Present: Dene Thomas, Karen Evans, Dean Froehlich, Chet Herbst, Rene Hofeldt, Rob Lohrmeyer, Deacon Meier, Rita Morris, Kathy Noble, Jody Oftelie, Carmen Rahm, Ray Sanders

Absent: Kathy Martin, Dan Regan

A copy was distributed of Governor Kempthorne's press release outlining the actions being taken by state agencies to protect Idahoans as the country fights a war against terrorism. The press release can be accessed at web address http://www2.state.id.us/gov/mediacenter/press. The institutions have been asked to identify specialists, who have medical, chemical, biological backgrounds or knowledge about world affairs, that may be called on for advice.

State Board of Education Meeting Schedule

The State Board of Education meeting schedule for November 14 and 15 was distributed. LCSC will be the location of the November meeting. Agenda items include:

• Progress Report: Lewis-Clark State College
• Proposed Fee Increase - Request to go above 10% limit
• Five Year Plan - Higher Education Funding
• Task Force Report on Equity
• FY02 and FY03 Budget Update

President Thomas attended the following meetings in Boise on November 6: Higher education presidents with Governor Kempthorne, the Presidents' Council, and a meeting the presidents and three State Board of Education members.

All discussions focused on state funding cuts, increases in student fees and the ramifications of both actions on access to education in Idaho. The November State Board of Education meeting will give the institutions direction on budget proposals with higher than 10 percent student fee increases. Prior to that meeting, the Board has requested a report of what our fees are in relationship to our peers. Ultimately, the Board would like to see a five-year plan for student fees.

Chet Herbst reported that Track 1, 2 and 3 processes are well underway. He also gave a PowerPoint presentation (slide notes below--complete copy available through President's Office) to update where we are in relationship to the March 2001 strategic plan and approaches for developing decision criteria for budget/program options. This same presentations will be made to the three constituent groups (Faculty, Professional Staff and Classified Staff).

How do we go about the planning process? Participative Leadership - Smart Approach

• High interaction, high initiative while preserving "command" and "line/staff" roles

-Line units and staff provide best advice to accountable decision-maker(s)

-Staff experts develop possible courses of action (options) for evaluation-open exchange of ideas

-Leadership chooses courses) of action, provides strategic direction

-Units (teams) on the line execute the plan--use strategic guidance to tailor unit tactics to

meet real world situation.

Strategic Approach (Plans, Programs, Budgets)

• Use interactive team approach for 2%-9% budget drill

-Options developed by units who, ultimately, will have to execute

-Emphasis on programs as links between strategy/plans and budgets

-Participation by all constituencies through focused teams (analyze options from multiple perspectives)

-Clear, concise, timely advice to decision maker(s)

-Emphasis on impact of courses of action

-Maximize LCSC's responsiveness and coherence; once operations commence--adapt to changes

Observations on March 2001 Strategic Plan

• Initial March, 2001 document has typical earmarks of "brainstorming" methodology
• Helped to set tone and identify key principles (compass for follow-on detailed planning)
• But, more work needed to fill in gaps, provide clarity, provide direction, provide timelines, etc.

• Clarify LCSC's image, identity, mission
• Develop simple message/model to explain (sell) LCSC's unique role, relative advantages, and operational style
• Then operationalize those principles by developing concrete strategic and tactical plans (programs)
• Use integrated/interactive team approach for all facets of strategic plans and operations (budgets, structures, resources, facilities, etc.)

• Plugs wide array of programs into a strategic triad of three primary focus areas
• Emphasizes LCSC's contributions to external customers
• Good springboard for emphasizing our unique operational style

• March 2001 Strategic Plan emphasizes "small size" as inherent virtue
• Yet, calls for (undefined) growth of institution and expansion of programs
• Stresses "family learning environment"?
• But, what is it about our size that makes us better? How do we preserve our essence if we grow?

• Greater personal interaction among students, faculty, staff, community customers
• Small group interaction and leadership
• Greater hands-on active learning/training in coursework, practica, community service
• Better responsiveness by LCSC to external and internal needs and change
• Personalized education/training experience; small group bonding; commitment to institution

Mutual support, small-team leadership and responsiveness should enable LCSC to turn inside competitors "decision circles"

• Keep LCSC operating style focused at the small-group level
• If activities are designed and conducted by (and for) small, close-knit teams, LCSC can preserve advantages of small size as it grows to meet needs of customers
• Distributed planning, execution and operations: A-team approach maximizes initiative, responsiveness, mutual support, individual leadership and esprit de corps
• Integrate efforts of teams at institution level

• Complete 2%-9% budget exercise
• Identify structural (reorganization) issues
• Carry March 2001 Strategic Plan to next level of detail

• Integrate family of LCSC strategic plans with institutional assessment processes

A first-draft checklist of objective and subjective factors for consideration was distributed. While a work in progress, the checklist can be distributed to units to assist in guiding discussions.

• What is the demand (or potential demand) for the program? (primary customers)
• Competitive environment: Are others meeting (or planning to meet) the demand? What are LCSC’s strengths/weakness in relation to competing and/or cooperating institutions?
• Is the program mandated by state or federal authorities?
• What are the resource requirements for the program (dollars, personnel, infrastructure, cross-unit support)? What funding sources are used now or are potentially available? Has sustained funding been identified?
• To what extent does the program benefit "customers" in other programs (who are the users? how many? )
• How has the program performed in the past (review trends for the unit’s measures of merit—students served, events scheduled, placements made, units maintained, graduates produced, classes provided, widgets repaired, meals served, etc.)?
• Does the (proposed) program dovetail with ongoing LCSC programs/strengths? (Does it enhance personal interaction? active learning? practical experience? service?)
• What is the impact of executing, expanding, reducing, and/or eliminating the program?
• Does the program reinforce LCSC’s vision, identity, and operational style?
• How time-sensitive is the proposed option/program? What would be the impacts of delays, stretch-outs, dormancy then reactivation?
• What are the likely impacts on quality of life for students, staff, faculty?
• What other factors could constrain adoption (statutory requirements, tenure factors, unions, political impacts, etc.)?
• What is likely impact, if any, on Enrollment (retention, recruiting) and Endowment?
• What is the potential impact on LCSC’s image/reputation among other higher-education institutions, lawmakers, and local/state citizens?
• Other Factors:

The next President's Council will be on Tuesday, November 13, at 9:00 a.m., in the Alumni Board Room. Bill Ruud, Governor Kempthorne's Policy Advisor, and Jane McClaran, Division of Financial Management Budget Analyst, will be our guests for a discussion of financing higher education in Idaho.