Salisbury University


Strategic Planning Team




November 14, 2002


Members present:  Bryan Price: Chair, Alice Bahr, Timothy Dunn, Jane Dané, Becky Emery, Gains Hawkins, Tony Jemison, Joel Jenne, David Rieck, Alan Selser, Jerry Waldron, Carol Williamson, Ellen Zinner


A newly scheduled meeting of the Strategic Planning Team (SPT) was held in the Montgomery Room at 3 p.m. 


1)      Discussion of Minutes


There was a brief discussion with no correction to the minutes from October 17.  October 31 and November 7 minutes had been sent out earlier in the day as unapproved.  Since one goal is to submit the minutes for campus review as quickly as possible, it was suggested that all minutes be sent out as tentative, giving individuals who were present approximately a week to respond if corrections were necessary.  They could then be formalized if no comments were brought forward.  Minutes will be placed on the web as quickly as possible.  The minutes can be accessed on the web at


2)      Discussion of Planning Workshop


January 24, 2003  12-4:30 pm. 


Campus-wide workshop for faculty, administrative staff, and invited staff. Lunch will be provided for those attending the workshop. The specific agenda is still being reviewed.  B.E.A.C.O.N. will be facilitating the workshop, with Ruth Baker, Managing Director, facilitating the majority of the workshop.  Tentative agenda for workshop participants: 1) review of the SPT’s work, most specifically the SWOT analysis that must be conducted prior to the workshop 2) identification of the those elements of the SWOT analysis that surface as issues or opportunities 3) breakout sessions where faculty and staff provide input and priority ranking to items in #2 4) opportunity during break-out sessions to bring forward other priorities or initiatives.


Dr. Rieck emphasized that there must be ample time for faculty to have the opportunity for  comment/input.  It was discussed that, while comment/input was part of the scheduled activities, alternative follow-up opportunities may be necessary.


3)      Discussion regarding Internal Scan needs


Dr. Bahr commented that a SWOT analysis couldn’t be conducted without a presentation of internal trends.  All agreed.  Some of the scanning teams had been focusing on external trends while others were incorporating both. After discussion, it was concluded that the group could readily fill in any current institutional trend analyses since many if not most of the analyses were already completed for other group discussions.


4)      Presentation: Academic Trends and Career Markets by Dr. Timothy Dunn, Dr. Becky Emery, Dr. Joel Jenne, Dr. David Rieck, and Dr. Ellen Zinner


The five members of the team led the SPT through a series of presentations on the external mandates impacting current academic initiatives and career emphases, a discussion of educational and K-16 trends, internationalization & globalization, academic mission, internships, undergraduate research experiences, service learning/volunteerism, and civic engagement.  They also discussed the fastest growing occupations, distinguishing them from the occupations that employ the most.  There was a brief discussion presented that described the skills that employers communicate are of primary interest, none of which are discipline-specific and instead are skills and competencies identified in the core of the student learning goals of general education.  Finally, there was a discussion of the general trends in faculty workload requirements, a general assessment of the way legislators view faculty workload, the increasing use of part-time faculty, and SU trends.  The documents can be found on the web at .


5)      Presentation: Workforce, State Initiatives by Bryan Price


Bryan presented the primary workforce or high-demand fields of interest to Maryland: nurses, teachers, and information technology specialists.  The document used by most agencies, including the MHEC and the Department of Budget & Management, as part of institutional performance accountability was distributed.  The document, Managing For Results, includes mandated initiatives for the number of nursing, teacher education, and information technology graduates.  Also presented was the Peer Performance data which is utilized to compare SU against its peers.  Among other indicators, the MHEC expects comparisons on the licensure passing rates of teacher education graduates (Praxis Series) and nursing graduates.  The documents can be found on the web at and .





The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:45 p.m.