|
STANDARD
1 - MISSION AND PURPOSE
Introduction
| Description | Appraisal
| Projection
Introduction
Since the last comprehensive evaluation of this institution,
in 1990, several important changes have taken place, which
have had a direct impact on the institution's mission and
goals. In 1991 the then Southeastern Massachusetts University
became the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, part of
the University of Massachusetts system. The legislation which
brought about this change also abolished the Board of Regents,
established the Higher Education Coordinating Council (later
replaced by the Board of Higher Education), and established
a single Board of Trustees, appointed by the Governor, for
the University system. The Board of Trustees adopted a Vision
Statement for the University in 1992. This statement asserted
that: The special character of the University stems from that
aspect of its mission that focuses on the creation of new
knowledge. It also listed six components of the University's
mission: access, excellence, innovation, economic development
and global competitiveness, public service, and the quality
of life. The statement also maintains that each of the campuses
will play a distinct and complementary role in fulfilling
the mission of the University. Specifically, it states that
the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth will maintain and
develop its strength as a model for excellence in undergraduate
education in a university environment. The campus was also
directed to continue its development of selected graduate
education and research programs.
In response to directives on planning from the President's
Office (Planning to Plan, 1992), and in line with the Trustees
mandate that each campus prepare its own mission statement
based on the Trustees statement, Interim Chancellor, Joseph
Deck--in consultation with the leadership of the Faculty Federation
and Faculty Senate--created a UMass Dartmouth Academic Planning
Task Force (APTF), in 1992. The APTF, drawing from the vision
statement for the University system, developed a campus vision
statement, approved by the Board of Trustees, which places
emphasis on a special relationship between undergraduate and
graduate education. The statement reaffirmed the campus commitment
to economic development and to serving as a catalyst for regional
initiatives. It also states that the university will continue
its commitments to education and public service while expanding
research efforts, establishing additional graduate programs,
and addressing the educational needs of the state's increasingly
diverse population. This "vision" statement appears
in the university catalog and remains the campus's fundamental
statement of its mission. It has not been revised since it
was approved in 1992.
During the first two years of its membership in the University
system, the Dartmouth campus was able to do relatively little
to move in the new directions indicated in the statements
promulgated during those years. In large part, this lack of
movement was the result of reduced funding from the Commonwealth.
In both fiscal years 1991 and 1992, already insufficient funding
was further eroded. During these years the university continued
to draw upon the General Purpose Trust Fund, defer maintenance,
and leave vacant positions unfilled. Layoffs were avoided,
but over 85% of the operating budget was dedicated to salaries
and almost nothing was left over for new initiatives. A second
factor contributing to this comparative stagnation was the
interim nature of leadership, both at the system and campus
levels.
In spite of the difficulties cited above, changes were made
which, in hindsight, clearly moved the campus in new directions,
but in basic accordance with its mission, and laid the groundwork
for more substantive later changes. During the first year
of our membership in the University system, it became apparent
that more equitable funding would be necessary for this campus
to become a full-fledged participant in the University of
Massachusetts system and fulfill its role in the vision of
that system. Support for physical plant and equipment and
for faculty and staff development had to be found. Greater
attention needed to be paid to graduate programs, and doctoral
programs would have to be developed. Finally, the FY 93 budget
included an increase of $2.6 million, or 10% in the state
appropriation, for the campus. While this budget did not restore
state funding to the level of FY 88, it did represent a reversal
of the reductions of the prior four years.
Such was the situation when Peter H. Cressy became Chancellor
of the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth on July 1, 1993.
Dr. Cressy, while not eschewing planning, can be described
as entrepreneurial in the sense of seizing initiatives when
opportunities are presented. He succeeded in shifting the
foci of our mission to the areas of increasing funded research
activity, economic development, and outreach to the region,
while refocusing our traditional commitment to teaching and
learning. President Michael K. Hooker agreed with Chancellor
Cressy that the Dartmouth campus would need financial assistance
to enable it to become a full partner in the University of
Massachusetts system. Consequently, in fiscal years 1994 and
1995 the campus received mission enhancement funds which were
used to enhance the areas of economic development, teaching
and learning, and diversity and pluralism. An Advanced Technology
Center was established, CAD/CAM design equipment was purchased
for the Visual Arts Textile Design Program, and essential
steps were taken in minority recruitment and retention. During
this period the Academic Planning Task Force continued its
work, and in 1995 issued a revision of its 1992 planning document
under the title, Building on Our Strengths, Revisited. The
Provost charged the Council of Academic Deans and the APTF,
using the 1995 document as a guide, to develop together a
common academic agenda in the form of a plan based on a set
of goals.
Also in 1995, the Board of Trustees mandated its Year 2000
plan, requiring each campus in the system to develop a plan
for reallocation of 3% of its state support each year. UMass
Dartmouth set a reallocation target of $6.4 million to be
achieved over five years. It was also during this three-year
period that the long-anticipated marine science facility was
funded, constructed, and opened. (In 1997 the $12 million
Center for Marine Science and Technology (CMAST) opened in
New Bedford.) During the process of reallocation over $1.2
million was directed to support research in marine science.
In addition to CMAST, reallocation/restructuring also supported
the Textile Department, chemistry and cranberry research,
the Advanced Technology and Manufacturing Center, and the
Center for Portuguese Studies and Culture. A new Teaching
and Learning Center was formed in 1997, with a faculty member
serving as Director. The details of the reallocation process
are reported in a November 18, 1998 Executive Summary.
In 1997 the Academic Planning Task Force and the Council
of Academic Deans completed the project assigned by the Provost
and produced the Shared Academic Agenda for UMass Dartmouth.
Although the Shared Academic Agenda addresses itself primarily
to goals for the Academic Division, those goals impact the
entire university and are central to its mission. The Shared
Academic Agenda contains six broad categories of goals as
follows:
1. Strengthen undergraduate programs to achieve greater
distinction, coherence and quality;
2. Strengthen existing graduate programs, and establish
new graduate programs to achieve greater distinction, coherence
and quality;
3. Encourage and support development of faculty and staff
in teaching, scholarship, and public service, and develop
service activities that are clearly linked to our educational
mission and agenda;
4. Assess how well the outcomes we seek are achieved;
5. Identify and provide to students the support services
needed to achieve their successful assimilation into the
academic life of our campus and distinctively high rates
of satisfaction, retention and degree completion;
6. Improve the support infrastructure, including library,
electronic information resources, technical staff, and the
physical plant.
When it approved the Shared Academic Agenda, the Faculty
Senate also recommended that the Academic Planning Task Force
propose a process by which the Shared Agenda could be linked
to the university's budget formulation and allocation.
A workgroup formed in January 1998 developed such a proposal.
In March 1998, another workgroup was formed to develop a complementary
process for the other campus divisions. The process established
for this new budget/planning initiative was given a partial
trial run for the FY2000 budget, and is being readied for
implementation for FY01.
From time to time Chancellor Cressy, informed by the Shared
Academic Agenda, and after consultation with the Deans who
in turn meet with the Department Chairs, developed statements
and reports for the Board of Trustees outlining the new directions
the campus had taken and responding to mandates from the Trustees.
The most recent of these is titled UMass Dartmouth's
Unique Role in the UMass System and is contained in the January,
1999, Trustee Orientation Handbook--University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth.
It provides a unique snapshot of where the campus is at this
moment and can be used to measure progress toward the more
general goals of the vision statement. This same 1999 document
also contains a list of strategic goals growing out of our
unique role and mission. Of these priorities those of acquiring
adequate resources and growing the student body are the most
essential. The initiatives already undertaken have strained
the financial resources of the institution almost to the breaking
point. If progress is to continue to be made in the development
of graduate programs in selected areas, in general education,
in maintenance and beautification of the campus, in technology
and in other areas, additional financial resources must be
found, including through fund raising and increasing enrollment
(see Standard Two, p. 7, Building on Our Strengths).
The 1990's were eventful years for UMass Dartmouth.
Becoming part of the University of Massachusetts system shaped
its development, along with its identity. System mandates
have had a definite impact on internal operations and processes.
However, despite system-wide mandates for developing mission-based
initiatives in a context of on-going planning and assessment,
the administration of Chancellor Cressy was resistant to all
but the appearance of planning, acting mainly in response
to mandates or to programmatic and general accreditation reviews.
This does not mean that there has not been great progress,
movement, vitality, and even planning. The last decade has
seen many long-standing objectives either realized
(e.g., the Marine Laboratory, a General Education program,
a free-standing Ph.D. program) or advanced (e.g., preparation
for AACSB accreditation, support for graduate programs, fund-raising
and grant activities, economic outreach). What has been accomplished
has been within the context of the university's historical
trends and of its stated mission. However, the approach to
change and initiatives has mainly been opportunistic and informal.
Process has suffered as a result, and there has been little
attention given to documenting change or to formal consideration
of its impact on the mission or resources of the institution.
Regarding the Vision Statement of 1992 itself, there has
been no systematic review of its contents nor has there been
a general campus-wide discussion of available options or of
the directions in which the campus has been moving. Further,
with the exception of the documents promulgated by the ad
hoc Academic Planning Task Force, most of the documents referenced
in this section have not had wide campus circulation. We neither
made planning an integral part of our operations nor treated
our mission statement as an interactive document to be consulted,
discussed, or revised in a systematic process involving a
full range of constituencies and participants.
In the last two years, attempts to systematize the budget
process and make it more responsive to both long-term planning
and the university's mission have intensified.
Also, the arrival of interim Chancellor Jean MacCormack in
September 1999 has provided an additional opportunity for
a full review of the institution's goals and priorities,
and the development of a revised statement of mission, reflective
of the directions taken since 1992.
The new Provost selected and convened a broadly-based committee
in November 1999 to develop the university's strategic
plan, including a statement of goals, objectives, tactics,
and resources, by April 2000.
The new leadership team, headed by the Chancellor and Provost,
will actively engage the campus community in coordinated strategic
planning to ensure that goals and priorities are set that
truly reflect campus-wide and unit priorities and fully respond
to the community's needs and expectations. This is an essential
step in the creation of a planning-based budget model which
will diffuse "ownership" of the university's
mission and strategic plan.
These procedures themselves will be subject to assessment
on an annual basis. Assessment of activities related to mission
and goals will be part of the overall university system of
assessment by which each unit of the university will be held
accountable for making progress toward its stated goals and
outcomes. The Provost's Office is developing instruments
of assessment to measure progress toward the general goals
of implementing long-term planning and relating planning to
mission.
Home
Page | Institutional
Characteristics | Preface
|
Overview | Mission
and Purpose | Planning and Evaluation
| Organization and Governance
| Programs and Instruction |
Faculty | Student
Services | Library and Information
Resources | Physical Resources
| Financial Resources | Public
Disclosure | Integrity
|
