1) How well is the process working? Are we getting better at avoiding last minute events and/or overlapping events? Is the building capacity being used well? Is the scheduling process working?

2) Assess the effectiveness of events- attendance, awareness, serving mission of the college

3) How well is the system meeting goals with planned, appropriate lead times?

4) Evaluate the decision-making process and data on events; not appropriate for one person to decide whether or not an event continues or is cut

5) Who will be the point person once our committee finishes its project? Who sustains the project?

Assignments: Steve W. volunteered to work with car show organizers on event evaluation. Gary K. volunteered to work with Laural and Hardy group on same. Peggy G. mentioned a big outside art event coming to campus next Oct. as a possible participant in using our checklist and forms…

1.    Starting a year ago in May 2007, the committee was still undecided about what direction to take this project.  Was it our charge to develop and produce events that engaged the Duluth community? Or was it our charge to assess what we are already doing in terms of community events and refine the process, if there was a process?  We received help from the HLC consultants at their May site visit who helped the group clarify its purpose and, ultimately, pick a direction.

Our purpose and committee work in the past year has been to assess how current campus events are created, scheduled, implemented and evaluated. To initially acquire a birds-eye view of events, we informally surveyed what standing events and new events from various departments and outside sources occur or are planned. Through that compilation, we are able to identify issues and opportunities by applying a SWOT analysis.  We also met with various campus representatives who are affected by events on campus, including the maintenance personnel who are called upon for room setup and cleanup, and the person in charge of maintaining the electronic campus calendar.

2.    From this information-gathering, and committee discussions throughout the year, we developed a working event procedure document, an event checklist and evaluation form.  To vet our work and garner feedback, the committee presented these prototype documents with an overview of our testing plans to a number of key constituent groups, including the LSC Foundation Board and the President’s Council, made of key administrators.

3.  Our next steps include several testing activities.  We will be meeting with key constituent groups including Student Life and their programming board, the health education coordinator, the Foundation alumni director, the Intercultural Center, and the workforce development department.  These areas generate the majority of special events and activities on campus.  We will ask for input on our proposed process and working documents, including the event checklist and evaluation form.

We will also test our system forms and process with upcoming events this spring.  Since these events are already in place, we will test the evaluation end of the process. Next fall we plan to apply the entire planning and evaluation system to events that are still in the planning stages.

4)  We are not able to provide any effective practices recommendations until we test the event planning and evaluation process.

5) Our committee feels that our two biggest challenges are making the cultural change with the institution in terms of the events process, solidifying the changes, and then sustaining the project through ownership in a department and/or point person.

6) No, thanks.

Attendance:  Gary K., Steve W., Janet B., Peggy G., Kevin F., Mark W., Bill M., Pam E.

Reviewed, discussed and improved the Action Project Declaration form.

Gary and Steve will present the required “report out� at the 3/28/08 IE meeting.

Moving forward discussion;

Gary reported that there have been or will be about a half dozen events going on that will not necessarily be either covered well or have lower then expected attendance because the internal sponsors or responsible persons have not communicated in a timely fashion with the Public Information division. Gary observed that most of these events were being coordinated by newer staff and faculty who don’t know the procedures and are not being properly informed by the responsible administrator.

Discussion turned to establishing a ‘chain of command’ and creating a checklist with required sign offs.

Discussion ensued over “who should be responsible for managing the system�.

The group then turned to an open discussion on what should be included in a checklist.  These items included:

Time & duration

-        are there conflicts with other events

-        events can be tentatively scheduled in R25

Place

Date

Responsible person(s) with contact information

Sponsoring organization, if any

Title

Description

Benefit to College

Intended audience

Projected audience numbers

Publicity Needs and cost

Room(s) needed

Special Equipment/IT needs

Security Needs

Liability Issues, is a certificate of insurance required for the event

Setup information

Special accommodations

Food/beverage requirements

Cost center that will be paying for expenses

Sign off by department, VP, Dean ?

Clubs need advisor sign off

Submit final report

It was noted that ERTC, Airport facilities and off campus events (i.e. Fly In) need to go through this procedure.

Items to be included in the final report

Number of participants

-          number of visitors

-          -number of vendors

Demographics of attendees

-          age

-          interests

in certain instances  use a questionnaire

Establish a committee to review reports, assess success of the event and feedback to provide guidance for improving event in the future

The group established two sub committees to

Develop Check list - Peg, Pam & Mark

Develop reporting and evaluation form – Jan and Gary

The subcommittees’ work is due by March 21

Action Project – Community Engagement

Timeline: Planned project kickoff date: October, 2007
Target Completion Date: January, 2009
A. Title
Community Engagement
B. Goal
??????
C. AQIP Category
Primary Category:
D. Reasons
This project is a direct result of comments made at the Conversation Day held in Fall 2006. Responses from faculty and staff indicated that increasing Community Involvement was an on-going problem that presented opportunities to improve the college’s stature in the community. This discussion led to the adoption of and institutional goal, “Community engaged in Lake Superior College and Lake Superior College engaged in the Community�.
E. Organizational areas
Areas directly affected are: Public Information, Work Force Development, Academic Affairs, Students, Facilities and the Community
F. Processes
Team will use a SWOT analysis to identify core issues, evaluate available tools and resources, develop recommendations for change, test recommendations with stake holders, implement recommendations, evaluate effectiveness of change through monitoring of number, type and participation in events.
G. Rational for length
Team intends to have processes developed by June 2008, will implement over the summer of 2008, evaluate effectiveness during Fall Semester 2008 and provide final procedures and evaluation in January 2009.
H. Plan to monitor
Will track number of events and participation in events during Fall 2008, survey participants at several events on satisfaction
I. Outcome measures
More events on campus that draw the community.
J. Other information

Attendance: Gary K., Steve W., Janet B., Pam E., Peggy G., Kevin F., Mark W., Wade G., Bill M., Sonda S-L.

Define ‘Event’
invite persons from the outside (open to the public)
anything that brings the community on to the campus
***Anytime the public comes to the campus for an activity is an event
Event/activities that involve public areas (not classroom/lab)

SWOT analysis
Strengths

• Have great facilities
• Great maintenance staff
• Plenty of parking
• Great location
• Staff creatively generates the opportunity for events

Weaknesses

• No protocol/procedure for events
• Ideas are generated throughout the campus (lack of central processing)
• People do not know what is available here (facilities, etc.)
• Don’t have a consistent fee structure for charging
• Have not clarified which senior administrator is in charge
• R25 is not well understood and/or utilized well by staff
• Don’t have an updated directory (map) of rooms and locations

Opportunities

• Ideas are generated throughout the campus (lots of ideas for events)
• We have established events that could generate other events
• We have an established program for scheduling (R25)
• We can generate some revenue through events
• Events generate greater publicity for institution

Threats

• Competition with other venues
• Perception that the campus is favoring some political or religious viewpoint
• Liability issues
• Inconsistent application of policy

Current State

• Communication – use of R25 and its capabilities (invite Shannon to next meeting)
• Need to develop a check list for event planning
• Discussion on types of events to try to attract to campus
• Not in competition with other venues

Events should be…

• Tied to LSC mission
• Student driven
• Cultural
• Public service

To do list:

• Need to research state policy on using state resources for “for profitâ€? organizations
• Research other college policies
• Provide committee members with copies of current policy and application forms
• This committee does not have a faculty representative, so it is important to solicit faculty input on this project

Attendance: Gary K., Steve W., Janet B., Pam E., Peggy G., Kevin F., Tess D., Mark W.

Changes in membership: Lin Black has gone to a different project, Zbigniew Wdowiak has left I. E. due to class scheduling conflicts, Tess D’ Andrea and Mark Winson have joined the project.

Discussion of goal(s) for this action project:

What is the problem?

• More then one event is occurring at the same time
• How well are events meeting the goals of having the event
• We want the community to know more about the college per the Conversation Day discussion.

Issues

• Internal coordination – no one knows what events are taking place or planned
• External coordination – our events are held at the same time as other events in the community
• Evaluation – there is none, don’t know how many people attend, what are the demographics
• Internal communication for logistics
  • Maintenance
  • Publicity
  • Impact on the community
  • No recognized source for event calendar
  • Academics scheduling of classes
  • Location of event information
• R25 is not appropriately deployed
• Should develop a checklist
  • add questions intended audience, hoped for outcomes
• Need to develop system to approve events
• Are we missing opportunities for collaboration

GOAL

Create a system (procedures and policies) to improve quality of campus events/activities and maximize the impact on the community.

Should include all facilities including ERTC and airport

Need to create a definition for “event�

Future/desired state

• Event Planning
  • Public Information needs to be in the loop so that everyone can know about all events on a timely basis
  • Spread events out over the year
  • Do events that serve the community
  • Event application/approval process to be clear and effective
  • Events system needs to work with Academic schedule
  • Events implementation and promotion
  • Communication to ancillary services maintenance, food service, public information
  • Consistent promotion policy
  • One stop resource
  • Coordination with other events in the community
• Events assessment and evaluation
  • measure participant satisfaction
  • demographic breakout
  • participation numbers
  • measure cost/benefit financially
  • assess missed opportunities
  • Data analysis