Breakfast Meeting for Steering Committee (Cabinet), Deans, and C-Chairs
President Zimpher welcomed participants and expressed her gratitude for everyone's persistence, and for the documentation and analysis provided by the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services. She reported on a series of breakfast meetings arranged by D. Grafner for business and civic leaders downtown that have been very helpful in the planning process. The ongoing work continues to be added to the Comprehensive Academic Planning Web site. A. Perzigian and J. Henney have worked to focus the action items. A. Lindell has arranged three or four discussions with the deans. What is needed from the action teams at this stage is a clear set of action steps. Today is a work day. The work will continue April 8 with a deeper look at mission and vision. We are still looking for the big idea, although the "ships" and action steps are coming together. She said it appeared that the process would, indeed, generate a strategic plan that will carry the university through the next five to 10 years.
B. Gleason said the task today fell into three parts:
- Report on each team's progress.
- Provide feedback on the process so far.
- Establish next steps, including information needed from other teams.
President Zimpher noted that there are existing activities on campus that can become the basis for future initiatives. We can reflect on what we are doing in addition to what we should be doing. As we do so, we should be wary of the tyranny of the "or". The university of the 21st century can choose a path that eclipses the "or". We may focus on prestige or access, or other apparent dichotomies, and miss the compatibilities that may prove helpful to achieving a satisfactory plan.
Team 1: Guiding Principles of Academic Programs
G. Escoe said the group explored the definition of the identified imperatives, or "ships," and how they related to community and cultural competency. They had developed a list of issues related to a coherent undergraduate education, with implications for General Education, and some overlap with the teams looking at liberal education and experiential learning, including the students' experiences with diversity.
B. Gleason said he had read the team's report online and the work on defining the imperatives was very helpful.
Team 2: National Presence and Recognition
G. Vehr said the team would recommend an expanded and integrated marketing program, and leveraging the university's entry into the Big East conference to expand communications in new markets.
B. Gleason said the challenge for this group was to come up with something major.
Team 3: Select UC
J. Koroscik reported on the team's efforts to define leadership in the 21st century by providing both selectivity and access pathways. The team had explored a broader definition of access by encompassing affordability, geography and other barriers to opportunity. The team felt that it was important to suspend disbelief in the "UC way".
B. Gleason said almost every team intersected with the theme of selectivity and access.
Team 4: Research Excellence
W. Martin said the team had based its work on defining what we can see. We can see a dedication to research with applications to benefit society building upon existing programs with opportunities, partnerships and multidisciplinarity. We can see our success rewarded both financially and reputationally. We can see the greatest opportunity in health, the environment, and nanotechnology.
M. Magazine described the attributes of opportunities for success in research collaborations across disciplines and campuses, the ability to seize opportunities and the development of a research culture. There are opportunities to share with the guiding principles team, the connections team, and the world-class faculty team.
B. Gleason encouraged deeper connections between the teams.
Team 5: World-Class Faculty
R. Kamath said the team's scope covered both the recruitment and retention of world-class faculty. Success will result in international pre-eminence and prominence. Success will require the elimination of programs that do not meet developed criteria and rewards for those that do. It is important to develop an explicit spouse policy to assist in recruiting faculty. The team recommends an on-campus institute for the rejuvenation of scholars. There should be differentiated criteria for faculty researchers, teachers, and service providers.
President Zimpher noted that the business meetings she had described often returned to the theme of innovation and incubation. The business community wants to see UC as a destination campus, but one that recognizes its historic nature.
Team 6: Revenue & Budgeting
S. Kowel reported the team's support of performance-based budgeting. This will require working together on easily understood and public goals and a reward system for units based on national norms. The system should be continually reviewed and updated. There should be a competitive distribution of funds for innovation.
Team 7: Experiential Learning
V. Montavon said the team explored a broad understanding of experiential learning and believed that it could influence programs in the classroom and laboratory as well as professional and service environments, permeating the entire undergraduate experience.
J. Henney asked if the scope was limited to the undergraduate experience. Graduate students can benefit as well.
V. Montavon said the focus was on the undergraduate experience because of the large population involved.
L. Johnson noted that several colleges emphasize experiential learning at the graduate level.
H. Jackson said graduate programs have a growing presence in experiential learning.
B. Gleason suggested that there appeared to be opportunities for collaboration among several teams on this issue.
Team 8: We're all UC
D. Lewis said the team was exploring how to build on existing programs to remove physical and psychological barriers and to build UC pride.
B. Gleason said the task was very important in the planning process.
Team 9: UC Anytime, Any Place
H. McIlvain said the team suggested a strong customer focus, and to break down paradigms. The process can begin by identifying and studying customers and their needs, and then developing an understanding of why we need to serve them. This involves collecting what is being done, and what can be done. There are many opportunities for collaboration with other teams.
Team 10: Students First
M. Livingston suggested the goal can be met by expanding the One-Stop idea in which students become independent problem-solvers in a real-time environment, not an in-line environment. Another prong is learning without boundaries through experiential learning where knowledge is put to work throughout the student's experience both on campus and off.
Team 11: Teaching matters
R. Karp said leadership is defined by creating a dynamic environment for learning. The commitment to teaching occurs at several levels including coordinated assessment, revising the promotion and reward structure to recognize outstanding teaching. UC will become known for teaching and research, with improved satisfaction and graduation rates, and graduates committed to life-long learning.
B. Gleason noted that those teams articulating a vision displayed a fair degree of overlap. There was more coherence than disagreement.
Team 12: Community Connections
D. Air said the team recommended increasing meaningful linkages with the community at many levels. This included both going out into the community and inviting the community onto campus. The community is defined as the Tri-State region. Uptown can become a regional destination. There should be a front door that opens onto university resources. Success includes growing the university's reputation as a model urban program.
Team 13: STEP
A. Perzigian said the team looked at a seamless PK-16 system of education and suggested a center known as CLEAR -- the Center for Leadership in Educational Access and Reform to dissolve boundaries between town and gown, and to harness the success of ongoing K-12 activities.
Team 14: Economic Delta-Force
K. Schwab said the team believed the university had the potential to anchor a biotech research corridor connecting Ohio's 3C cities. The potential includes three engines: Workforce development, community and neighborhood development, and intellectual property. While the vision is still developing, it will include a role as a catalyst for entrepreneurship, community needs, and quality of life.
Team 15: Healthy Cincinnati
C. Auffrey said the team encouraged adoption of the World Health Organization definition of health, including physical, mental and social health. UC will generate a dynamic process for improving neighborhoods, beginning with the UC community and moving outward into neighboring communities. The coordinated plan will achieve a goal with measurable benchmarks.
Team 16: Liberal Education
K. Gould noted that the team had identified a number of potential linkages with other teams. The goal is to eliminate barriers between the liberal arts and professional education, emphasizing the common experience across colleges. The outcome will be a university known for graduates who can adapt to a changing and complex world. A key recommendation is a university-wide admissions requirement.
B. Gleason suggested that teams with identified overlaps should consider sending members to work with other teams throughout the rest of the session. The real power of this process is collaboration. He directed team leaders to a document provided at each table, describing the structure of the final reports. Today, the teams will examine barriers and enablers, key strategies and action steps for each strategy. It is essential to prioritize in some form. Remember accountability and assessment. Some teams will get into action steps today, and some will still be on strategies. By April 5, email output to K. Maltbie.
L. Johnson said the documents today include a feedback form. Please fill it out, or send e-mail comments.
B. Gleason said many team leaders had commented on time constraints. There are reasons for the pace of this process. It is by design. Under time constraints, the teams will rise to the occasion. There is a hard-stop to the process at the inauguration of the president, providing a public forum to describe the structure of the plan. There will be time during the summer for refinement.
President Zimpher welcomed participants and described the activities of the breakfast session. She reported on the meetings with business and civic leaders. The process is transparent, with all documents posted to the Web. Today the focus is on action steps. The next session, on April 8, will focus on mission and vision. It is time to let go of the barriers imposed by past practices, and to avoid the tyranny of the "or". With the talent assembled, we will eclipse those dichotomies.
B. Gleason recognized many participants attending their first Town Hall meeting. He provided a brief overview of activities to-date. The process needs to be massively inclusive and involve a diverse representation of stakeholders. Today, teams will review the reports presented at the breakfast meeting, look for points of connection and send representatives to affiliated teams, and prioritize action steps. Remember to include funding details. He briefly described the tasks for the next Town Hall meeting.
The teams engaged in discussion until noon.
To view PDF files, you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader, a free download.
Presentation - Welcome / Opening Remarks (Microsoft PowerPoint)
Handout - Template for Action Team Reports (PDF)