Working Group Schedules & Meeting Summaries
Planning Task Force scheduled meetings:
Decision protocols, mandates and a summary document were approved and a subcommittee was struck to review the evaluation categories.
Criteria and weights for the Admin Priorities Team and for the Academic Priorities Team were approved. A presentation by the PTF subcommittee on evaluation categories and distribution got the PTF started on the next step.
The task force was updated by each of the teams, a communications plan was presented, ground rules for the task force were set and the evaluation categories were discussed. The evaluation categories subcommittee will bring a finalized version to the next meeting.
The committee received progress updates from the co-chairs of the prioritization and resource management committees. The academic and administrative priorities teams are both working to finalize the templates that will be distributed and completed by each program. CPAM provided an update on the IPRM communications plan, and the committee discussed the newly released MTCU Differentiation Policy Framework and its possible application/impact on IPRM.
Administrative Priorities Team scheduled meetings:
The team finalized the Administrative Program Guide and Process. The team will now test the process to be submitted by July 12, 2013. The team agreed to a staggered template submission schedule. The team commenced working on the template.
The team continued to develop the template. The team received an update regarding the Program Guide and Process as well as feedback received to date regarding the program lists distributed to the Administrative units.
The team had a thorough discussion regarding the draft template. The team was provided a sample Budget Allocation spreadsheet that will be used as a tool when areas are completing the template.
Academic Priorities Team scheduled meetings:
The team approved in principle: (1) a draft report on how to define academic teaching programs for evaluation and a draft list of programs for consultation with Faculty deans; and (2) a draft academic program evaluation template for pilot testing with three departments/programs. The team also agreed to strike a subcommittee with cross-representation from the Planning Task Force and Administrative Priorities Team to consider issues around the definition and evaluation of research programs.
The team heard progress reports on consultations with Faculty deans (re: the draft list of academic teaching programs) and Institutional Research & Planning (re: availability and timelines for provision of centralized data). It also received and discussed the first draft of a process for evaluating academic programs.
The team heard progress reports on academic and research program definitions, pilot tests of program evaluation, and data provision. The team also discussed the second draft of a process for evaluating academic programs.
The team heard a progress report from the Research Sub-Committee. The team also discussed the academic program list, finalized the process for evaluating academic programs, and provided feedback on the pilot academic program evaluation template.
Resource Management Team scheduled meetings:
The team received a presentation by members of the committee (co-chair, AVP Financial Resources and Director of Budgets), regarding the current Laurier budget model and process. In addition, the Resource Management Team continues to work on the 'Critical Path' process and timeline.
The team debriefed and reflected on the content of the June 26 presentation of the Laurier budget model and process. The team also split into smaller working groups to review five to six outside university budget models and processes. Each smaller working group will present its findings at a future meeting.