Not sure I understand the point of the question, because the premise is flawed. This may sound nitpicky, but as someone who has taught undergraduate and graduate students, I can tell you that this scenario is highly unlikely (barring the death of a billionaire who bequeaths a large sum of money to a school without a CS dept and purposed toward the creation of one). Some scattered thoughts:
New departments don't start this way - usually, some other department will pick up on some need for teaching programming or "information science" or MIS (or whatever it's termed) that is somehow germane to the core curriculum of that department. Some number of students will be attracted to this stuff, and will put up with a core curriculum that they're not interested in so they can study the IT stuff. Eventually, the university realizes that there are enough such students that there is significant financial gain to be had from spawning this group of "studies" into its own department.
Lots of CS departments were formed out of Industrial Engineering departments in just this way. However, by the time they get to that point, there's an entire history involved in the evolution of a curriculum that was determined by some combination of enrollment boosters (i.e., the business case) and academic decisions made by a faculty committee interested in the science itself. At first this is ad-hoc and done one a class-by-class, semester-by-semester basis, but eventually the faculty figures out what material is good and how it fits together and so on, and the funding types figure out what material (and what teachers) will maintain or increase enrollment. This is a little bit idealized, because some decisions will be made on for other reasons (i.e., say an instructor writes a textbook and the university gets a revenue-sharing arrangement in place, or perhaps some celebrity instructor --- ala Patterson, Knuth, Dijkstra --- really wants some particular text or other material). However, the ideal shouldn't be terribly far off from the big picture in reality.
Anyway, the point is that you hardly ever see the case that a curriculum is constructed from scratch, and if it was, I think the chances of it being very good are low. Further, a Dean like you presume in your question is non-existent. No one person knows all the best ways to learn. His experiences would be unique to him, and perhaps representative or perhaps not, but there'd be no way to know.
This is why good CS departments are good - they've already evolved their curriculum and faculty and staff to provide what turns out to be a very valuable education, and their reputations are established (by and large) when their graduates perform well in industry (I include academic work in this). That's why the best advice here is simply, "copy the curriculum of a good CS department", and make substitutions for particular needs.