The forum was attended by approximately 15 individuals, 8 of whom were members of one of the three Business Functions Committees.

Facilitator: Roger Lujan
Recorder: Julie Weaks/Melissa Vargas

Brief overviews of committee reports were presented by the following individuals:

Committee Name                 Presenter
Infrastructure Committee     Roger Schluntz, Committee Chair
Operations Committee        Carol Stephens, Committee Chair
Finance Committee             Max Kerlin, Chair

The following observations were offered by individuals attending the forum:

• In regard to committee membership, I don’t see faculty without administrative appointments or students represented and it seems like they would have a lot to offer this process. (Julie Weaks responded that there were a lot of invitees that did not accept appointments to these committees.)

• Were there efforts to link the strategic planning efforts to other campus committees such as the Senate Budget Committee? (Julie Weaks responded that the Faculty Senate President is a member of the committee and he suggested membership on sub-committees.)

• The lack of faculty membership is obvious in the reports. The Operation and Management Systems section talks about customer service. Faculty don’t have customers, they have students. (Carol Stephens responded that they used the broader term of customer to refer to those gaining services from the University.)

• In regard to the Physical Infrastructure report, it is so vague and general, doesn’t identify the needs or state objectives. It is frightfully general and innocuous. Hugh Wittemeyer added that in the last accreditation review there were $220 million in infrastructure improvements that need to be addressed before the next review. Hugh also stated that he doesn’t sense urgency in the report and that there are unacceptable generalizations. He doesn’t see concrete connections with what faculty and students deal with on a day-to-day basis. (Roger Schluntz responded that this is a strategic plan, not an implementation plan.)

• Bob Leonard applauded the fact that "infrastructure technology" is a part of the recurring costs but asked where the capital requirement ends. What are we saying the institution is responsible for? He would like to see more spelling out of where we are going. We need a clear, high-level of authority controlling IT (budget, requests, etc.)

• In regard to the Physical Infrastructure report, there is no mention of the University wanting to make this an automobile-free campus. I thought this is the direction that the University was headed.

• Three or four reports call for a Cabinet-level administrative coordinator. The result would be four more vice-provosts. What can we do with that? This creates more mud. (Carol Stephens responded that some reports call for more decentralization of processes and others call for more centralization. We are looking at different alternatives.)

• In regard to Information Technology, the technologies themselves are competing (telephone, computer technology, web, etc.) and they will all be the same. This is the reason to consider them in the same arena. We now have five directors controlling these areas. We should consider reorganizing the authority of the University.

• I am interested in seeing efforts that will set us in a common direction. Technology innovations brought in (EMIS) should support the academic uses as well. It is questionable whether systems that will streamline business functions will work for the academic side also. Accountants at UNM have Pentium IV’s and many academic departments still have a number of 386’s. There needs to be a system in place to systematically replace computer infrastructure for all faculty and staff. It is a reality that we cannot deny.

• There is a conception that if the middle manager could do their job better everything would be fine. We are in an environment where everything is pushed up to a higher level. We struggle to make our jobs do-able and each VP must do the same. We need to work on reallocation of existing positions rather than creation of new ones.

• In regard to the Financial Affairs report, I agree that the resource base is our biggest challenge and we should look for outside sources of funding. Did the committee have time to consider what that will mean for the University in the future? How can the University raise the proportion of resources without giving some degree of control over to contributing entities? They will seek control of University functions ("corporatization"). (Max Kerlin responded that they did not get to that question and stated that all restricted money will not solve the University’s problems. We must achieve a balance between restricted (grants) and unrestricted (state funds, tuition) additional funding.)

• The University has to ask "what are we not going to do" (programmatically).

• This is not a self-critical document.

• When do we get to the implementation planning phase? (Wanda Martin responded that the committees that overlap will pull together and write more detailed reports that can be worked into a plan with directions, objectives, etc.)

• The forums are scheduled at a very tough time for faculty.

• This is a top down administratively controlled process without coordination with groups such as the Faculty Senate.

Strategic Planning Open Forum

Business Functions Grouping

December 13, 2000

MTTC Auditorium

The forum was attended only by Strategic Planning Committee members. There were no comments or discussion.

Recorder: Melissa Vargas