TO:       The University Community
FROM:   Dr. David M. La Guardia, Academic Vice President
             Chair, University Planning Group
SUBJECT:       Summary of UPG Meeting, February 15, 2008

Following is a summary of the discussion items from the UPG meeting of February 15, 2008.

D. La Guardia called the meeting to order at 8:38 a.m. in LSC Conference Room   He welcomed M. Delaney back to the UPG in her new roll, as well as new member P. McDermott.  The minutes of the previous meeting were approved without objection.  The main agenda item was an update on the campus master plan (CMP) by B. Celli and presented as the spring 2008 framework of the CMP.  He noted that there are several items and issues still to be resolved and that the plan is not complete in that there is not a great level of detail yet.

The purpose of the CMP is to identify the physical facilities required to achieve the goals set in place by the strategic plan.  Specifically those goals are to increase enrollment, improve community relations, and to use resources wisely.  As a review, B. Celli showed a number of slides that we have seen before:  the existing campus; Sasaki’s compact campus (i.e. 10-minute walk circle); other areas with proximity to the circle; the strong core of campus through to Fairmount Circle; and an idea to reopen campus drive.  He also showed a slide of the pre-1930 campus master plan, noting how much it looks like what we want to accomplish now.  He showed an overall vision for the CMP which had five campus districts:  athletic field core; Kerwick/Carroll district; historic core; academic core; and future development potential at Fairmount Circle.  He noted that the overall vision spans a horizon of twenty to twenty-five years and has been segmented into an early phase and a later phase.  This version of the CMP provides an overall vision that remains flexible enough to react to developing situations.  It includes all of the following:  a garage with multipurpose fields; a field house; a fitness center addition; renovation of the first and lower floors of the Administration Building; an administrative services building; a garage with an athletic field above; gateway housing; a new academic building with potential additional capacity; and other future development possibilities along with renovations of the Fairmount Circle apartments.

The early phase includes the following “new construction”:  demolish Bohannon and return Hamlin Quad; fitness center addition; gateway housing 1 & 2; playing field on Milford; and off-campus parking.  Renovation projects in the early phase include student housing, the Dolan Center, the Student Center, and the varsity track, field, baseball and softball fields.  Specifically the list includes:  de-densify Dolan, Pacelli, and Murphy halls; reconfigure Dolan Science Center;  renovate RecPlex; renovate Circle apartments; and resurface track and field.  The reconfiguration of the Dolan Science Center involves a moderate renovation of about 10,000 square feet centered on the first floor.

B. Celli went on to talk about the parking changes involved in these plans.  The Temple would provide 250 spaces.  New construction would “cost” 200 spaces from Belvoir and the gateway housing.  Bohannon would provide 320 spaces.  He also talked about the changing housing capacity which currently is 1,964.  S. Moore asked about the cost of the “essential components” of the plan, and asked B. Williams what it would mean to/for enrollment if we complete these “essential components.”  Will we get back to 3200 UG and 800 grad students?  B. Williams said that it is what all these changes mean to the energy and excitement on campus:  living/learning communities; academic programs; club sports; on-campus activities.  S. Moore asked B. Williams to compare the essential components to academic reputation.  B. Williams said that you need both and that we are at a competitive disadvantage in physical facilities.

M. Ortega asked about academic repairs and development and said that she is concerned about faculty morale, quality, salaries, etc.  D. La Guardia replied that we have been challenged in the budget area for the past five years or so, and that we have tried to maintain excellence in light of enrollment decreases.  We also need to plan for academic dynamism.  M. Ortega pressed on wanting to know where the academic plan is and where is the money for faculty salaries.  S. Wertheim stated that these are not parallel processes.  Facilities should serve academic and student life goals.  We need to begin working on the strategic plan again, whether in subcommittees or as a whole.  She also reminded the group that maintenance money should also be included in the facility numbers.  S. Moore asked what the present commitment to the strategic plan is.  J. Ivec said to ask the president.  R. Celli said that another reason for the CMP is to show the community what our boundaries are and where we want to head.  S. Moore suggested that the CMP cannot be taken to the university community without addressing academics.  D. La Guardia said that Fr. Niehoff has made it clear that unless and until we increase net tuition revenue, we cannot do many of the things that we would like to do. 

D. Ben-Porath asked B. Williams if there is any research on students who we are losing to competitors and why.  B. Williams said that it is complex and that there are a lot of things that impact us.  He said that we can lose them at any point in the process.  They may have a fear of the cost and do not even apply.  He also noted that students who are looking at JCU and BW are different than those who are looking at JCU, Dayton and Xavier, for example.  There was a longer discussion on why we lose students.  B. Williams gave a few current admission statistics but also encouraged everyone to attend the enrollment town hall meeting on Feb. 19.  In further discussions, J. Ivec said that making changes in programs are not that quick.  S. Moore said that we must make the facilities plan connect to the academic/strategic plan.  He said that we also need to celebrate our flagship programs.  D. La Guardia said that many recent discussions and conversations have centered on marketing what we do well – our centers of excellence.

Before ending the meeting, D. La Guardia paid tribute and gave thanks to B. Celli for all that he has contributed to JCU, noting that people appreciate the importance not only what he does, but the way that he does it as well.  The next meeting is March 7 where the group will closely review the statement on Catholicity with Paul Murphy.

The meeting adjourned at 10:05 a.m.