KWANTLEN POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY Planning and Priori… · THAT the SSC Academic Planning & Priorities accept the committee mandate and membership as revised. SSCAP&P ... scenario

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


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


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