Introductory Remarks, Meeting of January 16, 2008

There are two items I need to discuss with you before we turn to the reports from subcommittees. The first concerns the rationale for continuing with strategic planning in light of the events of the past two weeks. The second is what modifications we are going to make in proceeding.

1. Loren gave me the charge to begin a strategic planning process. The need for such a process, however, arose independent of him. Indeed, it is my view, and the view of many others, that a planning process is a best practice of good universities, and that the planning process continues in some form even when a report has been written and approved.

I have heard the argument that we should consider halting the planning process for two reasons: first, because Loren’s vision is incorporated into the plan and, second, because a new Chancellor may harbor a different vision for the campus.

The plan that we have pursuing does have elements of Loren’s vision contained in it. But it is a vision that is widely shared across the campus and therefore does not belong to anyone in particular. Indeed, if we proceed as I hope we will, the vision contained in the plan’s details will be that of the campus community, not one individual.

With regard to the six guidelines, you will recall that we are borrowing them from the systemwide scorecard; in any case these guidelines are broad enough that they allow us to fill in a content relating specifically to Knoxville as the flagship campus of the University of Tennessee.

Overlaying these guideposts are three themes: I don’t believe anyone could be against quality, and certainly diversity and inclusiveness as values of the campus are beyond dispute. Whether we should increase the size of the campus, and by how much we should increase it may be more controversial. But the governor has a stated goal of producing more BA degrees, and he has also emphasized the need for improved graduate education at Knoxville. The president has also emphasized the need for a larger campus. Most of all I think that we are convinced, for the reasons I cited at our first meeting, that an increase to 33,000 students is in the best interests of the campus and the state of Tennessee. I therefore believe that our planning still rests on a sound foundation.

Will a new Chancellor be in agreement with the plan we develop?  Will he or she want something different or something additional?  We can’t be certain what the new Chancellor will want, but I know that it will make things a lot easier for that individual if there is a roadmap for the future. It is quite possible that a new Chancellor may want to include some new items, but I think our plan should be flexible enough to incorporate new ideas. A plan should always include flexibility for changes that are unforeseen. I am therefore convinced that a new Chancellor will welcome what we are doing and be pleased that a planning document exists.

2. Loren’s dismissal does change the timetable for the plan. Originally he had wanted to present something to the Board of Trustees in March. He also wanted me to develop some general information on costs and benefits during January. I believe now that we can safely push off the date for the strategic plan until the end of this academic year. I would aim for something in June, although I believe we should still work to write drafts of our particular areas in March or April.

I have formed a small group that will be seeking to provide some of the information that Loren had requested and that now Jan will need. I will also be working to develop specific parts of the report, as needed, for the office of the president.

I would also note that many dimensions of the plan are proceeding independent of a formal strategic plan. We are seeking to improve access by various means, including the Student Access to Knoxville Initiative/Enrollment (SAKI/E). Student success has been a focus for the campus for the past year or so. We are committed to increasing our research productivity and our contributions to economic development even while we are engaged in planning. And outreach and globalization, in various ways, are ongoing initiatives we have emphasized as part of our mission for many years.

Thus the strategic plan, as I conceive it, will set a roadmap for the future, but it will also be a partial confirmation of stated and unstated plans already developed. The shift in our timetable will therefore not entail a shift in our ongoing efforts to implement initiatives and procedures that will push our campus forward.

Before I relinquish the floor and turn the proceedings over to the subcommittees, I want to thank all of you again for your participation. I appreciate especially the rapidity with which you have responded to the charges of your subcommittees and formed those committees.

The Office of the Provost and the strategic planning committee welcome input from the campus community at any point during this important process. You may send comments here.