Vision Transition Steering Team

Date :Tuesday, Sept 11, 2012Location :President’s Boardroom - Trafalgar

Chair: Jeff Zabudsky

Attendees:Ian Marley, Cathi Berge, Maria Lucido-Bezely, Andre Plante, Ronni Rosenberg, SylviaTeichtmeister, Bill Holmes, Mike Collins, Has Malik, Sandy McKean, Richard Finch, Mary Preece, Jocelyn Piercy, Melanie Spence-Ariemma, Megan Mascarin

Regrets: Steven ParfeniukMinutes Taken By:S Shaver

Item / By / Key notes / Action/Responsibility/Timeline
  1. Approval of Agenda
/ Jeff Zabudsky /
  • Moved by Has Malik and seconded by Andre Plante that
The agenda be approved as written.
Carried.
  1. President’s Update
/ Jeff Zabudsky /
  • Jeff acknowledged the work that has taken place, as reflected in the video played at the Welcome Back Breakfast.
/
  • This group will continue as a planning and monitoring body for an overall view of the work towards the Vision. Work will be distributed (potentially develop an implementation/work plan) and metrics will be established and measured.

  1. Review White Paper Recommendations Summary
/ Jeff Zabudsky /
  • This is raw material taken from the white papers without the context of the material behind them in the White Papers.
  • The material therefore may need review and revision.
  • Accreditation – themes – quality assurance/responsiveness. Faculty representation/administrative responsibility. Applied research is defined by the disciplines more so than by the Institution solely. Faculty roles need to be worked through together with both parties once the mgmt. discussions take place about a framework . Library… Many of the topics relate to other groups ie governance, research, etc.Recommendations to be re-distributed to other areas. AUCC accreditation and professional accreditation were key part of discussions.
  • Applied Research – related to curriculum development and quality assurance….SOTL. Integration and implementation into the curriculum. Much of this will go to the SAC and LAC committees. Suggested having a discussion about Sheridan’s goals for Research, which may be different from one Faculty or industry to another. Seeking new knowledge or within the curriculum to develop better prepared graduates. Engaging undergraduates in research in our model of a teaching university.
  • Suggest a timeline map that starts with the end picture as we know it now at the higher level and what we need to do to get there.
/
  • Pathways recommendations could go to a working group. Recommendations were specific and some quite operational.
  • Applied Research - Mary to review principles articulated in the Research document she has shared recently with the Deans.
  • Proposed an administrative council (joint management council) for development of the Research framework to then be populated with discussion and feedback from faculty/local conversations – LAC.
  • Governance – committee needs to carry on. Co-chaired with President and a Board member. New members of SAC to be identified due to past members having become administrators. PAC revamp is mentioned here and needs to be developed.
  • Infrastructure – started as a base-line current inventory but much more to explore. Operationalized in the VICE committee that deals with space.
  • Suggest including creative spaces and getting people involved in that conversation. This was not specifically addressed with the Infrastructure Engagement Team. Another layer of consideration is Sustainability.
  • Space is a key way of developing our identity and demonstrating our mission.
  • Suggest sunset and re-develop a working group or groups with clear mission and reviewed membership. Mandate to be discussed further with potential to report through the VICE committee.
  • People Plan – work done was based on the key priorities from the Knightsbridge report. Three were tackled and developed. Sunset this group, Management develop an HR strategy and engage working groups as needed to implement some of the People Plan priorities
  • Quality – sunset, suggest an ongoing working group. Team’s research related to the MacLean’s …… Many of the recommendations will tie to the accreditation work. Quality remains as an integral part of Sheridan, with adaptive changing criteria with dynamic flexibility. One of the key recommendations was to look outside of education for best practice Quality work in other sectors that might be adopted/considered. Management will be working with UCC to develop a robust faculty evaluation process as is required by PEQAB and PQAPA. Noted that Quality needs to be considered in a very broad lens.
  • Quality group identified is looking at a small aspect of Quality as discussed. Not sure how the very much larger issue will be tackled institutionally.
  • Data
  • Designing a robust set of metrics that are consistent allows for the longitudinal process that gives the assurance of continual quality assurance. This would come second after establishing the values at an institutional level.
  • VISION is to become a special kind of institution
  • Executive have a conversation about how to work through this?
  • QUALITY – institutional level.
  • Scholarship of Teaching and Learning – 4 working groups had very functional recommendations. Re formatted to show higher level recommendations. Noted that there is a lot of SOTL going on now. Need to develop and support a culture of SOTL. Need to have in place an infrastructure that encourages and supports a culture ofSOTL. Needs to be a very clear of enacating at the leadership level to model the desired behaviours. Sunset the committee and take the discussion to SAC and filter the information to the LACs etc. Noted that there is an expectation that faculty would be expected to contribute to the SOTL for their areas of expertise. Need to determine how that is encouraged/supported and resourced.
  • Teaching Excellence working group will address the formative evaluation program for faculty.
  • STUDENT Experience – sunset. Discussed what IS Student Experience and developed a definition. Importance of an awareness of the critical role that all parties play in the student experience. Suggest that the a modification of a current Student Success and Advancement take on some of these discussions. Should there be a Student experience group as part of the SoTL group at the SAC with strategic cause and effect conversations.
  • Discuss off-line a potential terms of reference that might work if there were a student experience group tied in to SAC or outside SAC, possibly through President’s Council.
  • University Model – listed desirable characteristics, researched other institutions. No single exemplar institution, Sheridan is already unique. Many exemplars of various characteristics. Recommendations broad and high level and cross over many of the other engagement team areas as well as features of the AIS ie inter disciplinary education, etc.
  • Suggest UM engagement team sunset but continue with some body continuing conversation with these other institutions to gather some of their best practice experiences/recommendations. Suggest that the Vision Steering team continue those conversations with these other institutions.

  1. Decision Matrix
/
  • Partially addressed in the review of the white paper recommendations above.

  1. Next Steps
/
  • Mary reflect on the invigoration and enthusiasm of the engagement team work, suggesting we have a reception for those participants with the unveiling of the white papers and an update.
  • Mary/Jeff/Sheila discuss more of the next steps.
  • Please review the material we havehave now.
  • Next meeting could develop an overview work plan/timeline.
  • Discussed that a communications plan/thread be established for this work.

  1. Adjournment
/
  • Thank you for your leadership, thrilled with the progress.
Lisa Piccolo moved and Mary Preece seconded
That the meeting adjourns.

Next Vision Transition Steering Team meeting - Tuesday, October 16, President’s Boardroom, Trafalgar campus 12:00 – 2:00

Page 1 of 5