t· --------------.·-·---:-·--.-.--~---:-·-:-.-.·.· .-.--.:_.----·-·-:-:-:-·-::.:·-:~·: ..... -.-: ..... ·:-:-~.·-~~~~
KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of the Agenda
3. Approval of October 28th minutes
4. Chair's Report
5. Old Business
AGENDA
a. Budget Presentations - Report from SSCUB meetings
b. Education Technology Committee - Robert Wood
Senate Standing Committee On Academic Planning and Priorities
Friday, November 25, 2011 9:00am -12:00pm Surrey Boardroom G -2110
c. Scenario Based Strategic Planning - Report on Last Week - Jane Fee I Wade Deisman
d. Status Update -Program Prioritization Criteria
6. New Business
a. Outstanding Items
i. Refreshing Priorities
ii. Amalgamation Policy
iii. Committee Mandate and Composition
7. Other Business _ 0 \\ __ a.'. · 1- ·- _ .. ~e~ ~\fl:{\.JL-Q
8. Adjournment
Supporting Documents
1. October 28 minutes
2. Ed Tech Committee - Robert Wood
3. Committee Mandate and Composition
., .. J
I<wantlen Senate Standing Committee on Academic Planning & Priorities
POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY
Present: Kathleen Bigsby Wade Deisman (Chair) Aysha Haq Stephanie Howes May Velasco Robert Wood
Regrets: Arvinder Bubber Bob Davis Jason Dyer Tru Freeman Leslie Gordon Jane Hobson John McKendry
Minutes
Non-Voting: Dana Cserepes Jane Fee Marc Kampschuur Anne Lavack
Guests: Josephine Chan Karen Inglis
Recorder: Elizabeth Merritt, University Secretariat
1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 9:05am.
2. Confirmation of Agenda The agenda was confirmed by consensus.
3. Approval of Minutes
Friday, October 28, 2011
9:00am - 12:00pm
Surrey Boardroom
The minutes of September 23, 2011 were approved by consensus.
SSCAP&P Minutes
1 October 28, 2011
4. Report from Chair • The Chair will report on the Scenario Planning event at Oxford at the next
meeting. • The University will be undertaking strategic planning. The two biggest
challenges identified by the President are re-positioning the university with respect to its polytechnic mandate and student recruitment and retention
• The Provost has met with the deans, chair and coordinators regarding the university budget. No new funding is available from the government. Any new money is targeted either for international students to meet the government's mandate to increase international enrolment over the next four years or to programs where commitments have already been made.
• The Chair reported on the Board/Senate Task Force on Bicameral Governance. The Board Finance & Audit Committee and the Senate Budget Committee held a joint meeting on October 14, 2011. The Task Force is planning on holding a joint Board/Senate retreat early in 2012.
• The Board has approved the amalgamation of the Faculties of Humanities and Social Sciences. However, there is still no policy in place to guide the process. The Chair hopes this will go forward to the Task Force for consideration. The Provost indicated that the policy is currently being reviewed. Very few universities have such a policy. The University Act, under Section 35.2 (6) (e), stipulates that the Senate of a special purpose, teaching university must advise the board, and the board must seek advice from senate, on the development of educational policy for the following matters: establishment or discontinuance of faculties at the special purpose, teaching university.
5. Old Business
a. Education Technology Committee The committee reviewed the documentation on the Sub-committee on Learning Technology. The following suggestions were made:
• add the AVP Academic to the voting membership • add the AVP of Research & Scholarship to the non-voting membership • under Responsibilities, change the wording of item (c) to "recommend
current best practices within post-secondary education as they relate to Learning Technology."
• Remove item (d)
MOVED by Robert Wood; seconded by Stephanie Howes: THAT the SSC Academic Planning & Priorities accept the committee mandate and membership as revised.
SSCAP&P Minutes
2
MOTION CARRIED
October 28, 2011
b. SSCAPP Membership & Mandate Review Deferred
6. New Business
a. Priorities Exercise The committee reviewed the Academic Priorities.
• Change A.3 to "Further develop continuing credit & non-credit professional studies programs"
• Under "B", add item #3 "Increase internationalization activities and opportunities"
• Each committee member identified its top 3 priorities
Action
• The Provost and AVP will refresh the priorities. They expect to arrange town hall meetings for further discussion and input from the university community.
b. Scenario Based Strategic Planning - Report from Oxford Jane Fee updated the committee on the Scenario Planning course she attended at the Said Business School at Oxford with Wade Deisman, Ariana Arguello and Gordon Lee. Dr. Rafael Ramirez, from the Oxford Scenarios Programme and Said Business School will be coming to Kwantlen the week of November 14 to discuss the method. Public Presentations on scenario planning will be held at Kwantlen. A Sharepoint planning site will be established early in November. Nicola Sayers' book, A Guide to Scenario Planning in Higher Education, was recommended.
c. K-Bit Kathleen Bigsby distributed information about the business intelligence tool, KBit which looks at enrolment data and provides headcount and seat utilization data.
7. The meeting adjourned at 11:35am.
SSCAP&P Minutes
3 October 28, 2011
Senate Standing Committee on Academic Planning & Priorities
Mandate
Advise Senate on the mission statement and the educational goals, objectives, strategies and priorities of the University.
1. Following consultation with the Senate Standing Committee on Curriculum and the Senate Standing Committee on the University Budget, advise Senate on the establishment, revision or discontinuance of educational programs and other curricular changes requiring Senate approval
2. Following consultation with the Senate Standing Committee on Curriculum and the Senate Standing Committee on the University Budget, advise Senate on the priorities for implementation of new programs leading to certificates, diplomas and degrees
3. Following consultation with the Senate Standing Committee on Curriculum and the Senate Standing Committee on the University Budget, advise Senate on the establishment or discontinuance of Faculties, Schools, Divisions and Departments of the University
.. 4. Following consultation with the Senate Standing Committee on the University Budget, advise Senate on the establishment, revision or discontinuance of research centres, institutes, and research chairs and professorships, and other research-related matters requiring Senate approval
5. Following consultation with other relevant standing committees, review and advise Senate on the terms of affiliation, articulation and other contractual agreements with other post-secondary institutions
6. Following consultation with the Senate Standing Committee on Curriculum and the Senate Standing Committee on the University Budget, and any other relevant standing committees, advise senate on the number of students that may be accommodated by the university and policies for enrolment management
7. Advise Senate on policies and processes for the development, review, implementation and communication of educational plans that support the priorities of the University
8. Advise the Senate Standing Committee on the University Budget on the academic priorities for the allocation of funds
9. Review the reports and recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Program Review and advise Senate on actions
10. Establish such subcommittees as needed to fulfill the Committee's responsibilities 11. Other duties as assigned by Senate
SSC APP Mandate & Membership November 25, 2011
Common Features for all Senate Committees (Resolution #12 approved by Senate, October 6, 2008)
• The Chancellor, President and Vice Chancellor are recognized as voting members of all committees. However, it is understood that they are unlikely to be able to attend most meetings and their presence or absence shall not count toward quorum.
• Each Senate committee is composed of some number of Senators, as appropriate for that committee.
• Each senate committee is chaired by a Senator.
• Chair of a committee should not be the administrator whose portfolio mirrors that of the committee.
• Committee membership will be reviewed annually. Members are eligible for reappointment
Membership Composition:
Chair: A voting member of the Committee, nominated by the Committee and approved by Senate
Voting Members:
• Chancellor
• President
• 12 members, approved by Senate, two of whom shall be Deans and at least two others shall be members of Senate. Normally, there shall be one member from each of the Faculties reflecting the diversity of disciplines at the University
• One Professional Support Staff member, approved by Senate
• One student member, approved by Senate.
Ex Officio Non-Voting Members:
• Provost and Vice President, Academic (or designate)
• Vice President, Finance & Administration (or designate)
• Executive Director, Finance
• Associate Vice President, Academic
SSC APP Mandate & Membership November 25, 2011
Present:
Bob Davis
KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY
Wade Deisma n (Chair) Tru Freeman Jane Hobson Karen Inglis George Verghese Robert Wood
Regrets
Arvinder Bubber Christine Crowe Leslie Gordon Aysha Haq Stephanie Howes Marc Kampschuur Anne Lavack John McKendry Mae Velasco
Non-Voting Kathleen Bigsby Dana Cserepes Jason Dyer Jane Fee
Recorder: Kerry Thompson, University Secretariat
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 9:07 am
2. Approval of the Agenda
Senate Standing Committee on
Academic Planning & Priorities
Friday, November 25, 2011, 9:00am
Surrey Campus Boardroom
Defer item 6.a.iii Committee Mandate and Membership to future meeting
Add item 7.a Seasonal Festivities
Moved by Tru Freeman, seconded by George Verghese THAT the agenda be confirmed.
MOTION CARRIED
3. Minutes of the October 28, 2011 Meeting
Moved by Tru Freeman, seconded by Karen Inglis THAT the minutes of the October 28, 2011
meeting be approved. MOTION CARRIED
SSCAP&P Minutes 11 25 2011 Page 1
4. Chair's Report
• The Board/Senate Task Force on Bicameral Governance has initiated a joint retreat of the two
governing bodies, to occur late January 2012.
• 2 open meetings on amalgamation of the Faculties of Humanities and Social Sciences were held
this week.
• The Senate Task Force on Academic Rank and Advancement (TFARA) held a forum on November
23 and feedback from the SSCAPP members who attended was positive. The facilitator's report
will be available once received/reviewed at TFARA.
• Kwantlen has been awarded 2 Canada Research Chair positions (Special Allocations). Under the
special allocation, universities can choose the areas they would like to use the Chair, rather than
by area of research. Kwantlen has opted to split a tier 1 Chair into two tier 2 Chairs. Open
faculty forums to discuss the new CRC's will be held on December 6 (Surrey) and 7 (Richmond).
5. Old Business
SSC AP&P
S.a Budget Presentations - Report from SSCUB Meetings
The committee was updated on, and discussed, the recent SSC University Budget meetings.
It was noted that many of the departments had included requests for more funds when it had
been stated that there' would be no new funding available. A concern regarding transparency
was expressed around lack of access to materials, specifically Schedule B's.
ACTION: W. Deisman to provide copies of the report to Senate from the Joint Board/ Senate
Task Force on Bicameral Governance.
S.b Education Technology Committee
Robert Wood reported that on efforts to populate the committee. George Verghese and Jane
Fee are members. The committee hopes to be fully active by January.
S.c Scenario Based Strategic Planning - Report on Last Week
13 separate events were held last week and over 300 people participated. A SharePoint site has
been created and an interactive page will be created to receive input and foster discussion.
Scenario Planning 101
• Scenario planning involves thinking about the context in which your organization lives and
works
• It forces thinking about external contexts, in the future in which you will operate
• It allows thinking about futures that are possible and plausible which are disconnected from
the present environment
• We already use this method in our personal lives to a great extent, it is a natural process
• Scenario planning works in conjunction with other planning tools (eg mission/mandate,
vision statement, etc)
Minutes 11 25 2011 Page 2
• One of the real values in scenario planning is that it creates real dialogue and conversations
about what an organization will look like in its future
• Better to have more scenarios than less
• Forward thinking brings resilience to the community and allows for regrouping, planning
and responding to adversity with more clarity less fear
• At Kwantlen, scenario planning will be modeled top down initially, with the hope that it will
become embedded and a bottom up driven process
• Scenario does not involve commitments of any kind, it just requires thinking
ACTION: Chair to reserve an hour and a half at the December or January AP&P meeting for
discussion on scenario planning.
5.d Status Update - Program Prioritization Criteria
The Chair has asked for initial phone conversation with chairs to allow him to attend Faculty
Council meetings to discuss the criteria. Although in the early stages, it will be helpful process in
terms of orienting people on what they should be considering when developing programs.
6. New Business
6.a Outstanding Items
6.a.i Refreshing Priorities
The review of Academic Priorities prompted a 'refreshing' of the document. The document was
subsequently distributed at VPAC by the Provost and Vice President Academic for Deans to
share and discuss with their Faculty Councils.
ii Amalgamation Policy
The policy is in progress.
iii Deferred
7. Other Business
Seasonal Festivities
The Chair will bring refreshments to the December AP&P meeting and members are asked to
feel free to bring along any Christmas treats they would like to share, if they so choose. Noted
that KPU is an alcohol free work and event place (per Policy Fl, section 5).
8. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at ll:lSam.
SSCAP&P Minutes 11 25 2011 Page 3
KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY
Meeting was called to order at 9:07 am
Approval of the Agenda
Remove item 6.a.iii
Will meet in January to discuss
Addition of 7. Seasonal Festivities
Tru/George
Minutes of the October 28, 2011 Meeting
Minutes approved
Tru/Karen
Chair's Report
MP Senate Standing Committee oa11iN~-Q-.~1:1m-
~ t-Jau ~ w. ~'fi 1'<1~.:;:.2.Dll, 4:15 pm
\ Room Cedar 1140
University Secretariat email to bog and senate - re initiative of joint task force on bicameral governance
retreat notice. Events of last spring left feeling of not good faith/good will. Bi cam tf working on shared
understanding of our roles in governance at the institution. Learning curve with challenges. Will be
either a one day or a one day with dinner day ahead. Will break down what the roles are, and what the
relationship is to the act, vision, planning. This ties into the scenario planning workshops that were held
last week. The new president will be hired by June or July. More news after the retreat. Important as
well because the bicam tf have taken up sole and shared jurisdiction and relationship to collective
agreement= this is because during the last round of bargaining, it was an issue. Board suggests that
senate needs to do its homework and how they fit into things. Last year the impression was that the bog
did not recognize that senate has any exclusive powers.
Open meetings on amalgamation issue (2 meetings held}. Pursuant to a discussion at senate about
openness. President said - not looking for a one size fits all model. And that the time frame is
somewhere between 18 and 24 months. Important.
Rank and Advancement forum - remarks from attendees - great, fantastic,
Divided up into tables, mixed everyone up. Facilitator provided discussion questions. What is good/
problematic with current system. What would an advancement system look like if could create
themselves. Tru - people came up with very similar objectives. Dana - considerable consensus. Jason -
whatever system that does come up has to be malleable to accommodate everyone (eg trades,
counselors/librarians) issue of grandfathering. Not just an internal exercise will be viewed from outside.
We don't fit the traditional model. Dana - talked about the nature of what comes into play, service can
be off the charts, but not a lot of teaching. So may be doing a lot of something at one time, .... how do
you evaluate teaching. Thinks maybe 100 people showed up. Excellent facilitator. No timeline on the
task force in terms of deliverables. Senate created taskforce. Board is aware. Bob Davis - January 2009
Art Coren suggested a rad system should be investigated. Task force mandate has been discussed as to
what would happen if no new system is indicated.
Dana - gave a history of the task force. Origins, survey, etc.
Bob - would like a report. Should be available for everyone.
Next steps - different day/time so everyone has opp.
Bob - Canada Research Chair position. Research Chairs (4)
Faculty appointments are under president.
Awarded to institutions on the number of chairs. On basis of success in horticulture and ss were
awarded a special (tier one and tier two) will split the tier one into two tier twos. Deans to look at
existing faculty with less than 10 years, post phd, excellence in reseach (one or two in this institution
who meet that). 5 year terms renewable once. Intention is to hire someone who has research and will
fit into the dean's area as a regular faculty (3 researchers are excluded right now). Not expected to
teach. Will be offered up to 75% time release. Minimal cost to KPU. Discussion on whether internal or
external candidates. Leaning towared external. Timeline -April 30, 2012 deadline for nominations. Has
to find someone internally. Rigour around ere is phenomenal. Whoever is nominated has to be unique.
October is the next deadline. ACTION: Jason to provide a written report at the next APP meeting. Did
not find out until November. Crc working on the fly ... Deans aware. DPAC aware. Draft process in
place, town hall to flesh that out. (December). Jane - based on tri-counsel funding achievements. Bob
- falls into issue of being unaware and how things fall into place. Support idea of getting something in
writing. Jason - a lot of opps come up, but short notice. Jane - took everyone by complete surprise.
Use the process over the next six months for APP to say where we fit in. SFU had a heck of a time
getting things in place for CRCs. Don't want to do that, big opp for Kwantlen for now and future awards.
Jason -whoever it is has to raise research funds. Karen - lots of amazing researchers at this institution.
Jason -=but the vast majority are not competitive at the national standards. if given the time, the
potential is definitely there. However, the prob is that the way we became a university was not
conducive to ...
Jane Hobson - clarify that? If I am a Canada chair it means that I have to get research dollars not make
dollars from the end product.
Karen Inglis - if research chair is funded, and do the re.search that doesn't cost money ... Jason, never
met a researcher who didn't need money ... and different projects have different needs financially.
December meeting date may clash with the pres search, look at this
Wade - this discussion relates to rad in some ways. Thinks it's a good news story if we can get the
funding to carry it. Jason - industry Canada recognized that colleges/polytechs are the institutions that
ideas are coming out of right now, moved focus from the big institutions (ubc, etc). we may need to
push for the first round and the process may not be perfect. Wade - he and Jason should sit down and
thinkl about how to bring it forward.
Old Business
a. Budget Presentations
Kari, Christina attended alternate days.
Jodi Gordon team presented. Rob and Mazen. Tru. Library.
Wade - surprised at the proposals almost uniformly had big asks (Anne indicated at last app that there
was no new money).
Wade - mare - sticking point was access to all the materials. Sched A ( new requests) ssched B ().
Unless we have the sched b's we don't know if people have a nest egg. Now, principles approved by
bicameral tf that state what the budget process should look like. Sched b's should be available (posted
on sharepoint). Principle of transparency.
Jason - finance is very aware if people are trying to collect nest eggs.
Wade - the point is that its not finance we are talking about, its about creating a broader culture of
transparency.
Bob= the whole thing with the transparency issue, before we became a uni, there was belief that the
budget could be changed. Feel for the deans having to present. A budget is just a guide, there needs to
be an ability to adjust. Comes down to president as the one who is accountable. But there needs to be
capacity for members of the uni to affect that budget. But if we have to spend everything we get in a
given year, it can impede. (doc dist at last senate meeting for reference, from bicameral tf).
Dana - some areas are aware of what the budget is, involved in creating, but not in all.
Jason - with vision, mandate, app, there are too many priorities in this inst. Deans are thinking we can
make our own priorites, as long as it fits within all the major priorities in play, can make anything fit. Re:
changing budgets - the only way to change budgets is to justify every penny that you have every five
years. Jane - our budget process here is a miniscul process, we only get to real change when you do
accountability framework, based on enrolments, money brought in. that is where you get real change.
Real commitment in pres office to be transparent.
George - becomes difficult when some faculties are told ...
Wade to provide copies of the bicameral doc from Senate
5.b Ed Technology Committee - Robert Wood
Some movement on getting subcommittee populated. George has volunteered to join cmte but is not
faculty. Does it matter at subcommittee level?
Dana - concern that potentially everyone on that committee is not faculty. We use faculty for a reason.
If about ed tech.
Given that majority feels okay has three now, two more next week. January time frame.
Jane will be on committee.
5.c Scenario Based Strategic Planning - Report on Last Week
13 separate events (3 open meetings, senate, bog, executive, inst a and p,) over 300 people participated
over the week. Series of events planned on the fly. Surprised at the numbers who showed. Low key
sessions meant to be dialogues. Powerpoint presentation. Wanted to leave open for dialogue, didn't
want to give the sense that we had come up with a plan, not where we are. In a process of trying to
determine ... a number of books now in our possession, a sharepoint site. Next on sharepoint will be an
interactive piece for input.
The basic idea aobut scenario planning is about thinking about the context in which your org has to live
and work. Forces thinking about the external context in the future in which you will operate. Futures
that are possible/plausible and that disconnect from there to where we are now. So far out that you
have to leave some of that baggage behind. So far out that you have to actually start imagining ...
At Oxford, we had to actually do it, had two companies who came. Groups of 6. Her company was an
Indian company (tata group). Watch making company. A retail org, in the imaging, had to think about
the economic, political environment it would find itself in. in India, all companies (foreign) have to sell
through an Indian company. Asked them to imagine a future where that regulation would not be in
place. Imagined that would change. Today it has. Scenario planning is where you engage with
external people from your environment who help you imagine what is possible. Report coming out
today about last week. July 1st will be version one scenario deadline. Handoff for the new president.
This is what we believe ...
Do this already in our personal life. Not a weird thing, a human process we all use all the time. Make
our orgs better and more reflective.
Jane Hobson - is there evidence of success for this type of planning?
Jane Fee - raphael's answer would be no. efficacy studies are interesting, but you have to know in
advance what the questions are for which you are planning. Scenario does not work that way. Once
you have done once you have better idea of what trying to do. Jane's answer - to whenever you change
a pedagogical process, why? Have to know if what you are doing now is the right thing. Not sure if
there is evidence of strategic planning working. Jane H = is there evidence of failing when using the
planning method? JF - likely. But maybe not using the planning properly is what Raphael would say.
KB - if your scenarios are right, benefits of scenario planning is the flexibility. JF - not trying to get
things "right". Just something that is contrastive enough to have benefit.
Karen - can't we stop planning and do something? Planning forlS years now. Need to go somewhere.
Robert - re success levels. Shell implementation of a few years back. Been doing it for 41 years.
JH -with scenario planning you don't through out the other planning (mission/mandate). Wondering
about the expense. JF =for me the real value/interest has little to do with strategic planning. Real value
is about the internal dialogue and the real dialogue. Scenario planning is about real conversations about
what KPU needs to look like in the future.
Bob -you need to understand the origins of kpu to understand the position we are in now. Too much
expectation from the last president about adopting the future. Curious to see how this process will
dovetail into the hiring of a new president. New pres won't have the history of events and what has
transpired over multiple years. Buy in from faculty is to see how the dev of what we have done will
continue with no money. The current lobbying in victoria to look at our fte count, there is a scenario -
here is a pot of money, what will you do with it. CRC scramble another example.
Jason - re breadth/scope of this process. JF - doing exercises institutionally to model the method. If
units can start saying interesting, lets do our own ... in oxford scenario, typically what you are dealing
with at a given time is about 4 scenarios. If using two sets of contrasting forces (4 quadrants) have to be
plausible and possible and politically acceptable to the client. Better to have more than less scenarios.
One of the apparent things when you begin scenario planning is that you have large numbers of people
at the table. Not about finding the right answer but creating narratives that allow people to think about
telling a compelling story.
Karen - faculty are desperate to be engaged honestly.
George - encourageing to hear scenario planning discussion. Put that aside with dean's hat on, often
people look backwards when trying to plan forward. Missing the iterative process. Reflection on past.
Embedded in various levels. Has to be from grassroots, not high up down. JF =agree that the iterative
nature is important. Careful not to put too much on it though, who knows what the new president will
be like.
Wade - does committee want a more intensive workshop on this? To use this as a capacity planning
process as well. Jason - how are the existing senate cmtes and structures going to wade in, how will it
filter back through? Wade - open question, no decisions made on that. Idea of presentations for
capacity building is that more people have ability. Long term planning is an institutional capacity that
we want to have. More affirmative and forward thinking. Need instruments and mechanisms to have
more courageous conversations, if thinking about what can happen in 20 years ... at a certain point your
imagination frees up and you start thinking about what will the world look like .. etc .. regardless of what
happens, it brings resilience to the community. Regrouping, planning, responding. Not sure how it fits
into formal work, but of value. Retreat topic possibility.
Jason - understand how deep/broad
Wade - community and health studies good candidate
Bob - interesting point, but what has been troubling is the negative fear that we raise. When trying to
engage fac/students. Trades area feels they are not a wanted part of the kpu community now. JF - our
institutional level scenarios are from external view context, not internal. Looking outside of what is
going on here at the institutional level. That conversation level is at the trades level. The value of
scenario planning is that it evokes imagination. Looking at those things that affect our world.
Bob- if ITA collapsed, that scenario puts fear into ... that speaks to the sensitivity of how a person can be
affected even if we do need to have that type of conversation. JF - good advice.
JH - have to have some cohesiveness.
JF - that is why we are starting at the top, to model it at the institutional level. And to create a bit of an
umbrella. JH - need coordination between top and down.
Scenario would not be 'we are not going to be a teaching institution' but 'the government is only
funding a single uni in be.' That gives us the opp as an institution to look ahead 20 years to say 'do we
want to be part of that, and how would we fit into that'.
JH - has institution accepted that we are going ahead with scenario planning? JF =yes.
JH - so facilitators have to be trained, will there be a budget for it? JF -yes. Hoping by Christmas there
will be a 6 month plan and a budget.
Bob - see advantage of insulating depts. from putting themselves into a negative. Drill this down to
millwright dept, you won't get buy. How far/deep, will deans do in their area? JF =commitment is to
undergo 6 months of scenario planning. If it catches on, that becomes a bottom up driven process. But
not 'mandated' by the institution.
Jason- when a scenario is proposed, will it be vetted by the gang of four? Wade= will be posted on the
web for all to respond.
ACTION: reserve an hour and a half in December or January to do this.
Recommend watching Shell video scenarios. Don't conflate strategic and scenario. Scenario does not
involve commitments of any kind, just thinking. Independent processes.
d. Status update- Program
sent out to George/dana and fac council chairs and ken hughes (chair sscpr). Asked for initial
phone convo with chairs of committees to allow wade to come to fac council meetings to talk about it.
Early stages. But will be helpful process in terms of orienting people on what people should be thinking
about when developing programs.
6. New Business
a. Outstanding Items
i. Refreshing Priorities
Anne Lavack looking at. Wade thinks a broader process rather than just refashioning. Were
presented to dpac. Take to fac councils for more input/feedback. Wade - no heads up, surprised. Jason
- she talked about having fac councils present to this comte. She talked about, and said you should
take to fac councils and have discussion on this. Where do they fit into strategic plan. Wade - we did
not discuss what the process would be. Bob - what is the purpose of going to fc? JF - just information
for one thing. What this cmte has been doing is working toward educating f apps and bring them in line
with what we have been doing. Wade - we talked about having workshops with the faculties, but were
asked to wait. Needs to be a connection (bob speaking) between this and those chairs.
Wade - think need to talk to Anne/Jane/Dana how best to proceed on this. FC's have decided to act in
app capacity (Dana speaking). Some rethinking initial thoughts.
JH =can we see what doc went out? Confused. The doc that went out is the Academic priorities
approved at senate in 2009.
ii. Amalgamation Policy
passed a resolution last march about this, JF =its coming. No use of amalgamation in doc.
iii. Deferred
7. Other Business
Seasonal Festivities
Will bring rum and eggnog to December meeting if that goes ahead. Others, feel free to bring stuff
along.
George - uni events tend to be dry.
Meeting adjourned at 11:15am
Top Related