|
UWA Board of Trustees
Strategic Planning Retreat
January 27-28, 2006
North River Yacht Club
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Those attending from UWA:
Dr. Richard Holland, President
Dr. David M. Taylor, Provost
Ms. Mitzi Gates (substituting for Ms. Patricia
Pratt).
Those attending from Board of Trustees:
Mr. Alex Saad, Chairman pro tempore
Mr. Thomas Ballow, Jr., Vice Chairman pro
tempore
Mr. John Northcutt, Treasurer
Mr. Bobby Keahey
Ms. Margaret Lovett
Dr. Louise Nolen
Dr. Doris Oliveira
Mr. Thed Spree
Dr. Tom Umphrey.
Presenter
Mr. Jim Sisson, Vantage Associates
Chairman Alex Saad called the
meeting to order at 1:45 p.m., thanking everyone for
attending, particularly Dr. Oliveira and Mr. Spree,
who had rearranged their weekend plans to attend the
planning retreat. Chairman Saad reiterated his
thanks to the Board members for their attendance and
expressed his desire to see strategic planning
become a routine part of what we do. He explained
that the purpose of the weekend meeting was to
revisit and review the University’s Strategic Plan
in order to gain an overview of where the University
is heading over the next five to ten years. At that
point, Chairman Saad turned the presentation over to
Jim Sisson, who introduced himself as a facilitator
for the weekend– someone to guide the Board in the
process of decision making, reminding the Board that
they had begun that process during the first
Strategic Planning Retreat more than a year ago.
Mr. Sisson opened his presentation about the philosophy
of strategic planning by stating that no
organization can remain static, that the success of
any organization depends on planning – on the
management of change, the transferring of vision
into action. According to Mr. Sisson, successful
change requires three elements:
1. common vision
2. commitment from management
3. action – specific steps.
Mr. Sisson further suggested to
the Board that as an organization heads in the
direction of successful change, the leaders of that
organization should consider three basic questions:
1. Where do we want to go?
2. Where are we now?
3. How do we close the gap?
Mr. Sisson then presented a
planning pyramid to help define and assess the
planning strategy in order to make these broad
questions more manageable. The planning pyramid was
constructed in a “top-down” planning fashion –
moving from philosophical to specific, from vision
to critical issues. Mr. Sisson assured the Board
that research has proven and his own experience has
shown that top-down planning works because it
recognizes the importance of good leadership.
Chairman Saad stated that every issue always goes to
money, but added that if we started there, we would
never get anywhere. Mr. Sisson agreed that it was
important to begin with a shared vision of what the
University wants to accomplish and then determine
how to fund those accomplishments .
A copy of the University’s Strategic Plan was
distributed for review and discussion. The Board
agreed that the vision statement reflected the
forward thinking attitude the University wished to
project. Mr. Spree stated that the term Black Belt
had for too long had a negative connotation.
Chairman Saad pointed out the importance of gaining
not only national recognition but regional and local
recognition, as well, for transforming the Black
Belt – and Sumter County, in particular – into a
place with an appealing quality of life. Much
discussion was given to the importance of attracting
new faculty to make their home in Sumter County and
to the difficulty in doing so given the current
public school facilities. Dr. Holland stated that
plans for a new comprehensive high school in Sumter
County were being discussed. Mr. Sisson led the
Board through a review of the University’s mission
statement, reporting that it had not been changed
significantly. Chairman Saad stated that the mission
statement should be looked at as a statement of why
we open the doors in the morning.
The presentation continued with Mr. Sisson’s leading an
in-depth look at the values, standing University
goals, and special stakeholder goals – which were
all agreed to be consistently on target with the
vision statement and mission statement. The
discussion continued with a look at the University’s
strengths. Several comments were made about the
caring faculty and staff, quality programs, and
campus setting. Chairman Saad stated that students
who might not have been considering enrolling at UWA
almost always ended up doing so once they made a
campus visit and met the faculty and staff and saw
what we had to offer in terms of quality academic
programs. A discussion of the University’s
weaknesses revealed two primary issues: need for
updating facilities and lack of undergraduate online
registration. Dr. Holland reported a need for
updating a number of facilities on campus,
particularly the dorms. He said that the renovation
of the cafeteria had made a world of difference in
the way students, parents, and other campus guests
viewed the campus. The Board agreed that many other
facilities are in need of such updates. Dr. Taylor
explained that the need for undergraduate online
registration is certainly a concern and that the
Datatel administrative software that is being
installed will help facilitate this.
Mr. Sisson continued with a look at the list of
opportunities outlined in the Strategic Plan. Two
primary items of interest were student/faculty
involvement in community service and distance
learning. Dr. Taylor explained that all freshmen and
transfer students who have earned fewer than twenty
hours are currently required to enroll in UWA 101, a
freshman seminar course, which has a service
learning component requiring the students to
participate in some aspect of community service. He
reported that it had been a successful addition to
the freshman studies program. Mr. Northcutt asked if
UWA offers distance learning. Dr. Taylor stated that
most of the University’s distance learning is
web-based, but that we also have interactive video
capability through the Vianet room in Wallace Hall.
The threats outlined in the Strategic Plan were
reviewed and discussed along with the assumptions
that were targeted when the plan was drawn up. Both
threats and assumptions were still agreed to be in
line with current trends. Dr. Holland pointed out
that at least one assumption has now become a
reality: the SACS probation has been lifted.
The most lengthy discussion during the presentation of
the assumptions portion of the Strategic Plan review
revolved around online education and general
enrollment. Dr. Holland reported significant growth
in online enrollment, which has seen a five-fold
increase in two years. Chairman Saad asked Dr.
Holland what kind of impact the 1000+ online student
population has had on the University. Dr. Holland
stated that the financial impact was clearly
beneficial but not to the extent that most people
might think. He explained that Columbia Southern
markets the online programs for UWA. The University
pays for the contract with Columbia Southern and
also pays the online faculty (residential and
adjunct), who are paid per student. The online
program has enabled the University to install a new
Datatel network at approximately $3 million over the
next 2 ½ years. Dr. Holland explained that the
decision to install a new system was essentially a
federally mandated one due to the fact that the
University’s information systems do not meet minimum
federal reporting standards. He said it is a costly
venture but one that was a necessity and would
benefit the University greatly.
Mr. Northcutt asked if the University had plans to
increase the number of undergraduate courses offered
online and whether or not there was a preference.
Dr. Holland and Dr. Taylor strongly agreed that the
residential experience is a must for undergraduate
students and that we want to maintain that rich
experience. Dr. Holland reported that we are now
seeing more and more hybrid students, those students
who are taking both residential and online
classes—perhaps because of work schedule. Dr.
Umphrey suggested that we want to attract both
residential and online students – and attract the
largest number possible of both kinds of students.
Mr. Sisson asked if at some point the University
might, in fact, be competing with itself in that
case. Dr. Taylor said that institutional accrediting
agencies who study such trends in education are just
now beginning to track such possibilities and are
realizing that such self-competition could become a
reality. One primary concern is that the University
maintain the integrity of the individual courses and
the degree programs offered online. For that reason,
Dr. Taylor reported that the University is launching
a mini-self study to take a very hard look at all
aspects of our online program.
A look at the Strategic Plan’s Objectives Scorecard
raised some questions about undergraduate
enrollment. Mr. Keahey asked why we lost 142
students from September to January, going from an
enrollment of 1689 to 1547. Dr. Taylor explained
that such attrition between fall and spring is
expected. He further explained that comparing apples
to apples would be a comparison of fall numbers to
fall numbers rather than fall numbers to spring
numbers. A further look at the scorecard and a brief
discussion followed, with everyone in agreement with
Dr. Taylor’s explanation. Mr. Northcutt asked why
142 students might not return to school in January
after completing the fall semester. Dr. Umphrey
suggested that hunting season might be the biggest
deterrent. Mr. Spree asked if Christmas break might
keep students from returning. Dr. Holland reminded
the Board that on the quarter system the Christmas
break was six weeks compared to two weeks on the
semester system, suggesting that we had solved that
problem if it had ever been an issue. Dr. Taylor
said the reasons for not returning were widely
varied (personal, financial, academic) with no
particular pattern. Mr. Northcutt wondered if any of
these reasons might be unique to our university. Dr.
Holland assured Mr. Northcutt and the Board that
attrition rates at UWA are typical.
The discussion turned to the University’s goal of
increasing minority faculty and professional staff.
Dr. Taylor reported that the University had made it
a priority and that we were receiving more
applications as a result of working hard to sell
ourselves as a good place to work. Chairman Saad
asked if the minority applicants saw the vision and
mission of the University. Dr. Holland said that
each academic area makes it part of the application
and interview process to express the importance of
the vision and mission statements. Dr. Holland
pointed out that the number of minority faculty had
grown from four in the fall of 2003 to twelve in the
fall of 2005 and the number of minority of
professional staff from nine to twelve during that
same period. Mr. Northcutt asked for a report of the
current ratios of the student population. Dr. Taylor
reported that fall enrollment reports indicate
residential graduate students are 69% black and 31%
white while undergraduate residential students are
53% white and 44% black with 3% other. Online
enrollments are for graduate 69% white, 28% black,
and 3% other and for undergraduates are 62% white,
36% black, and 2% other.
The final topic of Mr. Sisson’s presentation for the
Friday session was the Critical Issues and Action
Plans section of the Strategic Plan. Fundraising
with an emphasis on cultivating new funding through
grant writing was the first topic of discussion. Dr.
Holland reported that the University had hired a
grant consultant. He said that she had made it clear
that she will not write grants for us but that she
will write grants with us. Each semester she
identifies and works with a faculty “dream team” to
help them identify grant opportunities. Dr. Holland
said that within two to three years we will have a
nucleus of faculty who know how to write grants and
really want to seek out grant opportunities. Dr.
Holland said that it would also continue to be
important to cultivate political relationships with
Senator Shelby, Senator Sessions, and Congressman
Davis as a means of meeting the University’s
fundraising action plan goals. Mr. Sisson said that
the other two goals – considering hiring a full-time
development person and designing a fundraising plan
– would be a major topic for one of the
presentations on Saturday.
Mr. Keahey asked if the University had a way of
measuring not just student/teacher ratio but
cost/profit per student. Dr. Taylor said that we had
not looked at that in the last several years and
that understandably ratios and costs vary widely
from program to program. Mr. Keahey said that as the
number of students continued to increase, he
believed it would be very important for us to
measure cost/accountability. After much discussion,
the Board was in agreement that this idea should be
pursued.
The next topic on the Critical Issues agenda was
scholarships. Dr. Holland explained that one way we
are addressing this issue is by having no cap on the
number of Trustee Scholarships offered to incoming
freshmen with ACT composites of 25 or above. Dr.
Umphrey asked if there were a correlation between
better students and retention. Dr. Taylor pointed
out that higher retention rates begin with the
academic quality of the students we recruit. There
was some general discussion of the possibility of
filling clerical jobs with students as a means of
offering more scholarship money rather than filling
all clerical vacancies with full-time staff.
Chairman Saad asked if we currently offered an
undergraduate online scholarship. Dr. Taylor said
that we did not.
Online administration was the next topic on the agenda.
Dr. Taylor reported that two full-time positions had
been added since the last Board retreat. He
explained that the growth of online enrollment is
paying for the increase in staff. He said that it is
important to remember that online students are
actually more demanding than on-campus students.
They are more high maintenance, he said, due to the
fact that they do not have the support of peers in
class or the face-to-face contact with the
instructor. He said that because the online student
needs more attention, we must have the support staff
to give them the attention they are going to
naturally demand because of their unique needs. He
said that we need to determine whether or not the
online administration department needs to be more
freestanding than it is currently.
Updating the facilities plan over the next year was the
next topic of discussion. Dr. Holland reported that
we must move on plans for a new fitness/wellness
center. He said the architect would be on campus the
first week of February. Plans are in the works for a
three to five year fundraiser for this project.
The critical issue of upgrading technology was the next
item on the agenda. Dr. Taylor said that the current
process was to identify the worst cases of
technological need within a department and earmark
money for refreshing that technology.
Dr. Holland updated the Board on the progress of the
action plan for community partnership, reporting
that the University had recently received a $350,000
one-time grant through a federal appropriation. Dr.
Holland, who sits on the Black Belt Community
Foundation, reminded the Board that there are many
more such grants available from other resources.
Image was another critical issue addressed in the
Strategic Plan. The Board discussed the
impressiveness of the billboard, print media, and
broadcast media advertising campaign and agreed that
it had done a good job of getting the University’s
name and image in the public eye. Dr. Taylor
reported that follow up studies had shown a
measurable difference in pre- and post-surveys,
proving the advertising campaign to be a good
investment and effective recruiting tool. The newest
venue of advertising is the Cobb Theatre in
Tuscaloosa.
The Board then discussed merit pay and the fact that a
recent effort to develop a merit-pay system was
defeated, primarily by a relatively small number of
very vocal faculty. Other critical issues, including
Network Upgrade and Student Housing, which had been
touched on earlier, were also mentioned as the Board
closed the meeting for the day.
The Board reconvened Saturday morning, January 28,
2006, at 7:30 with the following trustees in
attendance:
Mr. Alex Saad, Chairman pro
tempore
Mr. Thomas Ballow, Jr., Vice Chairman pro
tempore
Mr. John Northcutt, Treasurer
Mr. Bobby Keahey
Ms. Margaret Levett
Dr. Doris Oliveira
Mr. Thed Spree
Dr. Tom Umphrey.
Those attending from UWA:
Dr. Richard Holland,
President
Dr. David M. Taylor, Provost
Ms. Mitzi Gates (substituting for Ms. Patricia
Pratt).
Presenters:
Mr. Jim Sisson, Vantage
Associates
Mr. Jerry Smith, J.F. Smith Group, Inc.
Mr. Michael G. Kendrick, Waldrep, Stewart &
Kendrick Attorneys at Law
Ms. Susan Walker, Waldrep, Stewart & Kendrick
Attorneys at Law
After calling the meeting to
order, Chairman Saad asked Provost Taylor to present
the name of the honorary doctoral degree candidate
for the consideration of the Board. Dr. Taylor
reported that it was the recommendation of the
Honorary Degree Committee that the University confer
upon Mr. Terry Spicer the degree of Doctor of Laws
at the May 2006 Commencement. After some discussion,
Trustee Umphrey moved for approval; Trustee Lovett
seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
In the second and final item of business, Chairman Saad
explained that the Board had previously approved the
change from twelve- to six-year terms with a limit
on the number of terms a trustee may serve. He
further explained that as the charter revision
proposal was being prepared, it was noted that the
rotation of the Board classes was unbalanced, and he
offered the attached revision in order to effect a
more balanced rotation. Following lengthy
discussion, Dr. Umphrey moved that the revision be
approved. Mr. Ballow seconded, and the motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Sisson began by explaining that his goals of the
day were threefold: to summarize the Board
self-evaluation survey administered at dinner the
previous night, to explain the responsibilities of
an academic Board, and to define more specific goals
the Board should include in its strategic plan. Mr.
Northcutt asked if the Board survey results seemed
to be in line with that of other universities. Mr.
Sisson said he had nothing else to compare it to,
having not conducted a similar survey at an
institution of higher learning, but he found no
surprises in the outcome to the voluntary survey,
which was not answered by all Board members. Without
question, the scores for “rate yourself” were higher
than “rate the total Board” in every category. Mr.
Sisson said he found that to be true in any setting:
people generally rate themselves higher than they
rate the organization with which they are
associated. Greater differences emerged in the
responses to questions 5-8, which dealt with
attendance and participation. After much discussion
about the negative effects of habitual absences, the
Board turned the discussion to the surprisingly low
“rate the Board” score of 3.5 on a 5-point scale in
response to the issue of the Board’s avoidance of
micromanaging the executive or administration. Mr.
Sisson pointed out that since the survey was
answered voluntarily by a relatively low number of
Board members, even one low answer could have a very
negative impact. A closer look at the results showed
that, in fact, one respondent did answer “1 –
strongly disagree.” The comments about the survey
exercise itself were very positive. Mr. Northcutt
said he learned a lot about himself in responding to
the survey, and others agreed. Mr. Northcutt asked
if Mr. Sisson would send the Board copies of the
results; Mr. Sisson agreed to do so.
Mr. Sisson moved on to a presentation about effective
boards in which he focused on the Board’s perception
of itself and its most important functions. Chairman
Saad said that without a doubt the most important
function of the Board is the approval of the budget
since it is the ultimate way of exerting authority.
He further stated that most information about the
University comes to the Board through the budget
process. He explained that one thing he wanted the
Board to take away from this weekend was the ability
and desire to make sure that the budget priorities
reflect the strategic priorities. He further
explained that he had realized during the
presentation of the Critical Issues Action Plan that
we have a committee that reflects each critical
issue of the strategic plan, making it possible to
look at the strategic plan through committees, a
step he believed would be very effective and
beneficial. Dr. Holland agreed with the notion of
working by committee reflecting the strategic plan,
but not to the detriment of the current procedure of
the faculty and staff working out the strategic
plan. Mr. Saad agreed on that point of clarification
and added that the Board accesses the faculty and
staff through the administration so as to avoid the
micromanaging of which the survey had spoken.
The discussion then turned to the individual
responsibilities of the Board members, with
attendance minimums being high on the list of
expectations of those present. Ms. Lovett asked if
there were a way to enforce minimum expectations or
to draw up a policy requiring that each Board member
attend, for example, two meetings per year. Mr.
Spree asked if there might at least be some informal
way of shaming the habitual offenders if only the
governor can ask for a resignation, which may not be
based on attendance records per se. Chairman Saad
said that it was most important to remember that we
routinely have eleven of the thirteen Board members
present and that it is essential to understand that
when such a high number of members do attend, we get
business accomplished.
Mr. Sisson led a discussion of Best Practices with the
Board, asking them to focus on some key issues they
had identified this weekend. Before the Board began
to make its list, Chairman Saad suggested that the
Board hold another retreat next year to assess the
University’s and the Board’s strategic planning
progress. He said that this experience has afforded
the Board the opportunity to get to know each
other’s perspectives in a different setting, which
has been of great benefit to members as individuals
as well as to members as a Board.
Mr. Sisson recorded the following Key Board Issues as
the Board defined and discussed their topics of
greatest concern for the Board:
-
Fundraising/Scholarships
-
Political Relationships
(Local, State, and Federal)
-
Visit Montgomery at least
annually to meet with legislators
-
Invite members of State
government to visit campus
-
Board PR Committee (Mr.
Spree volunteered to chair) works closely
with UWA
PR Department to invite/host people at
on-campus events
-
Evaluation Process
-
Continue the objective
evaluation of the office of President
*administered annually by Board
*last year was the first time in the history
of the institution
-
Develop and implement a
self-evaluation tool for the Board
*base on Mr. Sisson’s initial survey model
*complete by February 2007
-
Develop a statement of
responsibilities for Board members
*Chairman Saad and President Holland will
develop statement
*Board will discuss and approve or amend at
September meeting
-
Conduct special sessions with
the Board to address selected issues in depth
-
Recognize service of
current/former Board members
-
Plan a special
recognition of all former Board members as
part of the 175th celebration
-
Annually or at least
regularly thereafter recognize outstanding
service and honor retiring board members
-
Include a photograph of
the Board on the UWA website and in other
publications as deemed appropriate
As lunch
was being served in the conference room, Dr. Holland
introduced Mr. Jerry F. Smith, a Livingston
University graduate and President and CEO of Jerry
F. Smith Group, Inc. Mr. Smith distributed copies of
his presentation entitled “The Feasibility Study and
Capital Campaign Demystified” as he told the Board
about his background in fundraising. He gave the
specific example of Jacksonville State as he
explained what UWA might expect from the first phase
of a fundraising campaign. He then explained
in-depth the purpose and objectives of a feasibility
study. The study, he explained, will determine the
perceptions about the University, in general. It
will gauge support for the University’s plan.
Finally, it will measure financial resources
available through an advanced technology known as
Wealth Engine as it identifies and educates
potential donors. The feasibility study takes five
months and if it is positive will lead to a
successful capital campaign. Mr. Smith said that the
Board played two important roles in the feasibility
study: identifying potential interviewees and
helping the school get appointments with these
interviewees. Chairman Saad said that he had already
made a list of seven people we needed to contact and
he didn’t even know he was supposed to be making a
list. He encouraged others to begin making their
lists. Mr. Saad asked for a bottom line figure on
the feasibility study. Mr. Smith said the cost of
the study would be $39,000 plus expenses. After more
discussion, all of the members present were in favor
of the possibility of beginning the feasibility
study in late March or early April. Mr. Smith said
that having the right people in the University’s
Development Office would be a key factor in the
success of the capital campaign should the
University decide to proceed. He offered to train
the person in fundraising. He suggested that a few
of the key characteristics of the right person for
the job would be a willingness to learn, a love for
and understanding of the University, enthusiasm for
the job, an outgoing personality, and attention to
detail. He encouraged the Board and the President
and Provost to consider the importance of getting
the right person in the Development position before
embarking on the capital campaign because he had
seen the wonderful results such a move could
produce.
The final presenter of the day was Mr. Mike Kendrick of
Waldrep, Stewart, & Kendrick Attorneys at Law. Mr.
Kendrick distributed copies of a manual detailing
the Alabama Open Meetings Act (Act No. 2005-40) as
well as a summary of the purpose of the act and its
key definitions. He said that he wanted to make sure
the Board members understood that the revised act is
a civil act, making the Board members personally
liable for violating the Open Meetings Act. Mr.
Kendrick reminded the Board that the University must
notify the Secretary of State of Board meetings
within sufficient time for the Secretary to receive
the notice, process it, issue a confirmation of
receipt, and post the notice on the website at least
seven days in advance before the day of the meeting.
Dr. Holland said that the University actually was
not only notifying the Secretary of State but also
the press. Mr. Kendrick said although it was not
necessary for the University to notify the press
directly, he was sure they appreciated the gesture.
Following a lengthy discussion of the revisions of
the Open Meetings Act, Mr. Kendrick outlined the
nine reasons for going into executive session. After
discussing each one and taking questions and
comments, Mr. Kendrick stated that the very most
important advice that he could give Board was that
no votes could be taken in executive session. He
also advised the Board members individually to be
aware of their personal responsibility under the
law. He ended by telling the Board that he had
explained the law as he understood it at the present
time and that his knowledge and understanding of the
fine points of the revisions would increase as the
law was tested in court. He encouraged the Board to
call on him to answer any questions they had about
the Open Meetings Act.
Chairman Saad thanked Mr. Kendrick for his presentation
and Ms. Walker for her attendance. He thanked Mr.
Sisson for facilitating the weekend retreat
discussions of the strategic plans and again thanked
the Board and Dr. Holland and Dr. Taylor for their
attendance. There being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 2:00.
|
