HA on SACS Progress - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Apr 25, 2005

HA on SACS Progress

Date: Apr 25, 2005

Reuben Mees' story says:

Committees also have been working steadily to update the strategic plan and mission statement; compile and revamp policies; complete a required Web site update and develop a Quality Enhancement Plan that fits into the university's overall mission.

Do the committees really have any role in deciding the strategic plan? Or is the same one still being dictated from the top by SFT?

Robert Campbell

Date: Apr 25, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Reuben Mees' story says: Committees also have been working steadily to update the strategic plan and mission statement; compile and revamp policies; complete a required Web site update and develop a Quality Enhancement Plan that fits into the university's overall mission. Do the committees really have any role in deciding the strategic plan? Or is the same one still being dictated from the top by SFT? Robert Campbell "

Robert, the committee completely scraped the SFT's "Strategic Plan" and started over where they left off last year. This plan has the wide input form Students, faculty , staff and "stake holders". ( D*mn I wish those "stake holders" weren't so shy and identify themselves.)

Date: Apr 25, 2005

Reporter,

Good news!

Thames et al. may still try to block the updated strategic plan when the committee finishes its work, but the burden will be on them if they go that route.

Robert Campbell

Date: Apr 25, 2005

The University Planning Committee actually attended the meeting with Thames and administrators to review the plan. They agreed with the changes, most of which were minor and not very substantive. It now is with the IHL Board.

Date: Apr 25, 2005

Does that mean that the plan now resembles SFT's diktat from on high, with minor changes, or the committee's document, with minor changes?

RC

Date: Apr 25, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
"Does that mean that the plan now resembles SFT's diktat from on high, with minor changes, or the committee's document, with minor changes? RC"

I belive it's the latter, Robert, with very minor changes.

Date: Apr 25, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Reporter
"I belive it's the latter, Robert, with very minor changes."

It is a completely different document -- not only is the whole document better (and includes a statement on shared governance) but also has scrappped the 20,000 students by 2007 nonsense . . . it actually looks like something that can pass respectable muster. The committee should really get some recogniatiuon for this as they put it together very quickly, tried hard to get input (online and several forums) and then managed to work it through with, apprarently, only minor changes.

Date: Apr 25, 2005

Correct -- committee's work with very minor changes.