The group attending the meeting was small enough that introductions of everyone in attendance were made. Following introductions John Geissman opened the meeting.

Undergraduate Student Recruitment, Retention, Support, Enrollment Management

Terry Babbitt, committee chair, gave a brief summary of his committee’s report. The following questions, responses, and comments were made from the floor.

• Was there a discussion in the committee about the frustrations of students in trying to deal with student services bureaucracy? This was discussed in committee. The process needs improvement. Technology could assist with this as well as a better customer service orientation. There was a reaction to the statement that students are "customers" and to the term "market share" used in the answer to the question. One faculty noted an objection to these terms stating that they represented an example of the corporatization of the university. "Faculty do not see students as customers." The customer service emphasis is being placed on the wrong audience.
• Did the committee discuss where the funds to implement the recommendations would come from? The committee discussed this. The committee assumed that some re-allocation would need to take place and that some sacrifices will need to be made within the division to emphasize the priorities. No specific recommendations for estimated costs were determined.
• How will the costs be communicated to decision-makers? The Core Retention Committee produced a report with specific recruitment and retention recommendations and the Provost has access to this report.

Michael Dougher, committee chair, gave a brief summary of his committee’s report. The following questions, responses, and comments were made from the floor.

• How many faculty would have to disappear in order for salaries to go up by 11%? One approach would be to cut programs. The committee did not discuss this because it is too political. Some standard should be in place to measure quality. The committee liked the idea of getting faculty involved in a discussion of reallocation. This would be the only way to make it work.
• How will faculty do more community service given the picture described? Faculty already do a tremendous amount of community service. It was suggested that community service be reported to the community better through the P.R. office – but another form to fill out should not be required to do this. The intention of community service is not to redefine the role of faculty but to get the message out to the community about just how much UNM’s faculty contributes to the community. Faculty would be leery if "directed" to conduct community service.
• How will the integration between the reports occur? No discussion.
• How will measurements be taken to determine if strategic directions have resulted in achieving the expected outcomes? How will evaluation be incorporated? It will be a dynamic process. Need to think about evaluation/outcomes.
• There was concern expressed that the plan is a vast effort and the needs are so great, resources no where close, consequently, really major things need to happen but what we’ll do is just tinker. If we were funded better we could prevent some of the problems. If we are going to shuffle around $100,000 then this is a huge effort for little result. It was suggested that we should create more endowed chairs. We should fund our efforts through non-traditional efforts. We need a strategic plan so that we can direct our fundraising. This approach was cautioned because funding from private sources can dry up or disappear. Need to make the development office more donor friendly. It is so bureaucratic that its hard to make a gift.

Susan Carkeek, committee chair, gave a brief summary of his committee’s report. The following questions, responses, and comments were made from the floor.

General comments:

• The use of technology in human resources is a good idea but do it right.
• It was suggested that a different management structure be put into place for departments. One person commented that faculty as managers is not a good thing, a better system might be to employ professional managers to run department staff.
• It was suggested that we need to be careful who we toute our benefits to. In particular, the legislature could read this to mean that being an employee has so many benefits that it is therefore acceptable to have lower pay.
• There was a suggestion to review job categories and the salary ranges.
• The audience was pleased by the recommendation of the committee to recognize and reward good people.

Tom Dodson, committee chair, gave a brief summary of his committee’s report. The following questions responses and comments were made from the floor.

• Did the committee discuss a faculty club? There is a lot of communication that takes place in these clubs that does not happen in the absence of one.
• Why was the committee only represented by anglo males? The committee tried to get some other representation but was unsuccessful because of the short time frame.
• Did the committee discuss the fact that diverse faculty recruitment is nearly impossible because we can’t be competitive?
• Was their discussion about duel faculty hiring?