X hits on this document

224 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

89 / 111

additional resources would be needed. It should not be interpreted that those subcommittees that have presented resource needs thus far, will be ultimately favored with available resources (see additional related response to this issue, below).

As most of the resource concerns expressed in the public comments are related to growth, support, and quality enhancement of academics, it has occurred to this subcommittee that perhaps there was an assumption that these needs would be addressed by the Strategic Planning Curricular subcommittee. This needs to be clarified and this subcommittee accepts responsibility for doing so. A commitment has been, and remains in place to increase tenure track faculty on the Fayette campus commensurate with increased enrollment. For example, over the last three years, six net new FTEs have been added (not including five that are teaching through the EU) and there are plans to add at least two or three more this year for the Fayette campus. There is also been a standing commitment to maintain a Fayette campus student-to-(full-time) faculty ratio within a range consistent with what it has been over time. As such, the committee agrees the resources needed to add additional faculty contingent on enrollment growth need to be included in the strategic plan

This subcommittee believes this should either become recognized as part of the charge of the Strategic Planning Curricular subcommittee (if it is not already), or that it should be an additional stand-alone Strategic Planning subcommittee. In either case, this subcommittee urges the author of this comment and any individual representing other divisions, to submit a list of current and/or future specific resource needs known at this time, related to, and in support of, this strategic planning effort and the growth, support, and quality enhancement of academic programs, to this subcommittee at the earliest opportunity. This subcommittee will accept responsibility for ensuring that these requests are forwarded to an appropriate destination in the planning process.

The subcommittee wishes to refer the author of this comment regarding the concept of developing “global citizens” to its response to public Comment 1, above.

The author is correct that up to this point in the strategic planning process, as it relates to setting a specific enrollment target for the Fayette campus (although the most often heard figure recently is probably 1200 – 1500 over an as-yet unidentified period of time), there has been no definitive threshold identified, but as discussion continues, some kind of target may be helpful as a means to an end rather than the reverse. Accordingly, this subcommittee believes there should be scalability in the plan as it relates to providing resources and infrastructure.

Regarding the author’s comments on the addition and funding of new centers, It has been the intent of the Board of Trustees to add two new centers each year. The planning for the new centers in Cedar Rapids and Rockford began about the same time as this latest strategic planning process. Funding for the construction of these centers came from the University cash reserve (as did some of the funding for the construction of the Andres Center, renovation of the Alexander-Dickman, Edgar Fine

5

Document info
Document views224
Page views224
Page last viewedFri Dec 02 20:33:36 UTC 2016
Pages111
Paragraphs1463
Words37072

Comments