Time: 3:15 p.m.
Place: Hulman Memorial Student Union 227
Present: Chairperson S. Lamb, Vice Chair V. Sheets, Secretary Sr. A. Anderson
V. Anderson, B. Evans, B. Frank, C. Hoffman, J. Hughes, S. Shure
Ex-Officio: President Benjamin, Provost Maynard
Visitors: M. Murphy, K. Schmid
I. Administrative Report
President Benjamin reported:
1) a synopsis of the Board of Trustees’ agenda for the January 12, 2006 meeting will be sent globally to the ISU community;
2) the Enrollment Taskforce continues to meet with the colleges.
Provost Maynard reported:
1) Program Prioritization update information is available on the Academic Affairs web site, http://www.indstate.edu/acad-aff/prog_prior.html ;
2) Programs of Promise: four programs have been asked to submit full proposals for the first round of Programs of Promise. A total of fourteen proposals were submitted for the first round. The next step is for the selected programs to submit full proposals, due Feb. 1. We expect to make the final designation of programs of promise from the first round by Feb. 24.
3) enrollment data today: compared to same date last year, down 256 students; good news—exceeding budget assumptions; final enrollment determined January 17, 2006.
II. Chair Report
“I am not finding much good news in the January 1, 2006 undergraduate admissions report for the all important fall semester of 2006.
My comparisons are with the identical time periods in 2004, and 2005 (2005 enrollments were devastating).
The total Freshmen and Transfer applications for the fall Semester of 2006 as of Jan. 1, 2006 is 2,769 as compared to 3,047 for 2005, and 2,808 for 2004--bad news. We are 39 students below that of 2004, and 278 students behind the disastrous year of 2005.
The total Freshmen and Transfer admits for the fall Semester of 2006 as of Jan. 1, 2006 is 1,609 students as compared to 1,815 for 2005, and 1,983 for 2004--just bad news (for enrollment). We are 374 students below that of 2004, and 206 students below that of the disastrous year of 2005.
The percent of the applications admitted in Jan. 2004 was 71%, that of 2005 was 60%, and that of 2006 is 58%. There is some good news embedded in these declines, however. We are becoming more selective. And that news will out. And, I suspect, nothing will change our image more rapidly than that news.
The total Freshmen and Transfers confirmed for the fall Semester of 2006 as of Jan. 1, 2006 is 269 students as compared to 439 for 2005, and 436 for 2004--just devastating news with no silver lining. We are 167 students below that of 2004, and 170
students below that of the disastrous year of 2005. I next calculated the ratio of the confirmed over the admitted and expressed it as a percentage. Remember if we admit them, we want them. That is to say, the ideal is a 100% confirmed. But this percentage has slipped. It was 22% in 2004, then 24% in 2005, then 17% in 2006. Less people are choosing to come here after we admit them. It may be that this set of more select admits has greater choices. Regardless, this does not bode well.
Unless, there is some trivial explanation for this trend, these data forecasts that we are in for a very bad Fall 2006. There must continue to be investigation and intervention.
I was pleased to see that a new position, that of Assistant Director of Volunteer Outreach, was created. It is apparently this person’s duty to “develop and execute outreach programs with the involvement of alumni, faculty, staff, and current ISU students to enhance and complement our on-going recruitment efforts.”
You recall that at our last meeting we had invited Drs. Kinley and Libler, individuals from Communications and Marketing to speak to us about enrollment concerns and the connection to web issues. I asked Dr. Kinley, and Libler to give as much clarity to the needs identified as possible, and send that to the Ex. Committee. They have done so. It appears that they are calling for a web-page support position in Enrollment Services, as well as recognizing the need for a web-programming position to address the overall University need to improve the ISU web site, particularly in the area of functionality and navigation.
These are recognized needs. They must be addressed. I am going to pass Dr. Kinley’s and Dr. Libler’s comments to the Provost (as well as to all members of the Executive Committee), with the hope that they are studied very seriously.”
III. Fifteen Minute Open Discussion
1) Committee member noted that the intent of the Special Purpose Guidelines was to insure adjuncts may be moved to a higher pay level based on increasing experience, but not to prevent departments from paying people “above grade” according to market expectations. The provost agreed and noted that the Special Purpose guidelines allow for college/department administration of adjunct pay structure without monitoring by Academic Affairs—responsibility lies within the college/department to follow the general guidelines outlined within this document.
2) A better method to track marketing effectiveness is needed; expending of current marketing funds discussed.
3) Frugal use of funds encouraged given current budget constraints.
4) Possibilities to move the University forward should be considered beyond the current law school analysis—perhaps a school of pharmacy.
IV. Approval of the Minutes
Minutes of the December 13, 2005 meeting were approved. (Hoffman, Sheets 9-0-0)
V. Program Prioritization Update
Guests invited to the table by acclamation.
Relayed background preparation for today’s draft documents: Report, Recommendations, and Timeline. Discussion: positive process but not without consequences; guiding principles with balance between efficiency and effectiveness with check points along the way; this collaborative process will sharpen the University’s mission as a consensus emerges; quality and efficiency to internal and external demands will advance the University’s mission; an ordinal representation of weights will be applied in the decision process with ranking at all levels; need for weight clarification; input will be gleaned and modifications to these drafts will occur during January.
Noted internal instances when creation of new programs did not reduce effectiveness nor resources available for other programs. Provost Maynard will not make his recommendation to
the President until feedback is received from faculty governance’s review of the taskforce’s recommendations.
Chair Lamb expressed apprehension concerning the method for arriving at the final rankings. He stated that he would be comfortable with a much more defined process, and felt that generally faculty would feel that need as well. He suggested that ordinal weights were too ill defined a process to be used in arriving at a final score. He felt that the weights should be given interval values.
An update will be provided at the January 19, 2006 Faculty Senate meeting.
VI. Old Business
Handbook language for Department Chairpersons
Modifications to the language approved by the Faculty Senate on April 29, 2004 were considered and approved to forward to the Faculty Senate. (Hoffman, Sheets 9-0-0)
VII. New Business
VIII. Standing Committee Reports
Executive Committee liaisons provided updates on respective standing committee activity.
IX. Executive Session
Motion to move into executive session. (Hoffman, Evans 9-0-0)
Motion to move out of executive session. (Hoffman, Evans 9-0-0)
The meeting adjourned at 5.44 p.m.