Tri-campus Steering Committee Notes
June 24, 2004 Meeting
Faculty Club, Conference Room
The main topic of discussion was to prepare for the July Regents meeting. The Regents have allotted an hour during a joint session of the Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Committees on the morning of July 16th. The group decided to present material in conjunction with PowerPoint slides.
The meeting began with a general discussion of the report, which lead to the sequence detailed below. Fred Campbell felt that it was important to start from the beginning, as the Regents weren't here when Bothell and Tacoma were created, while Ross Heath noted that there should also be a piece about state funding as a boundary condition. The importance of telling the Regents a story was emphasized, as well as the need to show the identity and aspiration of Tacoma and Bothell, distinct from Seattle. (Robert Corbett and Kim Johnson-Bogart were asked to gather stats about Tacoma and Bothell graduates and majors. The final presentation also included numbers of graduates from UPS, PLU and Evergreen.)
Campbell and Heath noted that the Regents knew the Steering Committee was a resource group, not an advisory group. Douglas Wadden characterized the presentation as "mid-term": so it was important to included stakeholder opinion. Also included would be examples of actual institutions to illuminate issues from the grid. The committee felt that the ultimate point of the presentation should be that there was no magic bullet, no one-size-fits-all solution.
Alan Wood asked about organizing principles for the presentation, but ultimately also of the report. It was said that these were some: no magic bullet; don't let the design abstractly drive the process; align the plan with public policy; finally, maturity is long-term, so flexibility should be built in.
Wadden said he would report on what the consultants had to say. As for other institutions, it was decided to concentrate only on the ones that the committee had personal contact on (Michigan, Colorado, and Arizona State).
Campbell said that the last part of the presentation should be to ask the Regents what they want to learn from the committee. Concerning other stakeholders, Jack Meszaros said that the committee needed to hear from Seattle, at least more broadly than only from members of the committee. The committee discussed who from Seattle should be consulted, including past and present members of the Faculty Council on Tri-Campus Policy; members of the President's Advisory Taskforce; particular chairs who had a sense of tri-campus relations; and Seattle faculty who knew and cared about the issues. It was also suggested that the former chairs of the Faculty Senate and its councils be consulted.
Wadden profiled the fall agenda including discussing the TCTF at the first Senate meeting, having a Seattle open meeting, and targeting specific faculty and administrators. Concerns about consulting with administrators sooner were raised, but it was felt that the committee wasn't ready to dig so deep. It was also said that the committee could take direction from the Regents if they wanted to know sooner.
The committee then discussed the report and how to broadly and usefully distribute information. A long report wouldn't be read, but might be supplemented by creating tools on the web, such as the grid and by adding dynamic links such as a commenting mechanism, to make it interactive. The committee felt the basic issue was keeping the discussion alive. It was suggested that a staff person coordinate the site, but that idea was held off, as the committee felt it needed to know more about what it wanted to do with the Web site.
Below was how the presentation was proposed to go at the June 24th meeting, as laid out by Campbell: