Richard A. Womack Ed.D.
Chair, Education Division
COM-FSM
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 11:06
AM
Subject: [selfstudy] Request for a quick
vote on reticence to re-enter missionstatement redevelopment
A reviewer has cited a lack of evidence for the third
sentence below:
There has been no periodic review of the mission
statement that this author can document. Many of the original participants in
the process are still centrally involved in the College. The original process
was so thorough, and, in some cases exhausting, that there has been a
reticence to re-enter the process too quickly.
I have decided,
rather than strike this statement, to ask you to vote on whether you agree
that there has been reticence to re-enter the process too quickly:
___
Agree with statement, we have been reticent.
___ Disagree with statement,
there is no such reticence.
One can reply via email - save paper and
kill electrons instead! Thanks!
Optional further
reading:
The statement is an assessment I made as a result of a lack of
review of the mission statement since 18 March 1999 except for a single
suggestion made in what appears to be the last Planning Council meeting of 22
may 2002. I take the absence of review a reticence to re-enter the
process. I also felt the process was exhausting, with meetings breaking
up more due to people needing to be elsewhere than due to any set time limit
for discussion. Attendance faltered according to various minutes as the
work asked more of people than they could give, especially among the community
members of the planning council. I know I was not alone in 1999 with
those perceptions, hence the statement I made regarding reticence.
--
Dana Lee Ling
Associate Professor
Chair Division of Natural Science and Mathematics
College of Micronesia-FSM
dleeling@comfsm.fm
http://www.comfsm.fm/~dleeling/
Go Sharks!