempt to respond to the comments heard in several meetings including the one with the UPG. Specifically, an attempt has been made to include language on teaching and academic strengths. He noted that the four open hearings are scheduled for next week and wanted to give the UPG one last look at it before those meetings. In response to a suggestion that the faculty may ask the place of research, Fr. Niehoff said that he considers it to be part of “scholarship” and “teacher-scholar.” Fr. Niehoff then began the discussion of the longer mission statement and its relation to the VMCVSI document. He does not see this new statement as a replacement for the current mission statement; that they in fact work together. The VMCVSI document is the operational piece that we will refer to often. Fr. Niehoff then asked the group to consider the work that Fr. Gray did, at Fr. Niehoff’s request, to “update” our longer mission statement by viewing a copy with the suggested changes tracked. The changes are for currency of language and accuracy. In the process of doing that, Fr. Gray suggested an alternate third paragraph with some additional edits, and a recreated last paragraph. Noting that it was not his intention to bring this to the group the last week of April, Fr. Niehoff said that he is willing to take the minor language edits to the board for approval in May, and therefore for inclusion in the new UG Bulletin. He acknowledged that the new paragraphs are a different matter and he asked for the group’s suggestions for incorporating them. How should this be taken to the whole community? He also noted that, while we may eventually adopt a new mission statement, the current one with these changes should serve the university for four or five more years. P. Lauritzen suggested that, given the extensive discussions of the VMCVSI document, we could adopt all of the changes in the longer mission statement. S. Wertheim asked which would be in the Bulletins. Fr. Niehoff said that both would be if the hearings next week indicate that the new document can go to the board for approval in May. B. Williams said that he sees the longer mission statement as the university’s identity and tradition document and the VMCVSI as the action plan, how we are living our mission. There was discussion of using the phrase “the presence of Jesuits and colleagues” in the mission statement. K. Schuele noted that she has had the opportunity to speak to a number of students, parents and alumni in the past year, and that the presence of Jesuits on campus is seen as very important to them, especially the older alums. She suggested that as long as we can still make the claim, that it should remain in the statement. Fr. Niehoff noted that in his time in Jesuit institutions, his perception is that none have been controlled by Jesuits. P. Lauritzen suggested looking into highlighting how many faculty and staff have done the Spiritual Exercises. Fr. Niehoff also noted that we will need to eventually replace Fr. Gray’s position, but only when we can afford someone who will be effective. There was discussion of the shortage of Jesuits and the strong competition for them across the other 27 colleges and universities and the two theology schools. There are also other missions that appeal to many of the younger Jesuits. Fr. Niehoff asked the group how much time should be spent at the open hearings on the mission statement edits. S. Wertheim suggested that Fr. Niehoff take our comments and share them with Fr. Gray. He agreed and asked if we do not use the new third paragraph, can we go ahead with the other efforts? After some discussion, it was decided that only the VMCVSI document should be discussed at the open hearings. However, it will be mentioned that some language edits are being made to the mission statement, and that these will be sent to the community before they are taken as recommendations to the board in May. Then, the UPG can revisit the two paragraphs next year. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 A.M. --------------------------------------------------- TO: The University Community Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Group at D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. in AD 48. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved without objection. N. Santilli introduced M. Middaugh, Assistant Vice President for Institutional Research and Planning at the University of Delaware, who gave a presentation entitled “Developing Data Sets that Drive Decision Making at JCU.” He discussed some reasons for the importance of data driven decisions: best business practice; accreditation; and the Spellings Commission. He explained how the process developed at the University of Delaware and how they were able to infuse data-driven decisions into the institutional culture. Much of the effort was driven by the budgetary decisions that needed to be made. They set ground rules for making budgetary decisions which ultimately involved determining the best way(s) to make resource reallocation decisions within academic units. They used a set of productivity/cost variables achieved through consensus. The result was a product known as “Budget Support Notebooks.” These notebooks presented for each academic department a set of teaching workload data and a set of fiscal data. It was important that departments were involved in the development and verification of the workload and expenditures data in order to obtain the necessary buy-in and ownership of the data being used for academic management and planning. The process and result helped transform a group of independent academic departments “into a coherent university, with each unit contributing in meaningful ways to realizations of the University’s mission areas of teaching, research, and service.” While the use of the budget support analysis was useful for comparisons between and among like departments within the University, it was thought that comparisons would be substantially enhanced if departments could compare themselves with same-discipline departments at actual peer universities and to those at institutions to which the University aspires. The Delaware Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity was thus born out of this need for external comparative information. Begun in 1992, over the past decade, it has emerged as an important tool for benchmarking data on faculty teaching loads, direct instructional costs, and externally funded faculty scholarship, all at the academic discipline level of analysis. This is important in that it has been found that over 80 percent of the variance in instructional expenditures across four-year institutions is accounted for by the disciplines that comprise an institution’s curriculum. Typically 180 to 200 institutions participate in any given data cycle. The pool is typically two-thirds state-assisted schools and one-third private, independent institutions. There are usually 45 to 55 research universities, 25 to 35 doctoral universities, 60 to 75 comprehensive institutions, and 35 to 50 baccalaureate institutions. The benchmarks provide detailed teaching load data by faculty category (ten/ten track, other regular faculty, supplemental faculty, and GAs); by level of instruction (lower division UG, upper division UG, and graduate); and by student credit hours and organized class sections taught. The Delaware Study also benchmarks academic and fiscal year productivity and expenditure data by providing the following: direct expense per student credit hour taught; direct expense per FTE student taught; personnel expense as a proportion of total instructional expense; externally funded research expenditures per FTE ten/ten track faculty; and externally funded service expenditures per FTE ten/ten track faculty. M. Middaugh answered several questions from the group. The measures can be compared across different peers by academic discipline. The main time commitment involves the first-time collection of the faculty productivity/cost of instruction data; after an institution goes through the process once, successive efforts are less time-consuming. It should be an exercise that makes us better managers. He recommended that an institution of John Carroll’s size should have at lease two professionals in an IR office. He briefly noted how the data could be used in academic program reviews. Its usefulness requires two, but preferably three years of trend data. It is possible to build prior years to get three year trends. He offered that there is a Banner User group that meets at the AIR Forum that discusses the Delaware Study which might be helpful. Fr. Niehoff noted that about half of the Jesuit institutions now participate in the Delaware Study. The meeting adjourned at 10:07 A.M. ---------------------------------------------------------------- TO: The University Community Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Group at its meeting of February 23, 2007. D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. in AD 48. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved without revision. R. Celli debriefed the group following the visit by Sasaki. Sasaki is a very flat organization committed to total collaboration. They were given a good tour of the campus and buildings in the last two days. The local architects and engineers will begin looking at building structures and providing evaluations. Sasaki sees the JCU project as a retooling process. The university is a beautiful and significant place but the energy is embedded too deep in the buildings. They want to bring life to campus. R. Celli told the group about Sasaki’s meeting with the students. The student group contained members of all classes but were mostly freshmen and juniors; all were from Ohio, New York, or Pennsylvania; two lived off-campus; all but two have a car. There were some common themes and responses from the students. Common kitchen and living areas are needed in residence life options. Having all four classes under one roof was viewed as NOT a good idea, especially for and among freshmen. Common areas are needed at common intersections of life. There need to be computers where they live. The meal plan is the biggest reason people live off campus. They would like to see food available in Dolan as well as more food choices and a meal plan with fewer meals required but with more plus points. The students rated academics extremely high. They think that the Shula stadium is not used enough. Not having a car on campus was not seen as a problem. Remote lot parking would be acceptable with safety and a longer-running shuttle service available. R. Celli thought Sasaki received a lot of good information on this visit. We still need to pin down how we continue interaction with the city. We are also working on setting up a method for communication amongst ourselves. In addition to buildings, they are looking at circulation and pathways. While they have done some preliminary space utilization analysis, they now realize that they will have to correct the way some spaces have been categorized (e.g. Bohannon space as labs; teaching vs research lab distinctions). They are interested in ultimately providing multi-layer living, community spaces. UPG members emphasized the need to look at the entire student life by including academics in the discussion more. The group questioned whether there was a breakdown in communications with the city and how we can work to improve the relations. What can we offer University Heights? Fr. Niehoff noted that he often gets requests for residents to attend classes. We should specify networks where we can work with the city. Fr. Gray also recommended bringing Gesu into conversation with Sasaki. The group moved on to a discussion of the draft document prepared by Fr. Niehoff : “Mission, Vision, Core Values and Strategic Initiatives.” Fr. Niehoff explained how we got to this document. It is in response to the June planning retreat’s stated need to articulate who we are and what we are about. It has taken shape over six to eight months. He believes that it is clearly grounded in the tradition of John Carroll but also pushes us in directions that are more clearly on the minds of our alumni and regional leaders. The city needs to know that we are committed to the economic development of the region. Fr. Niehoff asked the group not to engage in word-smithing today, but to identify what is missing in the document and whether it makes a commitment that we should not be making. He sees the document’s power in its global sense, framed in the national debate on the value of education. It is concerned not just about a class, a student, or the development of a student but on the kinds of people that we graduate. He spoke about each core value and about how John Carroll is very much built on them. The document is an attempt to clearly articulate who we are and what we do. It is not intended to be a marketing document. He asked the group to consider how this document connects to our current two page mission statement. He told the group that he has asked H. Gray, S.J., to provide a newer, better definition of “Jesuit education” for substitution into the two page mission statement. He would like to take the change and this document to the board for approval in May. Going forward, he plans to hold a series of forums to engage the community in conversation before taking it to the board. The group responded favorably to the document. Anne K. asked how much of it is descriptive and how much is aspiration and warned that everyone will scrutinize every decision on campus in its light. Fr. Niehoff replied that half describes us and half describes us potentially in a way that we do not usually talk about ourselves. His intent is to spark a conversation about mission that needs to take place. The document will hold us all to a higher standard, and that will begin with him. In response to some questions, Fr. Niehoff clarified that the core values will not change but that the strategic initiatives could change every three or four years. The group made several suggestions for change including using “creating a memorable learning experience for our students.” It was noted that the development of faculty and staff is also important. A. Costigan suggested that we need to more clearly integrate student life and academic life. The group questions whether there is a need for an additional document with amplifications and clarifications, or perhaps a preamble is needed. The group suggested that we must consider how all of us would use this within our departments, committees, etc. Fr. Niehoff stated that one goal is to empower every individual in how this describes us and how we might want to change. P. Lauritzen asked about a timeline for the document’s adoption and how that might influence the core curriculum questions. Fr. Niehoff said it depends upon how quickly we can build consensus. If we can make it work by the May board meeting, that would be great. If we have to go until the October meeting, that would be okay too. Before adjourning, E. Peck informed the group that a budget committee update is coming. The meeting adjourned at 10:02 A.M. ---------------------------------------------------- TO: The University Community D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. in AD 48. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved with one revision. The two new student representatives on the committee, A. Costigan and M. Delaney, were introduced and welcomed. Three representatives from Sasaki will be on campus Feb. 21 and have meetings scheduled with several groups across campus. The UPG will meet with them on Thursday, February 22, at 8:30 a.m. in the LSC Conference Room. Two handouts were distributed: a copy of a working schedule; and a draft describing the characteristics of a benchmarking study. The UPG will also meet on Friday, February 23, as scheduled, to continue the dialogue on mission. The group should begin looking at Mission and Place, the book provided earlier this year. Referring to the benchmarking study by Sasaki, B. Williams asked how our peers are going to be defined. N. Santilli said that while they may have some in mind, we will help them determine that. H. Gray, S.J., led the group in a discussion of the third chapter “Models of Catholic Universities” from the M. M. Morey and J. J. Piderit, S.J., book Catholic Higher Education: A Culture in Crisis. The book received a great deal of notoriety because McBrien from Notre Dame gave it a laudatory but cautious review, and many read it based upon that. H. Gray, S.J., believes the authors are too mild in presenting the immersion model; they do not bring out the dangers in it. Institutions following that model are not preparing people for the real world. L. Eisenmann said that she does not think that service or justice is as widespread across higher education as the authors seem to portray. Often students here do those things as an expression of their faith; that aspect could be used to distinguish JCU from others. The group agreed that viewing any school, especially JCU, as one particular model and being able to strategize from that could be problematic. Also, alumni, faculty, students and parents may see JCU differently from each other. H. Gray, S.J., noted that the immersion model grew because it had to: other schools would not admit Catholics. In the course of the group’s discussion, it was noted that when people, especially faculty, hear “Catholic” they see the immersion model, but when they hear “Jesuit” they see room for inquiry, that is, a true university. How does all of this become involved in the decision making process and how does it get enforced in relation to mission? In considering what brings students to JCU, it was suggested that the list includes the reputation of academic programs, the availability of student activities and the opportunity to develop. Students may also find it comforting to have religious opportunities available to them if they want them. R. Niehoff, S.J., said that while JCU has many excellent programs, it cannot ride excellence into success. We must use social justice and service to distinguish ourselves. However, if this distinguishability is just for marketing purposes, then what is the point? We must articulate JCU’s commitment to social justice and service more clearly. We must be about engagement. We must make students more prepared for their futures: engagement; inclusion; and global awareness. H. Gray, S.J., noted that we are just beginning the discussion of the many ways mission can be done. The discussion today was valuable and hopefully helps build an underlying sense of trust and mutual respect. What would an outsider find at JCU in a mission audit? We are all in formation here; we need to create a learning environment for all of us, students, faculty, administrators, and staff. The mission is for all of us. We need to define and articulate mission but do so without rigidity. We need to ask “Where can we be of help in the world?” R. Niehoff, S.J., noted that learning must be about service, or it will not be worth it. We must define better who we are, and articulate it so that we can attract the people we want. L. Eisenmann suggested the need to define “service” locally. J. Smith noted that we also must not neglect to address “the gorilla in the room,” specifically, how religion plays into mission. He suggested that sometimes religion and faith are seen as anti-intellectual, anti-inquiry. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 A.M. ---------------------------------------------
JANUARY 22, 2007 TO: The University Community FROM: Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President
SUBJECT: Summary of UPG Meeting, December 15, 2006 Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Group at its meeting of December 15, 2006. D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:37 a.m. in AD 48. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved without objection. B. Celli provided a Facilities Master Plan update. He reported that eight RFP’s were sent out; two of those firms withdrew because of additional work that they had taken on. Out of those remaining, three are making presentations on campus, two this week and one next. He distributed a schematic showing the estimated ten month development process. He would like to propose a recommendation to Fr. Niehoff by the middle of January and start the process in February. He has planned for five major meetings with the UPG as well as five categories of meetings/data gathering. He would like to identify one point person for each category who would be the main contact for that area and needs the group’s help in choosing those people. In response to questions from the group, B. Celli addressed using a local versus non-local firm, discussions with other facilities directors both before sending out RFP’s and about working with specific personnel within the firms now, as well as looking at the number of hours we would be buying and how those are distributed across the team. The group then discussed “Tracking the Mission and Identity Question: Three Decades of Inquiry and Three Models of Interpretation” by Appleyard, S.J. and Gray, S.J. Fr. Gray began by saying that working on mission has become almost a “cottage industry,” especially in the area of the professions and any institution that has a divinity school. The article suggests three models of education: control; professional; and mission. He noted that while the article is six years old, what has changed is that more money and resources are being put into evangelical institutions, ones that are more conservative. Some institutions will make their emphasis on mission more and more pronounced. Responding to a question on the connection between money, mission and the board, H. Gray noted the importance of educating the board and of continuing to bring faculty, students and professional staff into board meetings to show how mission is being adapted. There should continue to be an open-ness about discussions as well as informal support for what people want to talk about. In response to a question concerning JCU’s model of education, H. Gray, S.J., said it is more of a professional model but should move to a mission model. He suggested movement toward that mission model would require honoring the mystery that is part of life. Liberating people from their disciplines, making things more interdisciplinary would allow these conversations to happen. L. Bowen suggested that there may be need for structural change. Fr. Gray said that we have not found a way to gather those “eureka” moments. He noted that we do not end meetings – they just end. At the end of a meeting we should ask what did we learn, what should we not do again? D. O’Malley and J. Mullner were asked to comment on how well JCU is doing in uniting heart and head. Both agreed that there needed to be more of an effort made to pull it all together. While students have a multitude of experiences - academics, social service activities, Student Union and other student leadership opportunities – the often fail to make the connection between those. They are not really reflecting on how they can become a force in the world. H. Gray, S.J., said that mission should be embedded into decision making structures. We should not be afraid to talk about belief, but where do we talk about it? L. Bowen said that we are better at talking about economic justice but not gender justice, especially when the control model bumps up against the professional model. S. Wertheim noted the importance of assessment, and that hopefully our students have built a skill bank that allows it to come together in the future. P. Rombalski noted the importance of developmental readiness to learn. E. Peck suggested that we perhaps need to provide students with space, time and opportunity to reflect on their experience(s). Fr. Niehoff asserted that we do have serious racial inclusion issues. Are we going to deal with it in the classroom, in the residence hall? How are we going to provide our students what they need? D. La Guardia thanked the students attending their final meeting for their tremendous contributions to making the UPG better. The UPG meeting dates for the spring semester are January 26, February 23, March 16, April 27 and May 11. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 A.M. ------------------------------------------------
December 4, 2006 TO: The University Community FROM: Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President SUBJECT: Summary of UPG Meeting, November 17, 2006
Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Group at its meeting of November 17, 2006. D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. in AD 48. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved without objection. C. Somosi and T. Fulton presented a DRAFT copy of a Graphic Identity and Editorial Standards Manual for JCU and discussed the high points of this style guide. The need for the development of the manual came out of the planning retreat this past summer. The manual is intended to provide guidelines for the university, leaving room for creativity. The editorial guidelines provided for university communication (i.e. non-academic) use both the Associated Press Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style. Spelling and hyphenation standards are determined using Webster’s New World College Dictionary. The manual covers the following topics: Graphic Identity and Editorial Standards; Resources for Users; How the University Marketing and Communications Department Can Help; Logo Use; Use of University Seal; Official Colors; Letterhead, Envelopes, Business Cards and other Identity Collateral; Messaging Guidelines; Advertising; Imagery; Web Development Styles and Procedures Overview; Standards of Language and Style; and Names of Buildings, Gardens, and Rooms. Internal marketing of the manual is to begin in January, 2007. Dissemination of the guide and construction of a web-based collateral resource page is scheduled for February. Roll out and initial internal adoption is scheduled for March through May with full adoption to occur June through December, 2007. The group made several suggestions (e.g. putting our mission statement on the back of our business cards) and discussed the possible evolution of the university’s tag line, its logo, etc. and the need for standardization. C. Somosi stressed the need to balance the university identity with enabling a department to uniquely tell its story. There were questions on how University Marketing will manage the balance of uniformity and creativity and whether people will try to sidestep the University Marketing office. S. Crahen provided the group an update on the university’s preparation for the avian flu pandemic. A group of administrators began meeting last spring to begin planning what JCU will do if a pandemic virus comes to Cleveland. Since then, the group has changed their perspective from “if” to “when.” They are now assuming that a pandemic will happen and are trying to develop plans for a worst case scenario. They are working on a plan to close the campus and need to consider both academics (e.g. cancel classes; extend semester, etc.) and student life (e.g. what to do with students who cannot go home). They have learned much from New Orleans. They plan to submit a draft of a plan to the Administrative Leadership Team in January, and after their approval, to present it to the community. In response to questions, S. Crahen said that study abroad programs are being considered and that the group will look into coordinating with other higher education institutions, e.g. agreeing that all colleges and universities will close for four to six weeks, or for two weeks. The financial implications of such an event are huge. P. Lauritzen urged the group to develop PR plans for how to talk about the decisions that are made. N. Santilli distributed the article “Tracking the Mission and Identity Question” for discussion at the next UPG meeting. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 A.M. -----------------------------------------------------
November 9, 2006 TO: The University Community FROM: Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President SUBJECT: Summary of UPG Meeting, October 20, 2006
Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Group at its meeting of October 20, 2006 D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. in AD 48. He welcomed new members D. Ben-Porath and K. O’Dell who were unable to attend the last meeting. He noted that Fr. Niehoff had an appointment rescheduled and therefore could not attend today’s meeting. The minutes of the September 22 meeting were approved without objection. D. La Guardia then asked B. Celli to lead the discussion of the revised RFP for the Facilities Master Plan. B. Celli highlighted changes made to the third revision. It should be sent out next week to the firms remaining on the bid list. He requested the group to return any comments to him, especially on the academic side, by Wednesday. It should present a wide view and a clear sense of who we are. Pages 7 through 11 have been reformulated into five main core items or programs: academic; administrative; housing; recreation/athletics; and student services. These five areas need to be well defined. Many more discussions will be taking place, especially in the academics area, and that much will unfold in the interview process with the chosen group. The RFP will go out to eight design firms. The proposals received will be evaluated and three or four will be selected to do a presentation. The chosen group will conduct many interviews in the development phase. Also embedded in the process will be a space utilization study. B. Celli suggested that we begin forming the special groups that the planners will meet with so that we can begin to develop a schedule. N. Santilli informed the group that he drafted some paragraphs to include in the front end (page 4) of the proposal, distributing a copy of these to the group. A. Kugler and P. Lauritzen voiced their unhappiness with the current version of the area on academics in the RFP and volunteered to revise the section after contacting department chairs and others to further develop the presentation of academic needs. J. Smith offered to assist in the effort. B. Williams asked the group to consider that the key goal of the current point in the process is to choose a vendor. He suggested that a balance of detail is needed. Before B. Celli and K. Willis left, B. Celli informed the group that the people receiving the RFP are the cream of the crop and that developing the Master Plan will be a process that we will enjoy. N. Santilli then asked the group to consider his report on the June 2006 Planning Retreat. He has met with the vice presidents to update what has been happening on the initiatives developed at the retreat. The group agreed that N. Santilli should annotate the list of initiatives on page 20 of the report with the progress that has been made for distribution/publication to the community. We need to demonstrate what has come out of the planning retreat. H. Gray, S.J., then talked to the group about a few documents concerning Catholic identity. He summarized the Jesuit Community responses to a Catholic identity survey. He also talked about the previously distributed remarks of the JCU community (Jesuits excluded) from the Catholic identity survey conducted at the end of the spring 2006 semester. The survey process involved having four groups answer three questions. From your experience at John Carroll what are the expressions of its Catholic identity that you: would want to see confirmed and sustained; think need to be strengthened, improved, or better articulated and implemented; would like to see introduced. He also distributed to the group a book review from the America of October 23, 2006, for Living Vatican II, by Gerald O’Collins, S.J. Fr. Gray pointed out that we need to make it clear that we “purchase Catholicism” differently here at JCU than the “Evangelical Catholics” discussed in part of the book. He noted that much of what they do disregards or goes against the last Jesuit Congregation documents. Fr. Gray asked “What kind of a Catholic university do we want to be?” How do we get the community involved in defining how John Carroll University is Catholic? In John Carroll’s understanding of its Catholicism, pluralism is seen as a gift not a threat. Fr. Gray agreed to provide the group with some readings to help with a discussion of the topic. He noted that it is important to hear from those who come out of other traditions and what they think and feel. He said that it is the thread of social justice that binds us; that is what we can contribute to the city. We need do determine how we live our mission, how it permeates everything we do, and how we should get everyone involved. Fr. Gray also noted that the Bishop is happy that we are looking to see how JCU can help the Church. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 A.M. ----------------------------------------------------------- October 16, 2006 TO: The University Community FROM: Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President SUBJECT: Minutes of Meeting, September 22, 2006
Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Group at its meeting of September 22, 2006 D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. in the Arts & Sciences Conference Room. He welcomed the new members to the group, two of whom were unable to attend this morning’s meeting. The minutes of the meeting of May 5 were approved without objection. Fr. Niehoff offered some opening comments. He realized over the last year that the UPG was the most cross-university representative group on campus. In order to make it more so he has added both a staff and an administrative representative from STAD. He has also added E. Peck to the UPG and N. Santilli to the Budget Committee to better integrate planning and budgeting. He wants to use the UPG to process all the strategic planning and initiatives of the university. We need to be clear with our strategic plan, setting mission based priorities to build together the new John Carroll University. He sees the university’s strengths to be the learning environment, the campus, and the Catholic, Jesuit tradition of leadership and service. We must align ourselves to take advantage of the 21st century opportunities which utilize our strengths. Using a campus master plan as our starting point, we will begin to set priorities for a capital campaign and develop and build a consensus around a mission, vision and core values document. He is looking to the UPG as the follow-up group for the June planning retreat. The university is beginning to make changes in the advancement unit. There is a need to build the Carroll community and a need to invest in advancement. However, it is not just the president who needs to be involved in presenting the university to alumni and the public; it must also be the faculty and students. He is also thoughtfully driving change to the JCU Magazine, including creating an advisory board, to better present JCU to alumni and the public. He then addressed the need for a campus master plan and the process that will be used to develop one beginning with the Request for Proposal (RFP) that the group reviewed for today’s meeting guided by R. Celli and K. Willis. Fr. Niefhoff said that he used a small group of people to develop this document intended to accurately describe the university, realizing that it is only doing such for the near future. The campus master plan must be flexible, with at most a five to seven year horizon, so that change can be considered and incorporated. A group of university personnel attended the “Campus on the Future” joint NACUBO/SCUP conference this summer and have used that experience to cull the list of firms invited to reply to the RFP. ---------------------------------------- September 1, 2006 TO: The University Community FROM: Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President SUBJECT: University Planning Group Meeting of May 5, 2006
Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Group at its meeting of May 5, 2006. D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. in the Arts & Sciences Conference Room. The minutes of the meeting of April 7 were approved without objection. T. Fanning then gave the group an admission report saying that they still have work to do on a daily basis. They will continue to admit people; their goal is 780 freshmen. So far, twenty-six students who placed a deposit have cancelled. Aid awarding has not been a problem according to HardwickDay – i.e. no area needed to be re-packaged. T. Fanning noted that other Ohio schools seem to be doing okay. Both Miami and OSU are acting more like selective private institutions than like publics. He said that OSU is someone to watch in that their profile is better than ours, and they are rejecting people who we have accepted. He said that fewer JCU applicants submitted FAFSAs, a concern in that either people think they have the money, or JCU is number seven on their list of schools. The Admission Office has made calls to some of these students to tell them that we have money for them and that they should file a FAFSA. T. Fanning said that they have 700 Common Applications. Over 90% of JCU’s applications come in online (and fee free). We still ask for an essay which many students see as a hurdle. He also noted that they have been doing more recruitment, especially electronically. He informed the group that deposits from our top twenty feeder schools are down by 72. He worries that JCU may have an image problem that is being spread by word of mouth. He noted that inquiries are up to 32,000 with a ten to eleven percent conversion rate, which is the industry standard. He informed the group that Jack Maguire is coming to JCU next week to supplement the reports from 1998-99, especially on image. Brian Williams will look at our message and communication process. He noted that our discount rate right now is lower but that could be affected with summer admits. He reported that transfer admissions are up this year and noted that different financial aid was used this year. Something more like the freshman model was used. In response to questions from the group, he said that many Ohio private schools are as, or more, expensive than JCU, and gave the following school tuitions: JCU, $32,862; Dayton, $31,160; Xavier, $31,990; Miami University, $29,197; and CWRU, $41,479. He also informed the group that, as of this date, five of the incoming 707 freshmen are Cleveland opportunity grant students. He said that also makes them Pell-eligible to cover room and board. J. Smith asked T. Fanning to comment on the image issue that he mentioned earlier. T. Fanning said that he is concerned about some of the press JCU has received in The Plain Dealer. He also mentioned the effects of some harsh headlines in The Carroll News. But he noted too that JCU’s image is also conveyed with the visuals on envelopes and other various printed material. D. La Guardia then commented on the Fine Arts proposal that was to be on the agenda. He noted his appreciation for all the work that has been done on it. He informed the group that the proposal could not be added to the retreat agenda, and therefore there is no need to urgently assemble something. He expressed the hope that we would get more perspective on this issue during the June retreat. He then discussed the endowed professorship proposals. He noted that they had gotten away from the original idea, but that the new version is also good. He said that we must think in terms of giving the Development Office attractive options as possibilities for donors. After discussion by the group, it was recommended that one of the proposal’s title be changed to Endowed Research Professorship. D. La Guardia also recommended that one proposal go back to a discipline-specific non-competitive chair. At the June planning retreat, Jim Appleton will facilitate. He will be walking the group through a series of activities using the strategic plan. We will attempt to determine what needs to go forward and what else needs to be addressed given our current situation. We will determine some operational initiatives as well as some longer term initiatives. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 A.M. -------------------------------------------------- May 4, 2006 TO: The University Community FROM: Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President SUBJECT: University Planning Group Meeting of April 7, 2006
Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Group at its meeting of April 7, 2006. D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:35 A.M. in the Arts & Sciences Conference Room. After he clarified a couple of points in the minutes of the meeting of March 3, they were approved. L. Eisenmann and A. Kugler then provided an update on the work of the Fine Arts subcommittee. For this purpose, they had sent a “Fine Arts Enhancement Summary” to UPG members prior to the meeting. A. Kugler explained that the subcommittee wanted to generate something for the planning retreat in June. The subcommittee had taken into account the suggestions made in the 1998 report on the fine arts at John Carroll. Offering brief remarks about the summary, she emphasized that the subcommittee had made a point of including fine arts possibilities that were not too costly. L. Eisenmann added that the subcommittee wanted to keep advancing the fine arts agenda with an awareness of current budget constraints. Referring to the summary, L. Bowen asked how “short-term” suggestions were to be understood. A. Kugler replied that they might be realized in the next year or two. D. La Guardia asked whether the fine arts subcommittee intends to make a presentation at the June planning retreat. L. Eisenmann replied that it was unclear how the agenda for the retreat would unfold. J. Smith suggested that the fine arts proposal should spell out any assumptions regarding the need of faculty hires and the student-faculty ratio resulting from those hires. S. Wertheim urged that the fine arts proposal incorporate supporting arguments, which could make it more appealing to donors; she also suggested that the goals be formatted more clearly. J. Ivec mentioned the possibility of hidden costs involved in the proposal. The expanded use of Bohannon would mean having to deal with ADA issues and the costs related to these (and other) matters. S. Crahen asked whether the future of Bohannon would be discussed at the June planning retreat, to which J. Ivec said that it might appear on the agenda. P. Lauritzen recommended that the fine arts proposal include a clearer listing of priorities, partly so that it not be subjected to the same kind of criticism that greeted the strategic plan. For now it is not entirely clear what we would like to do, e.g., build on existing strengths or start programs from scratch. L. Eisenmann agreed, at the same time pointing out that the current draft of the proposal included many of the ideas from which priorities could be chosen. A. Kugler urged that we realize the short-term goals first, as they are all within the realm of possibility. P. Lauritzen said that the subcommittee need not make the decision as to priorities; instead that could fall to the UPG. D. La Guardia suggested that it might be helpful to list goals in the order in which it is intended they be achieved. L. Bowen said that the assumption about the size of the student body needs clarification. Also, the proposal needs a clearer rationale for the short-term goals and how they relate to the long-term ones. S. Wertheim applauded the way in which the fine arts proposal was explicitly linked to the strategic plan. She said that we also ought to explore opportunities for collaboration with local agencies such as the Cleveland Institute of Art and the Cleveland Institute of Music. It would be desirable to revisit the strategic planning goals and to foreground student recruitment and retention within them. D. La Guardia agreed that these goals ought to be more explicit. Especially difficult was deciding how far we want to go with the fine arts. L. Eisenmann suggested keeping in mind that we are working with the entire JCU community as we try to satisfy a whole range of diverse interests. A. Kugler pointed out that there are differences within that community as well, so that we have to try achieving a workable minimum. N. Santilli asked whether the committee had considered technological needs. J. Ivec thought that the Board might want a timeline, especially given the experience with the Dolan Center. D. La Guardia recalled that some Board members earlier had warned against making the fine arts our top priority. A. Kugler asked what the link was between the Board’s properties committee and UPG goals. P. Lauritzen asked whether the properties committee was responsible for determining the future of Bohannon. In response to these comments about the Board, J. Ivec offered some remarks about the dynamics of the properties committee. He also noted that, given the probable tabling of a new student center, more student services offices were likely to move into Bohannon. A. Kugler expressed concern that, while it was not within the UPG’s purview to decide exactly how Bohannon is used, other plans for its conversion could effectively rule out any space for the fine arts. D. La Guardia suggested that we should not allow the considerations of the properties committee to get in the way of our own planning. S. Wertheim observed that the overall environment has changed dramatically; while the UPG is fleshing out the priorities of the university, the Board is responsible for maintaining its fiscal health. In sum, the plan is fluid and must remain so. P. Lauritzen asked whether the UPG ought to endorse the short-term goals of the fine arts plan so that we might at least start down that path. D. La Guardia suggested putting this off until the May meeting of the UPG. At the same time, he expressed thanks to L. Eisenmann and A. Kugler for preparing the fine arts update and explaining its ideas to the UPG. H. Gray urged we review decision-making machinery in order to tighten it up. P. Lauritzen questioned whether the UPG could continue to function by meeting once a month, and suggested it too needed restructuring. S. Wertheim said that such changes could take place during the June planning retreat. N. Santilli then provided some of the logistics of the retreat. It will be held at Punderson Manor Resort, and participants will have the option of staying overnight. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 A.M. Minutes recorded by J. Krukones. ----------------------------------------------------------
March 31, 2006
TO: The University Community FROM: Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President SUBJECT: March 3, 2006 University Planning Group Meeting
Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Group at its March 3, 2006 meeting. D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. in the Arts & Sciences Conference Room. D. La Guardia distributed a memo from the Faculty Forum Committee on Research and Service in which they urged the UPG to include an endowment to support fellowships for research and development leaves in the next capital campaign. He then thanked J. Johansen for his work with the UPG subcommittee and asked him to present the two proposals that they have developed. J. Johansen distributed two proposals to the group: the “Endowed Professorship at JCU” and the “Endowment for Development of Junior Faculty.” He noted that each proposal can serve as a basic template which can be modified depending upon the department or discipline involved. He also noted the importance of student involvement in the endowed professorship proposal. He further explained that the proposed 3-year endowed professorship would allow a researcher who received it to make a hot research area hotter and thereby attract money for continuing research even after the three years covered by the award. The junior faculty development proposal involves a 2-year, possible career enhancing award. L. Eisenmann noted that on the second page of each proposal there is also the possibility of additional objectives to each of these, including internationalization, fostering interdisciplary research, and grantsmanship. J. Johansen also noted that the subcommittee saw the proposals as a way to allow someone to try something different. T. Shannon, S.J., voiced his approval and delight for the proposals in terms of language. D. La Guardia asked if the group had considered who will determine who will review the proposals. The subcommittee had not really done that but J. Johansen has thought about it and suggested that it mainly be faculty, past awardees along with some administrators. He thought that it should not be restricted to one department, but perhaps could be reviewed by division, such as the sciences. Some suggested that there is a need to be more flexible to allow a donor to contribute to a particular department and allowing departments to tap particular donors. D. La Guardia also noted that these proposals seemed different than the original intent of one endowment per department. T. Shannon, S.J., also noted the need to include a rider in the document for a departmental endowment that would allow the university, if need be in later years, to reallocate the funds to a different area. J. Johansen said that he worried that if it is in a department then the fellowship becomes an entitlement that just cycles through department members. The group discussed the pros and cons of having them be department or division specific. J. Johansen said that he would rather see fellowships with broad access for the faculty, even considering them to be a carrot for new hires; the more people that compete for them, the greater the impact. These were not to be in lieu of the Grauels. L. Bowen wondered why the junior development one was for only two years. J. Johansen said that they assumed it would need a lower cost to endow, and that it would provide more opportunities to stimulate junior faculty. T. Zlatoper asked if the committee considered whether the recipient is required to stay at JCU for some period of time. The subcommittee did not consider that. The group also discussed the effect on tenure decisions and the importance of the third year review. N. Santilli suggested that like other awards, the applicant would require letter(s) from the department chair, tenure chair and/or dean to ensure that the applicant’s teaching is adequate before focusing on research. P. Lauritzen voiced his worry that this makes research not related to teaching and that it sends a faculty member off in a direction that does not value service, such as committee work, and teaching. He also voiced concern that an emphasis on interdisciplinary research would not be valued by the department that would grant tenure. L. Bowen questioned whether this would raise the research bar for the junior faculty member. L. Eisenmann said that she wanted this viewed as something to reach for, not something that hampers us. T. Zlatoper questioned the necessary level of funding for these if they are to be available university wide, noting the disparity between departments. He asked what would happen if the recipient is in a department where the salary is higher than the endowment provides. T. Shannon, S.J., said that the intent is to ballpark it to determine the endowment amount; plus the university is already paying the salary. S. Moore questioned the difference between professorships versus chairs. D. La Guardia noted that these endowment proposals seemed to be different than what the UPG originally intended by endowed professorships. P. Lauritzen said that they are very different and that he worries that we would be abandoning the original idea of endowed professorships. S. Wertheim said that while these proposals are different than the original intent, we need both for development purposes for different kinds of donors. J. Johansen voiced his concern that the original intent would not be attractive to donors who want to make a lasting difference or impact on the university. J. Smith suggested that a variant is omitted and recommended that a fourth option (D) be added to the proposals to allow an endowment for a particular subject. The group discussed calling these fellowships rather than professorships, thereby allowing for chairs and professorships. The needs and costs of each should be developed for analysis. L. Eisenmann suggested calling these proposals endowed research professorships. D. La Guardia noted the richness of the discussion so far. How ever we are going to move, the faster we can do it, the sooner we can provide options to the Development office. He hoped that by the end of this year we would be able to get a list of “professorships” from departments for Development’s use. L. Bowen asked how we get the rest of the faculty excited about these opportunities as these ideas gel. Deans along with departments would formalize these and then communicate them from dean to chairs to department faculty. The UPG will come back to this discussion after the Committee of Academic Deans expands the menu. D. La Guardia again thanked the subcommittee for their thoughtful work. N. Santilli suggested that an inventory of what we currently have would be helpful. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved without objection. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. ---------------------------------------------------------
February 27, 2006 TO: The University Community FROM: Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President SUBJECT: December 9, 2005 University Planning Group Meeting
Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Group at its December 9, 2005 meeting. D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. in the Arts & Sciences Conference Room. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved after one typo was corrected. The meeting dates for spring 2006 semester were distributed. D. La Guardia restated the group’s decision from the previous meeting: comments from others can be conveyed via UPG “conduits” and, if signed, can be distributed to the group. E. Peck addressed the group as a representative of the Budget Committee providing an update on what the committee has been doing. They are trying to be as transparent as possible, but the committee has had to learn so much itself, and under a time crunch, that they have not had a chance to meet with the community as a whole. They’ve been meeting with groups of people and listening to them. They have had to get everyone’s bias out and get their understanding up to speed. He noted that the task is even more difficult in that much has already been done. Given the amount that needs to be cut, the group knows that it will come down to people. But how much can come from attrition? How much can be saved with reconfiguration? While they have looked at additional sources of revenue, those would be further down the line; they are not something that can be counted on in the near future. They have looked to the President’s memo for their three guiding principles: don’t make cuts that jeopardize mission; don’t do anything that detracts form the student experience; and this is not a crisis but a challenge. The desire for a balanced budget is to ensure a solid future. P. Lauritzen noted that it seemed that the group already has a lot to say and recommended that the community be updated soon with this progress. D. O’Malley asked what groups would be met with next semester, and noted that students would appreciate being involved in such a meeting. E. Peck also indicated that the group needs to be aware of the legal ramifications of various options. S. Wertheim suggested that there was a need to get people involved to get the best information, but also noted the tight deadline. She suggested that it might be a good idea to consider others’ models, to benchmark. L. Bowen asked what the implications are for hiring, especially strategically. E. Peck said that the committee will propose a highly scrutinized hiring process, but not a hiring freeze, hiring only what we absolutely need now, and to hold off hiring in non-academic areas if possible. E. Peck noted that there is an increasing concern at the growing numbers of administrators and staff, and that they are asking the vice presidents to review these positions and report back to the committee. Each vice president is asking groups within their areas to consider consolidation areas. T. Shannon, S.J., asked whether the committee has asked others, such as Loyola Chicago, about their experience in such situations. E. Peck said that the committee had contacted others, noting that Loyola, Chicago did their budget cutting with the President, not a committee. He said that both St. Louis University and Loyola, Chicago, have agreed to have conversations with the budget committee and that the committee hopes to use some of the models that they have developed. Before E. Peck left, D. La Guardia thanked him on the UPG’s behalf for his update. S. Crahen, noting the confusion that exists in the university community about how money can be available from depreciation costs, asked J. Ivec to explain to the community how this “cash” can be available. L. Eisenmann suggested having a “Q & A.” P. Lauritzen emphasized that communication is the key again and that it should happen soon to quelch rumors. D. La Guardia asked whether someone from Public Affairs might act as an information resource to the budget committee. D. La Guardia asked the group if there were any issues that people wanted to bring forth based upon the first two Town Hall Meetings. N. Santilli asked what strategic initiatives can be identified now, such as endowed professorships. He suggested looking in the academic excellence goal of the plan to see if there are others that can be moved on now. S. Wertheim recommended reconvening the subcommittee on academic excellence to flesh out the plan now in their action steps. D. La Guardia stated that we do not have a sufficient receptacle for excellent ideas. We need to regenerate a broader base for excellent ideas; it needs to be part of the discussion on academic quality. How to generate program “excitement” also needs consideration. Also, the meeting of the subcommittee on endowed professorships needs to be convened soon. The meeting adjourned at 9:55.
------------------------------------------------------------ December 5, 2005
TO: The University Community FROM: Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President SUBJECT: November 18, 2005 University Planning Group Meeting
Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Group at its November 18, 2005 meeting. D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. in the Arts & Sciences Conference Room. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved after 4 corrections were made. D. La Guardia distributed a memo from the Faculty Forum Committee on Research, Service and Faculty Development addressed to the UPG. He noted that it was for our information and that we will not address it just now. M. Beadle asked that it be noted that she addressed all three points in the memo at yesterday’s faculty forum meeting. D. La Guardia reported that he wished to address a housekeeping issue. He informed the group that as a result of E. Dezolt’s distribution of the UPG agenda and request for comments, P. Lauritzen received 3 comments that he forwarded as anonymous comments. D. La Guardia asked the group for their opinion of what should be done with these, offering that he thought that we should not distribute anonymous comments, especially written, articulated comments. The group spent time discussing the merits (or not) of anonymous comments. It was suggested that the group needs a better way to engage the faculty. Faculty members on the UPG agreed to act as conduits for colleagues, even those who wish to remain anonymous. The group agreed that if we are going to circulate typed copy, then it needs to be signed. It was also noted that we will need to make judgment calls, and that there is an important difference between confidentiality and anonymity. D. La Guardia offered a follow-up to the issues raised by the UPG at its October meeting. He noted that he had a long conversation with Fr. Niehoff and offered what he called the gist of their sharing. Fr. Niehoff thought that he would be able to attend the meetings more often and has been in motion, and therefore unavailable more often than he thought he would be. He is not absent by intention or neglect; he values the UPG’s most global view of the university. He does not come with a preconceived plan and likes the role that the UPG plays. He views the UPG as “the most knowledgeable, representative, and inclusive of our decision-making processes; it becomes involved in almost every major decision, and that’s very significant.” He said that the UPG’s role could be directly impacted by the new budget committee. In terms of actions, he would like to see the UPG move on some aspects of the plan, e.g. endowed professorships, and said he would like to see one or more of these developed within this fiscal year. D. La Guardia distinguished between a professorship as funding a current position whereas endowed chairs represent a new budget including a secretary, travel, etc. He noted that a specific dollar amount ($2M - $2.5M) would need to be determined to establish such a professorship. The UPG needs to prioritize where to start. With regard to the strategic plan, Fr. Niehoff said that the UPG needs to go on as we have been with subcommittee work, etc. Fr. Niehoff also expressed that we need much more engagement from the Board. He is therefore going to schedule a planning retreat next summer to be used as a way of discussing and establishing annual operating plans that issue out of the strategic plan for the coming year; this retreat would involve the UPG, the Leadership Team and the Board. The group discussed value of endowed professorships as being only honorific, especially from the donor’s part. It was agreed that we still need to get more specific information and details and that we could use other’s help for models. We need to think through why we are doing this; is it to increase the status of the university or a department, or to get a load reduction, etc., making it an honorific with “perks.” S. Wertheim suggested that a subcommittee discuss these details further. The following members agreed to serve on this subcommittee: J. Johansen; H. Gray, S.J.; J. Smith; L. Eisenmann; M. Beadle; and T. Shannon. This subcommittee agreed to meet with J. Ivec, as necessary, rather than having him serve as a member. J. Johansen agreed to organize this effort. S. Wertheim suggested that N. Santilli also be considered for membership. L. Eisenmann summarized their task as to come back to the UPG with some models as phase I. D. Pudloski then distributed and discussed some data on retention. The first set of JCU data showed summary stats for annual retention and graduation rates for the 1986 through 2004 freshman cohorts, as well as semester to semester counts for the same cohorts as a whole and as subsets of minority and non-minority segments. Also included was preliminary data for a project tracing retention of full-time transfer students. She then handed out a display of retention data obtained from the NCES Peer Analysis System for Jesuit schools, the OAC, and some other schools for comparison purposes. She noted that this data included only one year of cohort data, specifically the 2003 freshmen who returned for the fall 2004 semester. In a discussion of this data, it was suggested that JCU’s retention is not as bad as has been heard from talk around campus. Also noted was how closely the data reflects the impact of selectivity. D. Pudloski acknowledged that JCU’s retention is still relatively good but that it can always get better and informed the group of things that the University Retention Committee has done over the years. She said that lists are always generated at the end of priority registration and deans’ offices are asked to have advisors contacted for information about their advisees who have not yet registered. She also noted that the group is considering looking at the dollar amount currently used to create a financial block for a student to prevent them from registering. She noted that preliminary data suggested that most students with financial blocks owe much more than the small amount that creates the block, indicating thousands rather than hundreds of dollars. D. Pudloski then discussed an “early warning system” that was used in the past but that was not recreated yet in Banner. She described the aim of the system as providing helpful information to advisors for their first counseling session with new students. Faculty members who had freshmen or new full-time transfer students in their classes were asked to provide information on them by a certain deadline using the following coding scheme: 1= poor attendance; 2=assignments not completed on time; 3=not participating in class; and 4= poor class performance. Advisors were then notified if any of their advisees had any such codes before their first counseling session with the students before priority registration for the next semester so that the advisor might be better able to discuss any issues that the student may be having. D. Pudloski distributed usage statistics on the program, noting that it was becoming more used by both faculty and advisors, but not at the rate that the University Retention Committee had hoped. She informed the group that the program was abandoned for a couple of years with the adoption of Banner. But that now that we have more expertise with the system, and more time for development, a new version of the early warning system is being developed, hopefully in time for use during the spring semester. She noted that the Retention Committee hopes that the new interest on campus concerning retention will help increase usage of the system that is being designed. She also explained other activities that the University Retention Committee performs, such as collecting reasons why students leave when they are available and looking for trends. She noted that this information does not seem as readily available as it had been in the past, and that the committee is looking at new ways to address this task. The Retention Committee also recommended that this fall’s incoming minority freshmen be registered in some set of courses as a “block,” but that for some reason(s), that did not happen. She then gave an update on the work of the task force on minority retention. The meeting adjourned at 10:05.
------------------------------------------
TO: The University Community FROM: Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President SUBJECT: Meeting of the University Planning Group, 21 October 2005
Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Group at its meeting of October 21, 2005. D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. in the CAS Conference Room. The minutes of the meeting of September 9 were approved without change. The first item of business was an update on the first-year class by T. Fanning. He reported that first-year enrollment stood at 786, an increase of 7% over 2004; transfer students number 110. The male/female ratio is 49/51. The freshman class witnessed a slight rise in the percentage of students living on campus; test scores also showed improvement by comparison with the previous year. The percentage of out-of-state students rose from 28% in 2004 to 34% in 2005, a phenomenon attributable to the purchase of additional names of prospective out-of-state students. The applicant pool totaled 3,057, an 11% increase over 2004. This year also witnessed a 21% growth in applications from Jesuit high schools. Our acceptance rate dropped from 88% to 85%, making John Carroll somewhat more selective than in recent years. Of the new students, 8.8% are persons of color; the university keeps working to raise that figure to 10%. A disappointing aspect of the situation is our yield rate, which, at 30.2%, represents a figure lower than expected and projected; until last year John Carroll had one of the highest yield rates among Jesuit schools. It will be necessary to increase both applications and yields. T. Fanning said that he will be meeting with representatives of Hardwick Day for a postmortem on the first-year class. He noted, too, that recruitment efforts for next year’s class of incoming freshmen are already well underway. The Admission office saw the departure of several personnel last year, but new hires have compensated for those losses. Of our feeder schools, St. Ignatius in Cleveland continues to head the list. The total head count for all of our students fell by 91 compared with last year. The number of transfers also experienced a drop; likewise, the part-time student population is withering. A hopeful sign is the number of inquiries. One year ago that figure amounted to 14,000; this year it already stands at 32,000. The reason for the dramatic increase has much to do with the JCU website. At this point fully 80% of applications are done on line, a significant increase from the previous year alone. John Carroll has joined the Common Application Group. In addition, we have already started accepting students for next fall, a month earlier than in the past. T. Fanning’s presentation was followed by questions and comments. It was pointed out that total FTE figures from year to year are affected by individually larger or smaller classes, whose impact is felt for the remainder of its members’ stay at the university. Asked about the higher projections that had been made for the Fall 2005 first-year class, T. Fanning replied that the tuition waiver projection was too low by as many as twenty students. He said that it would have to be decided whether to use the Hardwick Day model again. T. Fanning also remarked that net revenue went up, although J. Ivec cautioned that it would be necessary to qualify any such assertion. When asked what the Admission office was doing of a strategic nature, T. Fanning suggested that its improved communications plan (much of it reliant on the new website) certainly represented a strategic move. We have also expanded the choice of geographic locations. Referring to current marketing efforts, T. Shannon said that a new marketing firm would be selected within the next week. He noted, too, that Fr. Niehoff had begun meeting with alumni in other cities; his short-range itinerary called for him to attend twenty-two such receptions. In addition, the university is engaged in an effort to revitalize its City Club program. Questioned about the discount rate for this year’s freshman class, T. Fanning responded that it was 42.4%. It was observed that the university should adjust its policies in order to better accommodate students, e.g., with respect to food service on weekends and housing availability over the holidays. In response to a question as to whether there were any “big-ticket” items that would make John Carroll look more attractive to prospective students, T. Fanning replied that students were pleased with the academic life at the university but much less satisfied with social life on campus. Concerning the margin of error for the Hardwick Day model, D. La Guardia said it was 5%. The next item of business was a discussion of Fr. Niehoff’s visit to the September 9 meeting of the University Planning Group. D. La Guardia explained that Fr. Niehoff thought his not attending the current meeting might encourage a more open discussion of his comments at the previous meeting. In the ensuing exchange, a question came up about the net tuition revenue for the current year. J. Ivec replied that we are $1½ million short of what’s in the budget, a figure that could have been larger but for relatively low medical premiums and fringe-benefit costs. The shortfall suggests that the salary freeze imposed last year will not be reversed. Nevertheless, raises will be built into next year’s budget. It was suggested that we take a serious look at the operating budget in order to find possible ways of cutting back. In addition, some uncertainty was expressed as to where we stood with respect to the current plan: would it be necessary to start over? N. Santilli suggested that Fr. Niehoff likes certain elements in the current plan very much but that the proposed planning retreat will take place only after all of the town-hall meetings have been held, maybe sometime next summer. Moreover, we have the recommendations from the self-study and HLC team report to take into account. Also, the subcommittees formed around the several goals embedded in the plan would be expected to revisit their work. D. La Guardia said that the plan now has a different kind of emphasis due to changed circumstances, including in particular the fact that we have a new president. Discussion of the major projects continues, and should continue. Likewise, much of the academic content of the plan remains, and should remain. In short, we are not starting over. Fr. Niehoff is concerned not with the development of a new plan but with prioritizing the basic elements of the current plan and the availability of revenue for those elements. When it was asked whether the UPG was charged with the prioritizing, D. La Guardia said that the UPG would eventually undertake that activity as a subsequent step. Another question dealt with the relationship between the UPG and the new leadership team. According to H. Gray, Fr. Niehoff intends the leadership team to be remedial, not oppositional. Moreover, Fr. Niehoff wants the Faculty Forum to be strong and wants individuals and groups to work together. When it was asked how we should go about generating the data to help us make decisions and then carry them forward, P. Rombalski suggested that we need to approach Fr. Niehoff with questions, as he would surely be frank in answering them. T. Shannon observed that a new capital campaign probably will begin in 2007. For that reason, Fr. Niehoff needs to spend this year listening and then to make decisions. D. La Guardia noted that there is more explicit conversation taking place now across the university. The decision-making process is much more interactive. H. Gray, paraphrasing John O’Malley, said that style is not simply an ornament; with that in mind, we should ask Fr. Niehoff to help us create a style that would lead to more effective interaction. It was pointed out that we will need to apprise Fr. Niehoff of certain realities, e.g., the needs of the Boler School in connection with new AACSB requirements for accreditation renewal. Developing an effective working relationship with the president will require some patience. At the same time, Fr. Niehoff must be aware of how much impatience currently exists at the university. Commenting on the meeting as a whole and, more specifically, Fr. Niehoff’s relationship to the UPG, D. La Guardia said that, even though the president will be increasingly preoccupied with alumni trips, his message would be with us; he intended to be present at UPG meetings whenever possible. Minutes recorded by J. Krukones
---------------------------------------------------------- October 14, 2005 TO: The University Community FROM: Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President SUBJECT: September 9, 2005 University Planning Group Meeting
Following is a summary of the discussion items and action taken by the University Planning Group at its September 9, 2005 meeting. D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. in the Arts & Sciences Conference Room. He welcomed Fr. Niehoff to the group noting that his arrival and his presidency very directly affects this group. All UPG members introduced themselves to Fr. Niehoff. R. Niehoff, S.J., told the group that he was delighted to be here and that he wanted to share the processes and plans that he has in mind or are already in place that will help us arrive at where we need to be, the timeline of choices that need to be made, and what our priorities need to be. The first of these is the series of town hall meetings for the community. These meetings will be focused topically and are intended to share the information that we already know, the challenges we face and the opportunities that the leadership has identified. One of the goals of this process is to hopefully identify whether there are other opportunities. He noted that the town halls will include his brief comments, a presentation with data (about 40 minutes) by one of the vice presidents, with 40 minutes for questions and discussion. This year the emphasis will be on sharing information and beginning to build some understanding of what the opportunities are in order to begin clarifying our vision, mission and strategic initiatives in the next year. While students will not be invited to the town hall meetings, some other forum will be developed for them. R. Niehoff, S.J., has also formed a Leadership Team that will meet once per month for two to three hours. The people on this team are those that have organizational responsibility for functional areas. These include the vice presidents and deans and those with responsibility for the quality of student life, retention, enrollment, HR, community relations, and facilities. The team with share and develop common goals and make some adjustments in how the university does budgeting, including adding and eliminating resources, and help with fundraising priorities. It is also intended to overcome any “silo mentality” that may exist. R. Niehoff, S.J., said that there are things in the strategic plan that still need work. He noted that it is not easy to identify our academic priorities and therefore asked the group to keep four things in mind as it evaluates these priorities. The group must always remember how an action impacts enrollment, fiscal stability, the quality of our academic programs and the student experience, and how these choices impact our strategic options that face us in the future. He said that with the building of the Dolan Center, our facilities are excellent with the exception of our residence facilities. However, he noted that we do not currently have a cost structure to support any changes at the moment. The group discussed with Fr. Niehoff the role of the UPG and the status of the plan it has developed. He said that he understands that the Board has accepted the plan in principle, but has not endorsed it. R. Niehoff, S.J., said that the plan is a valuable resource for us now and that without it the timeline before another campaign could begin would be at least a number of more years. He asked that the group continue its conversation, developing stages, costs and impacts on enrollments that any initiative would have. He views the UPG as a consultative body to the president. He noted that he knew of no other body anywhere that has this breadth of input across the community, thinks it is a wonderful thing and that it has value. But such groups do not have responsibility, whereas the members of the leadership team have responsibility to take the next step, and people will be held responsible. He said that he is interested in hearing the UPG’s thoughts on enrollment (no quick solutions), residence halls (especially for upper class students), a student center that should pay for itself, and a solution to the parking problem that will also help with neighborhood relations. All of these are needed for the university to be competitive. R. Niehoff, S.J., also said that the UPG will remain the steering committee for the Higher Learning Commission’s updates and self-studies. Before adjourning at 9:55 a.m., the minutes of the previous meeting were approved without objection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TO: The University Community FROM: Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President SUBJECT: April 15, 2005 University Planning Group Meeting
Following is a summary of the discussion items and actions taken by the University Planning Group (UPG) at its April 15, 2005 meeting. D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. in the Arts & Sciences Conference Room. The minutes of the March meeting were approved with one correction. In announcements, J. Gladstone stated that applications are up 10.2% and deposits are up 10.6%. He noted that HardwickDay is still projecting 840-plus freshmen providing $860,000 net revenue. Today is the last overnight with the exception of the minority group yet to come; they have had more than 200 students on overnights this year. N. Santilli announced that JCU will host the Jesuit Core Curriculum group in March, 2007. Eighty-eight people attended the last such meeting. A. Kugler updated the group on the Fine Arts subcommittee; all members have agreed to serve and there will be one meeting this semester to distribute materials to read/review over the summer so that the group is ready to go in the fall. T. Shannon, S.J., provided the group with an update from the University Heights Liaison Committee. He said that there would be no real news until there is a feasibility study that goes through the UPG. He noted that University Heights and Shaker Heights are also having discussions about a parking structure and a combined fire station. They have concerns about retail, safety issues on Warrensville, and senior citizen housing. But, he noted that it was good that the two municipalities were having the conversation. The group discussed the possibility of having an outsider come in to help with the university’s master plan as a 20-25 year plan. The group was informed that A. Adams of the Board Properties Committee strongly supported hiring a consultant for the master plan. After more discussion, S. Wertheim motioned that the UPG recommend that the university hire consultants to develop a master plan. The motion was seconded. More discussion followed. It was noted that we do not have space requirements for programs that are currently in the plan in order to develop a property plan. Such information is also needed to consider any infrastructure needs and plans. The motion was tabled. N. Santilli presented his draft of a planning timeline for fall 2005 for the group’s consideration. The timeline was developed with the intention of having a planning summit/retreat in January, 2006. This retreat would include UPG members as well as others, such as Board members, people from the city, and others from the campus community, as well as an outside facilitator. The timeline includes each goal subcommittee reviewing the strategic initiatives within their domain and prioritizing those initiatives in September and October and reporting to the UPG in November and December. N. Santilli will work with the subcommittees on prioritization and develop an agenda for the retreat. N. Santilli indicated that the items to be considered include the Fine Arts initiative (with a subcommittee already in place), the Boler School initiative, the student center initiative, campus master planning, endowment initiatives and the financial impact of the plan on the university. He asked the group about a need for an internal communication plan in addition to what we already do to communicate the plan as it unfolds. He suggested giving the task to the UPG subcommittee on building university community. P. Lauritzen noted his negative reaction to the timeline stating that it makes it appear that we are re-planning and not moving forward. P. Rombalski noted the need to look at all of this through the lens of enrollment. The group discussed whether to wait for Fr. Niehoff or move forward in order to present him with our ideas and plan. T. Shannon, S.J., spoke in favor of an outside consultant to help people grapple with these issues. He noted that we also need expertise in collaborative work with neighboring communities. Financial concerns must also be addressed. J. Gladstone noted the connection of enrollment with the condition of the residence halls and the student center, and that Admission is hearing more and more about these from students, potential students, and families. D. La Guardia summarized that there is already a Fine Arts subcommittee in place, one for the Boler School ready to go, while one for the student center initiative still needs to be formed. He asked that anyone interested in serving on the student center group contact N. Santilli by Thursday, April 21. J. Ivec noted that the UPG would need to make a recommendation to hire a consultant for a facilities master plan by mid-October. B. Martin expressed her concern that endowment needs fall away from consideration. F. Navratil suggested that the endowment initiative be assigned back to the UPG Goal 2 subcommittee to keep working on it. Before adjourning at 10:10 a.m., the group agreed to keep the January retreat deadline. ------------------------------------------------------------------
March 4, 2005 TO: The University Community FROM: David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President SUBJECT: February 18, 2005 University Planning Group Meeting
Following is a summary of the discussion items and actions taken by the University Planning Group (UPG) at its February 18, 2005 meeting. D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:35 a.m. in the Arts & Sciences Conference Room. The minutes of the January UPG meeting were approved without objection. H. Gray, S.J., announced that there would be about 90 Heartland/Delta people on campus this weekend for a meeting on the role of the Ignatian educator as teacher, researcher and mentor. P. Rombalski announced that on March 18, Gerry Adams will be speaking at noon; there will be lots of special guests, extra security and special parking arrangements. J. Gladstone noted that they have 2850 applications, a 5.9% increase and a 14% increase in acceptances. They have offered 1443 merit awards and this past Wednesday, they started processing need awards. He expects to know by the end of next week if the model by HardwickDay is working. T. Shannon, S.J., announced that Vivaldi is coming back on Feb. 24 to meet with the original Marketing Committee and the Steering Committee, and will also hold an open forum. Development has sent 38,000 records out for prospect review. They are also hiring three gift officers, including one in planned giving, to bulk up giving. N. Santilli reported that the Fine Arts Initiative pre-planning group met for an hour and drafted a set of recommendations to the UPG. They discussed the past work by people on campus, including a report on the visual arts and the CAS Strategic plan to enhance the arts. The group decided that past work should be honored and reviewed and then moved forward. N. Santilli also noted that he received an e-mail from J. Mullner recommending that another student be added to the committee. P. Lauritzen noted that he has received phone calls from faculty about how this fine arts initiative plays out, and noted concern for some reactions. Some feel that the UPG has not done enough planning in terms of costs and re-allocating resources from programs that are not getting what they need now. There needs to be a clearer articulation of rationale and costs and benefits. J. Smith said that much of that work would be done in this committee’s development of an implementation plan. P. Lauritzen noted others’ concerns with this new initiative given the current budget situation. J. Ivec then made the point that enrollment has declined and revenues have declined; that the science center and the stadium are not the main cause of the budget situation. D. La Guardia noted that throughout the planning process and within the open hearings, it was the UPG’s sense that there was strong support for this initiative. Following some discussion on the membership of this implementation committee, D. La Guardia noted the need to maintain a delicate balance in the committee’s internal communication as well as the need to keep this as collegial as possible. L. Eisenmann suggested that the committee should start thinking broadly and perhaps the study will point to a narrower focus. The pros and cons of each initiative or area need to be defined. H. Gray, S.J., stated that it was a good idea to have this fine arts implementation committee and that it is good that it is interdisciplinary. The committee must determine how the fine arts fit into JCU’s culture. J. Ivec noted for the group that the only three things that the university has not accomplished that were set out in a UPG May, 1999 document are a fine arts program, renovation of Kulas Auditorium and construction of a maintenance building. S. Wertheim added her agreement with H. Gray’s points and noted that the last UPG minutes included our intent to consider programs and opportunities and collaborations with other institutions. The group agrees that a fine arts implementation committee is needed to articulate an over-arching rationale for a fine arts program and how it relates to the strategic plan. J. Gladstone then asked to return the group’s attention to the comments made earlier by J. Ivec on enrollment and the budget. He asked that the minutes note that it is not only enrollment that should be considered. Net tuition revenue should also be taken into account and the part that financial aid plays in the budget. The sole focus cannot be the discount rate, which dropped from just under 40% for the class of 2003 to 35% for the class of 2004, a remarkable drop for one year according to J. Gladstone. J. Ivec made the point that the university has always been under budget. J. Gladstone also pointed out that over the last 12 years the university has had its 7 largest freshman classes in history. He pointed out that while last year’s freshman class of 859 over spent the financial aid budget by about $800,000, this year’s class of 734 has left an extra $1 million in the budget. He felt it important if one of these events is mentioned that the other be mentioned also. The group returned to the appropriate composition and leadership for the fine arts implementation committee. In reply to a suggestion that someone from student affairs and admission be added to the committee, L. Eisenmann suggested that it might be more appropriate not to add them to the committee but to invite them to meetings to present views and information as needed. The group agreed that the committee is an ad hoc committee, not a standing committee of the UPG; it could be called a task force. Letters of invitation to join the committee should come from D. La Guardia. Several UPG members spoke in favor of a faculty member chairing the committee and several voiced the opinion that L. Eisenmann should be the chair. Much discussion followed. D. La Guardia noted that the previous two efforts were chaired by faculty members and both lead to partisan efforts. T. Shannon, S.J., wondered if a Board member could chair the committee, but the group questioned whether a Board member would understand the internal planning process, the UPG, and the politics clearly enough. Some thought that having the CAS Dean as chair would give the committee importance. Others thought that the Dean would be seen as having too much authority to say things and have them heard objectively. After further discussion, the group voted on whether to have co-chairs of the CAS Dean and a UPG faculty member (specifically A. Kugler) or to have the CAS Dean as chair. Having co-chairs received an almost unanimous vote. T. Shannon, S.J., announced that the mayors of University Hts. and Shaker Hts. and JCU would be meeting in a month to discuss a process to move forward with a feasibility study concerning the parking garage, Fairmount Circle, and the strip of shops. He said there should be some federal money for traffic and safety, particularly pedestrian, studies. It was also announced that J. Ivec has been added to the UPG Liaison Committee to University Hts. at Fr. Glynn’s request. N. Santilli then presented his recommendation for a strategy to address the strategic initiatives. He cited the process used for the fine arts initiative. For each of the remaining initiatives, a pre-planning committee can be used to form plans. The approach would also communicate to the university community that the strategic plan is moving forward and that work needs to be done before the next capital campaign. Including others for short, focused tasks would keep the energy going as well as following up on the plan and doing the needed plan review. D. La Guardia asked about the Faculty Forum and its plan for the HLC report and, to avoid redundancy, if the UPG and Forum might cooperate in the effort. P. Lauritzen said that it would probably be better to keep things separate. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. ------------------------------------------------------------- February 15, 2005 TO: The University Community FROM: David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President SUBJECT: January 28, 2005 University Planning Group Meeting
Following is a summary of the discussion items and actions taken by the University Planning Group (UPG) at its January 28, 2005 meeting. D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m. in the Arts & Sciences Conference Room. He welcomed new student member Joel Mullner, Student Union Director of Communications. The minutes and summary of the November UPG meeting were approved without objection. The minutes and the summary of the December UPG meeting were approved with an adjustment to clarify the UPG’s consensus that “Jesuit” is an important part of JCU’s message. The meeting then began with members’ announcements. J. Gladstone announced that applications are up 10%, accepts are up 31% or 32% over last year at this time. Demographically, applications are slightly down in NE Ohio while being up significantly in Chicago, Indiana, Georgia and Florida. Financial aid merit awards have gone out earlier than ever: 750 merit award letters have been sent out and there should be about 500 more by Tuesday. There should be about 470 students with $12,000 merit awards. All of the $3,000 Jesuit high school awards have gone out. The faculty phonathon was a success with the largest number of faculty participants since the first year. They hope to have 1200 students called. The second phonathon for minority students will be held in about two weeks. There are also thirteen receptions coming up, and they are working on getting club awards out early. JCU has been accepted into the Common Application Group. JCU had to apply to be accepted into the group who all share a common, standard application. It costs us about $600 and should be good for us. N. Santilli announced that he and the University Assessment Committee have been working on a draft of a statement on assessment for the Undergraduate Bulletin which describes the process we currently undergo. He encouraged people to attend an open session from 3:30 to 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 24, with a person from NSSE – the National Survey on Student Engagement. An announcement will be posted on JCU’s web page soon. M. Beadle announced that the university has applied to the Council of Graduate Schools and the Ford Foundation for a two-year $25,000 implementation grant for a Master of Social Sciences degree. T. Shannon, S.J., announced that with the approval of Fr. Glynn, he has talked with Notre Dame College and will talk with Ursuline next week – just to maintain contacts. There will be a meeting with Vivaldi today from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. City chapters are being re-established. JCU will be a lead sponsor for Fest 2005, which is a kind of battle of the Christian bands. It will be a 2-day event in August offered by the Diocese of Cleveland, held at the seminary, and will involve junior high school, high school, and junior college students. It is a great opportunity for JCU and a great event. J. Gladstone announced that in June, the Thursday through Sunday after Alumni weekend, JCU will be hosting a regional event for the Jack and Jill Organization. He has been working with S. Seaton and D. Campbell on planning this event for 600 to 700 8th through 12th grade students along with 200 to 300 chaperones from seven Midwest states. H. Gray, S.J., noted that the weekend of the next UPG meeting, JCU is hosting the Heartland/Delta Conversations group. The keynote speaker is Ron Modras, a member of the Theology department at St. Louis University, and a specialist in Ignatian humanism. D. La Guardia noted that there are many important searches currently taking place: President; Boler Dean; Director of the Library; Director of Catholic Studies; and Director of Global Education. He asked the group to consider the delicate balance between maintaing traditions while insuring the viability of what is new. S. Wertheim also noted the searches for Directors of the Honors Program and the University Core Curriculum. In response to a question, D. La Guardia said that the Global Ed. Director search would be internal and that he is announcing a five-member search committee today. T. Shannon, S.J., gave an update on the UPG – University Heights Liaison Committee. The mayor seems interested in viewing the university as a source of aid, rather than a nuisance. In order to help keep the neighborhood informed, he said that his department is going to produce a newsletter. There is still the question of what can be done with Fairmount Circle. There will be a meeting with JCU and the mayors of Shaker Hts. and University Hts. to continue this discussion. T. Shannon, S.J., said that the university is going to seek a planning grant from the Gund or Cleveland Foundation to help prepare for a federal grant. M. Beadle noted that the city council is concerned about what JCU’s plans are regarding the purchase of property around the university, where the most beautiful homes are located, and how that affects the residential neighborhood. The university still needs to communicate to the city its plan for buying property. All agree that having such collegial conversation is preferable to previous confrontations. The city does seem to be softening its stance on property for a parking garage as well as seeing the importance of using some homes for other purposes. The city is interested in using university expertise in other projects like the Dugway Creek project. The group then turned its discussion to strategies for the strategic initiatives – e.g. should Fine Arts and a student center be part of the same building? The group needs to work on these issues early so that when it comes time to begin a capital campaign, we know our plans and how to fit our needs. Decisions are needed on size, purpose, etc. If the Boler School expansion becomes a separate facility, what becomes of the vacated spaces? In considering undertaking these discussions, N. Santilli pointed the group to the document he has distributed in which he has taken the university’s self study report and the report from the higher learning commission visiting team and considered them in light of the university’s strategic plan. J. Smith asked why endowment was not on this list. It was noted that it is not being ignored in that it is all attached to the capital projects and also occurring in small campaigns going on now. Possible examples would be an endowment for Campus Ministry in honor of Fr. Schell, S.J., or something for the Boler School in honor of F. Navratil’s twenty years of service as dean. So, it is not on the list because it is so tied to what the Development Office can do. It was acknowledged that it is frustrating because the money raised often goes to bricks and mortar and not other purposes, and that more creative ways are needed to work with donors. T. Shannon, S.J., noted that it is harder to raise money for endowment, but that it is not disassociated with planned giving and its anticipated growth. He also noted the need to connect to the community through the orchestra, the theater, the playhouse, etc. Perhaps we could go to Gund with a request for a planning grant. S. Moore stated that the $10-million scholarship for diversity needs to be more prominent. P. Lauritzen said that there seemed to be no leader on the Fine Arts initiative, and strongly recommended that a leader be appointed. N. Santilli said that people do need to be named to be champions for these most important initiatives. Strategies for approach mu |