Strategic Planning Council Meeting

December 9, 2003

Assistance for Task Force Chairs

Lynita Cooksey introduced Winona Thiel. Winona has been hired part-time to work with the Task Force Chairs. She can be reached by phone at 3730, then (after the tone) dial 236. Her office is in the basement of the Administration Building, the external auditors’ office. Some of her responsibilities will include the following:

• Coordinate Task Force meeting times and places.
• Assist in the processing of reports (i.e., Word processing, copying, etc.).
• Notify Task Force Chairs of deadlines.
• Monitor progress of Task Force activities.

Substitutions for Council Members

Jake Hampton introduced Courtney Rowe who sat in for Shelley LunBeck. Courtney is the Student Government Association’s Public Relations Director.

Greg Phillips, Dean of Agriculture, sat in for Dr. Jan Duggar, Dean of Business.

Enrollment Management

Greg Thornburg, Enrollment Management Chair, presented the results of the Student Survey. Students were contacted by email and asked to complete the survey. Of those contacted, 256 responded. Responses to the closed questions are included as Appendix A.

Driving Forces

Jack Zibluk, Driving Forces Chair, shared with the council the concern he had with the lack of faculty involvement. Thus, subcommittee reports primarily reflect the perspective of the staff. When asked what the reason might be for this, Jack stated that faculty may possibly think strategic planning may be an unproductive process and that administration may already know the direction they want to take. It was suggested that Jack seek more faculty volunteers who will be more likely to become engaged in this process. Further suggestions included adding students with disabilities to the diversity section, adding SAU and UA Monticello to the institutions that were founded in 1909, and addressing the growth of other in-state institutions and the increased demand for assessment. A version of the driving forces report (updated 12/12/03) is included at the end of these notes as Appendix B.

Institutional Distinctiveness

Rich Carvel, Institutional Distinctiveness Chair, was unable to be at this meeting. Appendix C is the report he submitted.

Governing Ideas

Len Frey, Governing Ideas Chair, said he believed the Task Force would have a mission statement ready by Wednesday, December 17, to share with the council. The subcommittees are continuing to work on core values and vision statement.

Shared Governance

Julie Isaacson, Shared Governance Chair, talked about the draft of the “Principles of Shared Governance” the task force had completed (Appendix D). Members of the council asked that there be further clarification or rewording of the Definition and Authority sections of the document. This was a result of council members’ discussion regarding these two areas.

Graduate Education and Research Initiatives

Jerry Farris, Graduate Education and Research Initiatives Chair, said the task force has had two meetings. He has met with individual departments to draft a research plan specific to their area and intends to meet with deans and chairs to gather their perspective regarding research needs. The task force is considering offering forums for various types of audiences, recruiting faculty to do KASU radio shows, and a lecture series.

Diversity

Lynita Cooksey, Diversity Task Force Member, reported the task force is continuing to work on the definition of diversity, the mission and vision. Six to seven subcommittees have been formed to address things such as student, staff, and faculty retention.

Important Dates

David Cox discussed the following dates, emphasizing the importance of completing task force reports in order to begin discussions of strategic directions:

• Wednesday, February 11, 4:00 - 8:00 p.m., Convocation Ctr.-Hames Room

Strategic Planning Council (Governing Ideas Task Force will be invited to sit in to hear reports.)

Task Force Final Reports are due.

• Thursday, February 26, 3:00 - 9:00 p.m., Place to be determined

Strategic Planning Council, Governing Ideas Task Force, Deans

Topic: Strategic Directions (Establish 4-8 strategic Directions using the compass model.)

Dr. McFarland will facilitate.

• Monday, March 8, 4:00 - ? p.m., Convocation Ctr.-Hames Room

Strategic Planning Council

• Thursday, April 8, 3:00 - ? p.m., St. Bernards’ Auditorium

Stakeholders Conference

Topic: Strategic Initiatives

Dr. McFarland will facilitate.

• Monday, April 26, 4:00 - ? p.m., Library Board Room

Strategic Planning Council

Important Process Conversations

In closing, David Cox asked the council to consider the following as they continue their work in the spring semester:

• Underlying philosophy: What’s possible and who cares? (NOT what’s wrong and how can we fix it?)

• Possibilities: What are your hopes? Why are they important to you? What is your largest vision of what we might create together?

• Engagement: How valuable do you plan for this to be? How participative do you plan to be? How much risk do you plan to take? How invested in the well-being of the whole are you?

• Connection: What called you to say “Yes” to this invitation? What did you come to receive? What did you come to offer? What excites and worries you about this gathering?

• Ownership: What has been your contribution to the difficulty prior efforts like this have had in making a real difference? What is the interest you represent that might stand in the way of creating an alternative future? What is the commitment you have held back in the past?

• Freedom to express doubts: What doubts do you have about the picture and strategy that is being placed on the table? What from the past is it hardest for you to forgive? Is there anything you want to say “No” to?

• Commitment: What is the promise you are willing to make to your peers? What is the price you are willing to pay to fulfill this promise?

• Gifts: What gifts from others have you received in this process? Is there a gift you hold in exile? What is the contribution you have not yet found a way to bring to this process and to this institution?

Appendix A

Student Survey Results

Student Survey Results					(Page 1 of 3)
p1 ASUs Academic Reputation	p1 ASU has a reputable faculty	p1 ASU has the academic major I want	p1 ASU is close to home	p1 ASU is a technologically advanced campus	p1 Friend Family member also attends ASU
Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree
24	22	137	155	44	91
Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree
129	124	106	73	125	71
Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree
67	62	32	53	57	98
No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion
69	81	13	7	63	29
Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify
1	1	2	2	1	1
p1 Suggested by friend counselor teacher	p1 ASU is affordable	p1 Scholarship offer	p1 Adequate financial aid package	p1 Graduates get good jobs	p1 ASU has competitive athletic teams
Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree
38	27	97	60	29	12
Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree
92	103	56	98	77	50
Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree
102	141	98	75	49	141
No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion
56	17	38	55	131	84
Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify
2	2	1	2	4	3
p1 ASU accepted my transfer credit	p1 ASU has a diverse student population	p1 Nontrad I felt welcomed at ASU	p1 Nontrad ASU made starting back comfortable	p2 You enjoy your classes	p2 You believe ASU has excellent professors
Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree
50	48	30	20	57	39
Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree
74	117	45	40	179	168
Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree
35	46	20	21	32	43
No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion
126	73	11	24	14	31
Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify
5	6	184	185	8	9

Student Survey Results					(Page 2 of 3)
ps2 You believe you are getting a good education	ps2 ASU has a caring faculty and staff	p2 ASU has a wide selection of majors	ps2 ASU is affordable	ps2 Campus life and activities help make ASU a great place	p2 Student services departments help to meet needs
Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree
63	53	64	32	48	28
Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree
175	134	165	92	89	107
Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree
29	60	34	138	57	51
No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion
15	34	18	19	87	92
Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify
8	9	9	9	9	12
p2 Financial aid and scholarchips make ASU affordable	p2 Athletic programs make ASU exciting	p2 Current facilities are exceptional	p2 upcoming facilities will be exceptional	p2 Graduates get good jobs	p3 Need more classes by fulltime professors
Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree
67	15	13	64	21	84
Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree
118	60	111	118	87	97
Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree
66	138	110	37	28	19
No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion
30	68	47	62	143	83
Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify
9	9	9	9	11	7
p3 improve oncampus housing	ps3 Stronger student adviser relationship	p3 Additional academic assist. or tutoring is needed	p3 Promoting athletic team increases school spirit	p3 Provide additional services to nontrad students	p3 Campus safety needs improving
Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree
116	114	69	64	90	55
Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree
82	103	96	80	60	86
Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree
14	33	41	89	25	68
No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion
72	34	78	49	104	69
Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify
6	6	6	8	11	12

Student Survey Results					(Page 3 of 3)
p3 Library holdings need to be improved	p3 Departments funding should go to library	p3 You believe ASU helps you to be successful	p3 Emphasis on highlevel research is important	p3 A more diverse student body is needed	p3 Offering more classes in the afternoons
Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree
63	22	55	50	35	58
Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree
67	32	168	101	57	99
Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree
51	114	24	55	95	35
No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion
98	111	32	74	92	87
Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify
11	11	11	10	11	11
p3 Offering more classes in the evenings	p4 Classes that I need are often scheduled at the same time	p4 The library is easy to use and resources are current	p4 Faculty explain how courses benefit me	p4 I can talk to administrators when I need to	p4 Undergrad Admissions Office is knowledgeable
Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree
64	88	67	28	33	24
Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree
65	123	136	115	91	100
Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree
52	51	50	114	94	41
No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion
93	21	28	24	63	117
Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify
16	7	9	9	9	8
p4 Faculty members care about me as an individual	p4 The content of courses in my major is valuable	p4 The academic advising I have received has been good	p4 I can talk to my instructors when I need to	p4 Registering for classes on the web is not difficult
Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree	Strongly Agree
27	83	73	81	133
Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree	Agree
133	159	128	162	106
Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree	Disagree
83	21	60	31	31
No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion	No Opinion
39	18	21	8	12
Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify	Didn't Specify
8	9	8	8	8

Appendix B

Driving Forces Draft Report

Driving forces

Stakeholders identified a myriad of issues they considered driving forces in a survey, an Oct. 20 hearing, e-mails and informal discussions. Driving Forces and Internal Scan Task Force members submitted reports ranging from one to 11 pages. The following is a list of driving forces and issues members felt particularly relevant to ASU. These are issues that the institution has the ability to address. Some issues, such as the status of athletic programs, are in the hands largely of forces beyond the institution such as the NCAA.

The following is a list of driving forces, followed by some summations in order to give them some context.

· Rising costs in all areas, with decreasing state support as a percentage of overall costs;

· Increased competition for resources among four-year universities in the state and region;

· Increased competition from two-year institutions in Arkansas

· Absence or weakness of external regulation or coordination on growth, curriculum and other matters;

· Increased pressure for external funding;

· Dominance of the University of Arkansas for the state’s political, financial and social resources;

· Regional growth in transportation and accessibility;

· Increasing need for ubiquitous web presence, rapid connectivity, use of mobile technology;

· Increased need for technical and computer literacy;

· Increased need for 24-hour support in student services, education and technology;

· Regional growth in agri-business, food processing, technology and health care;

· Globalization of the economy in all areas;

· Decline in manufacturing in the region and the nation;

· Increased research at ASU;

· Arkansas Biosciences Institute and integrating it into the community;

· Increased entrepreneurship in the institution and the community;

· The needs and opportunities of the Delta;

· Proximity to Memphis, the Ozarks and neighboring states;

· Increasing numbers of transfer students and non-traditional students;

· Growth in branch campuses, enrollment decline on the Jonesboro campus;

· Growth in non-traditional educational approaches;

· Growth in media-based learning, on-line education as both a supplement to education and a primary mode of education;

· Increasing demand for distance education

· Increased technology needs for instruction and research;

· Growth in the Hispanic/Latino population

· Growth in the disabled population;

· Increased international partnerships for students, faculty and staff;

· Needs to address diversity among faculty, staff and students;

· Increased costs to students in tuition and fees;

· Increased pressures for accountability and assessment from accrediting agencies, legislators and other oversight organizations;

· ASU’s niche in the market, or lack thereof

· ASU’s morale, sense of community, internal communication.

History and politics:

Arkansas State University was founded in 1909 as Arkansas A&M College, the same year as Arkansas Tech in Russellville, and Southern Arkansas University, and two years after the University of Central Arkansas in Conway.

Twenty years earlier, the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville was founded as the state’s land-grant university and the state’s designated comprehensive university. The University of Arkansas’ sports programs and some of its academic programs have long garnered the bulk of national, state and local attention among Arkansas universities. It also pulls in a great deal more financial and political support than other Arkansas institutions, even in the Delta region.

ASU has also developed into a comprehensive university. It officially became a university in 1967 and a university system in 2002 with branch campuses in Beebe, Heber Springs, marked tree Mountain Home, Newport and Paragould.

In 1999, the state Supreme Court ruled against the state Board of higher Education when it tried to deny UCA the right to develop a Ph.D. program in physical therapy. Since the court ruled the BHE had no power to restrict program development, there is, in effect, no authority to coordinate growth or manage competition between universities in Arkansas.

Traditionally, ASU is also funded at a lower rate per pupil than other institutions. While officials try to fight for funding equity, the state legislature has not addressed the issue and may not. Therefore, it would be a mistake to assume the equity of funding will change.

The recent announcement of a Blue Ribbon Committee for Higher Education to study the needs of higher education is an example of the commitment to increasing priority for support for higher education in the state. A key assignment of this committee will be to recommend ways of increasing funding for higher education at a time when Arkansas taxpayers are already facing possible significant tax increases to pay for the court-ordered improvements in the state’s secondary schools.

Geography:

Located in Jonesboro atop Crowley’s Ridge, a 200-mile long ridge of hills running from Missouri to the Mississippi River in Helena, ASU is the only major university in the entire region traditionally identified in the Mississippi Delta. The region is among the most impoverished in the nation, but it is also rich in cultural heritage. Jonesboro, at a population of 55,0000, is the only major metropolitan area for more than 100 miles in most directions. However, it is conveniently located an hour northwest from Memphis, which is a major metro area and a national transportation hub. ASU is also forty minutes from the foothills of the Ozarks to the north and west. ASU is a two-hour drive from Little Rock and parts of northwest Mississippi, southeast Missouri, and West Tennessee. It is three hours from southern Illinois, western Kentucky and central Missouri. Recent and planned road improvements to put ASU on Interstate I-555 and to make it more accessible from U.S. Route 412 across Missouri and north Arkansas are expected to make ASU an even more convenient destination in the near future.

Student demographics and character

The total enrollment of the university system for 2003 was 10,573, a ten year high. More than 1,300 attend various branch campuses and the Jonesboro campus has seen an enrollment decline. Among all students, 45 percent are male and fifty-five percent are female. Almost 19 percent of the students are classified among the nation’s minority groups. Nearly 10 percent of our students are transfer students with seventy-five percent of transfers coming from two-year institutions. Finally, almost one third of our students are classified as non-traditional students. The trends of increased percentages among non-traditional students and transfers are expected to continue.

Traditional students, born in the 1980s, have grown up with television and the Internet. Traditional teaching methods and pedagogy may be less effective for them. Studies have shown that interactive, visual, media-based and multi-media presentations, even entertaining approaches, may be the most effective learning tools.

Diversity

ASU has a 16 percent minority student population. This leads all other institutions in Arkansas excluding the historically minority institutions.

Hispanics, despite a growing population in the region, make up only about one-half of one percent.

International student enrollment has dropped to a low of just 1.7 percent. A lot may have to do with the September 11 tragedy but from the figures the percent dropped a half a percent the year prior to the tragedy and has yet to recover.

Faculty and staff reflect our student numbers with about 15 percent African American. Hispanic numbers about one and a half percent, and Asian numbers are at almost two percent.

There has been some discussion that the school mascot name, the Indians, may be detrimental to diversity efforts, particularly in recruiting diverse faculty.

Rising tuition costs, trends and needs

Because state funding and private gifts to colleges and universities have steadily decreased over the past decade, tuition increases have been a necessary measure for higher education in order to meet operational and educational needs of students. Such exploding costs have placed the dream of higher education in jeopardy for millions of low and moderate-income students and families. According to the national College Board, during the ten-year period ending in 2002-03, after adjusting for inflation, average tuition and fees at both public and private four-year colleges and universities rose 38 percent. Although tuition has run more than 100 percent ahead of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) since 1981, family income has risen only 27 percent in real terms.

Trends among many universities have been to institute tuition discounting (absorbing part of the gross tuition as institutional financial aid). Tuition discounts have grown from 2.7 percent in 1990 to 39.4 percent in the fall of 2002 according to NACUBO findings. This means that an average institution only realizes 60.6% of the published tuition price as net tuition. NACUBO findings anticipate that tuition discounting will most likely grow, or at least not decline significantly, as institutions strive to meet students’ needs and ensure educational access.

Technology

Technology needs are expected to increase substantially in many areas including:

Ubiquitous web presence – technology is increasingly providing access from almost anywhere to the Internet, creating a virtual conduit for the individual to connect to a wide range of information as well as to different communities. Additionally, individuals expect access to high-quality, just-in-time information from expert resources.

Rapid connectivity – high speed networks, remote access, and wireless increasingly provide seamless access to educational content. In the 2003 IT Metrics study, only 97% of responding faculty reported having a computer at home, while only 30% of responding faculty reported having high-speed internet access. As increasing amounts of educational content continue to be developed and become available, so will the needs for high-speed connectivity for faculty.

that that will be offered.

Increasing freedom with mobile devices – increasingly, people are choosing portable, small, and wireless devices for their computing needs, which helps them realize unprecedented mobility in information and network access. Additionally, these devices provide more capacity and functionality in a single device. In the 2003 IT Metrics student, 84% of responding students reported having a computer solely dedicated to their use. 32% of the responding students reported having a notebook/laptop or other mobile computing device with internet access solely dedicated to their use.

24/7 Service Expectations – individuals anticipate service and support assistance to be 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Continued Growth in Distance Learning – the University has experienced consistent growth in distance learning programs in recent years, and will continue to experience growth in both distance courses and online learning. IP-based video has become the common standard among collaboration technologies.

Single-Sign-On Credentials - Students, faculty, and staff will utilized single-sign-on technology to access all information from a variety of resources, including data centrally stored at ASU, and information-resources hosted by other institutions.

Information Technology Literacy – Information Technology literacy among entering students will continue to be an issue for new students, and long-term student success will be directly correlated with the IT literacy levels of incoming students.

Learning System Support – As each component of the Learning System continues to evolve and is implemented, the resource demands to technically support the environment will increase.

Competition from two-year schools

In the 1990’s, information published by the Arkansas Department of Higher Education showed headcount at two-year public institutions in the state increased from 17,533 in 1990 to 38,411 in 1999. The four-year institutions, on the other hand, had 60,021 enrolled students in 1990, peaked at 62,940 in 1994, but began to decline when technical colleges became part of higher education as a result of ACT 1244. By 1999, enrollment at the states four-year public institutions had fallen to 60,814.

Of the 22 public two-year state institutions, 16 grew in double digit percentages, ranging from 15% to a startling 125%. Fourteen of the 22 grew by 30%, and ten by more than 40%. Three of the fastest growing institutions are located within ASU’s immediate draw area. Those schools and their percentages of growth are ASU-Newport (125%), BRTC in Pocahontas (57.1%) and UACCB in Batesville (91.1%).

Tuition at two-year schools in the state of Arkansas is far below what four-year institutions charge, and fees are rare.

Even with the outreach efforts ASU has made in recent years, there is still more to do. Competition is strong for transfer students.

Regional and national economic issues:

Increasing emphasis and support from funding sources and the business sector for collaborative models of regional economic development vs. autonomous local economic development.

America’s steady decline in manufacturing jobs vs. its steady increase in service jobs.

Continued globalization of economic forces.

Rise of education, technical assistance and funding for entrepreneurship, including non-profit social entrepreneurship vs. declining emphasis on recruiting jobs from outside the community.

Continuation of information technology’s major impact on the local and regional economy, particularly as relates to (1) job growth and (2) web-based analysis of quality of life and business climate issues.

Continued trend in blending of public and private sector funding for, and delivery of, local and regional economic development.

Of the 22.2 million jobs that will be created between 2000 and 2010, the overall distribution will remain about the same in terms of education and training requirements, but the 32% increase in jobs requiring only an Associate degree will be higher than the 22.5% increase in jobs requiring a Bachelor’s degree. While the fastest growing occupations will be in information technology, the ten occupations that will have the largest number of new jobs include only two that require much education or training - computer software engineers and registered nurses.

More local accountability, responsibility and ownership of community and economic development.

Increased research opportunities and pressures

The Arkansas Biosciences Consortium and the Biosciences research building bring unprecedented opportunities to ASU for faculty research. How does the ABI administration and research structure get set up in such a way to create a campus-wide environment to help the entire academic community increase its ability to do research?

Recent and new doctoral (and other graduate) programs have or will have applied (and often interdisciplinary) foci that address explicit needs of the region and state. This has/will help guarantee a market for our graduates to find employment, and also helps assure programs that can be viable for external funding. In order to attract the best graduate students, assistantship stipends and tuition waivers must become more competitive.

With increasing emphasis on research in biosciences and across the university, how does ASU find the resources for all faculty to participate in scholarship to the full extent of their abilities? Especially relevant here is faculty time for research in light of current teaching loads.

How does ASU assure that the primary mission of undergraduate education and the public service mission to the Delta remain a vital part of what ASU?

Expected educational and career opportunities in the region

In this area, where factories have been shutting down to relocate elsewhere, there is a need for retraining or adult workers. The increase in people who speak Spanish migrating to northeast Arkansas has created a need for liaisons or translators of some type to be able to integrate children into schools, adults into the workforce, and to help with other services.

Job growth is also expected in education, health care, and government positions including, management, social services, police and forensic work; technology and agri-business. Jonesboro has become in recent years a food processing center and there is job growth expected in that area.

That growth is expected to fuel research opportunities in agri and food-science, education in general, economic development for NEA

International opportunities and forces

With growing agri-business and food processing economies in the area, there may be opportunities to work with businesses, NGOs and governments in Central and South America that have interests in these areas.

American students benefit from foreign travel and the diverse viewpoints of international students. Students with international experience may earn 10-20 percent more than students who do not.

Support for travel from foreign sources for both international students and American students is declining. At the same time, competition for international students and resources is increasing inside Arkansas and in the region and in the nation.

Communication and image

Stakeholders in the ASU community identified communication and image as driving forces within and without the institution. Other educational institutions have identifiable niches, brands and have aggressive marketing to support them. ASU does not. Financial and other support for the institution nay be deficient because of the lack of visibility, particularly in a competitive marketplace.

Within the institution, various individuals as stakeholder meetings were concerned that a lack of internal communication made ASU a less cohesive environment. Students, faculty and staff indicated they feel a lack of community on campus.

Although ASU does get some money from alumni, more work can be done to maintain contact and build support. There may be untapped resources from "friends of the University" such as John Grisham and Bill Clinton, or other community and business leaders.

Appendix C

Institutional Distinctiveness Draft Report

Task Force on Institutional Distinctiveness

Initial Report to the Strategic Planning Council

December 9, 2003

The charge to the Task Force on Institutional Distinctiveness is simple. The Task Force is asked to determine what are the concepts, criteria, and process for identifying “distinctiveness” or “pockets of vitality,” that is, distinguishing strengths or attributes so unique and significant that they allow us to stand out from our peers. We are asked to involve the ASU community in validating the criteria. The Task Force is asked to advise on opportunities for developing increased institutional distinctiveness horizontally (attract students to all programs) and vertically (attract students to particular programs). And the final element of the charge to the Task Force is to decide what comparative advantages ASU has when compared with its major competitors.

The Task Force on Institutional Distinctiveness had its initial meeting on Thursday, November 20, 2003. At that meeting, those Task Force members in attendance participated in an open and free-wheeling discussion on what “institutional distinctiveness” is (and is not) and some discussion of where the Task Force should go from here.

The Task Force reviewed the on-line survey question which asked responders to name two or three different areas that make Arkansas State University distinctive (attached). Of the 223 responses to the question, the overwhelming majority named a specific academic program as the ASU claim to its distinctiveness. Communications, Education, and Nursing and Health Professions were mentioned as “strengths or attributes for which Arkansas State University is known and respected.”

During the Nov. 20 meeting, Task Force members mentioned nearly a dozen and a half individual areas or ideas where they felt ASU has a distinct advantage over both two and four-year schools with which it competes for students. And while there was some consensus on a few ideas or concepts, there were more questions from the Task Force than answers.

Some Task Force contact already has been made with some community groups to seek feedback on the question of institutional distinctiveness. Members of the Education Committee of the Jonesboro Chamber of Commerce were asked for their ideas about what makes ASU stand out from all the rest. The results are being compiled.

Task force members were asked to solicit input from their colleagues in the university regarding ideas raised at the initial meeting and to report back at the next meeting.

Appendix D

Principles of Shared Governance Draft Report

DRAFT

Arkansas State University

Principles of Shared Governance

Definition: Shared Governance is the process by which the University Community respectfully shares responsibility for reaching collective decisions on matters of policy and procedure.

It should embody the following principles:

• A climate of shared governance relies upon consistent, trustworthy communication that is multidirectional.
• A formal memorandum of understanding between various stakeholder constituencies (administration, faculty, staff and students) acknowledging the mutual acceptance of principles and processes is essential.
• All participants in the shared governance process (committees, constituent groups, administrative groups, and administrators) are accountable for the proper execution of their role.
• The principles of shared governance should permeate the campus, reaching into all levels of decision making. Shared governance is a model to be used at all levels of the University Community.

Representation:

• Participation: Those who will be affected by a decision on policy or procedures are entitled to be informed of and have opportunity to influence the discussion of these governance issues.
• Selection of Representatives: The various stakeholder constituencies should select their representatives to governance committees.
• Areas of Primary Concern: While many governance issues will involve multiple constituencies the process needs to acknowledge the fact that certain areas are the primary concern of one group either because the matters considered are of almost exclusive interest of one group or because one group holds the expertise in these matters.
• Proportional Representation: Committee representation should be in proportion to the level of interest of the stakeholder constituencies.

Procedural Integrity:

· Authority: Shared governance recognizes the statutory authority of the president and the trustees of the University. However, the spirit of shared governance requires that the administrative rejection of shared governance committee recommendations should be rare and for compelling reasons, provided in writing and subject to collective response.

· Openness: The process should be transparent.

· Notification: Committees should provide stakeholders with opportunities for discussion of policy and procedural issues prior to making final recommendations.

· Timeliness: Recommendations and decisions on proposals need to be made in a manner that is timely and appropriate to the issue, yet does not overlook the governance process for the sake of expediency. The status of any proposal should be available to all stakeholders.

· Oversight: Responsibility for oversight and review of the process, and a mechanism for initiating oversight and review are essential to ensure the process is working as intended. This would include primary oversight and review to ensure adherence to the spirit of shared governance at all levels of the university.

Governance Documents and the Scope of Shared Governance:

· Shared Governance Document: A document clearly identifying itself as the shared governance document is needed. The purpose of this document is to:

§ Define shared governance.

§ Delineate the breadth and scope of shared governance.

§ List the principles of shared governance.

§ Describe the process by which these principles are realized.

§ Define the relationship of other governance documents, such as the Faculty, Staff and Student Handbooks, to the governance process, and indicate their authoritative role.

§ Specify the conditions that would justify expedited decisions and the means by which such decisions can be made consistent with the principles of shared governance in such a way that is understood by all stakeholders.

Other Governance Processes: Delineated decision making should clarify the linkages between and among committees, elected bodies and the administration and should be represented in the organizational chart of the university. This includes, but is not limited to, the relationship of shared governance procedures to strategic planning and budget planning. All such relationships need to be affirmed and explained.