DRAFT
Charting the Future Steering Committee
January 21, 2015
Meeting Synthesis
Members in attendance: Ron Anderson, Richard Barnier, Mark Carlson, June Clark, , Phil Davis,
Connie Gores, Laura King, Adam Klepetar, Rebecca Larson, Larry Lundblad, Scott Olson, John
O’Brien, Ramon Padilla, Annette Parker, Steven Rosenstone, Matt Rubel, Kayley Schoonmaker,
Will Tully
Members by WebEx: Sue Collins, Kari Cooper, Richard Hanson, Kerrie Maleski, Meghan Phillips
Members absent: Angelique Calotescu, Josh Hanson, Jerry Jeffries, Earl Potter, Jim Grabowska,
Kevin Lindstrom
Guests: Kari Campbell, Erin Edlund, Michael Eisenbeisz, Jason Fossum, Todd Harmening, Neil
Aasve, Carrie Schneider, Mary Jacobson, Kim Olson, Nancy Joyer, Jaime Simonsen
1. Introductions of Steering Committee members and guests.
2. The meeting agenda was reviewed and approved.
3. Brief wrap-up on Fall 2014 Gallery walks (Jaime Simonsen) – attachment
 39 completed – 5,042 attendees
 All campuses received their raw feedback by this past weekend
 Draft report from OERG received on 1/15 – high level analysis and summary
o Teams are reviewing; will finalize and post online to the CTF blog the week of
February 2.
o Entrance/exit survey showed increases in familiarity and belief that CTF
would benefit
 Searchable database of comments will be online by end of February
 Lessons learned – poster content needs to be less and more readable, more student
involvement in planning and hosting
 Question about why Student Success had significantly more comments.
o It was noted that during the Gallery Walk events, the team set-up the posters
in the same order with Student Success first each time. During next round
will rotate the order. Unsure why online comments were significantly higher
for Student Success than other teams.
4. Steering Committee meeting synthesis review and protocol moving forward (Jaime
Simonsen) – attachments (October and November meeting synthesis)
 Need to decide how the group reviews and approves meeting notes/synthesis so it
can be posted to CTF blog, e.g. review via email between meetings or review at next
meeting, etc.
CTF Steering Committee
January 21, 2015 meeting synthesis
Page 2

DECISION: send out notes within a week of meeting; Steering Committee members
review by email and post as interim; discuss any significant changes at next meeting
and approve.
5. Review and adopt draft of Steering Committee commitments to each other and protocol for
meetings (Kayley Schoonmaker, Adam Klepetar, Ron Anderson, John O’Brien) – attachmentrevised
 Kayley shared the draft list and discussion followed.
 Get rid of the word “should” and use “will”
 Question about ‘positional’ power – sub-group wanted to be sure that all voices are
equal but also realistic about the ability to “check titles at the door”. It’s more about
being respectful of all people regardless of title.
o Could this be worded something like ‘everyone brings experience to the
discussion and all experience is valued and respected’?
o But it IS important to call out positional power – add to third bullet
 Question about ‘If conversations become strained…” item: should be everyone’s
responsibility to maintain respectfulness.
 How do we see this being used? Do we pledge? Review at each meeting in terms of
how the group did at the last meeting? Should they be at tables? Should we print
on back of name tents?
 RECOMMENDATION: Standing agenda item. Can be modified or changed as
needed. Will be incorporated into meeting materials.
6. Update on addition of student subject matter specialists to teams (Kari Cooper and Kayley
Schoonmaker)
 MSCSA – conference on January 9; appointments to six teams and expecting appoint
to additional teams in a week or so.
o How will new members be oriented?
 Conveners and organizational capability are asked to do this. In
addition, MSCSA is also having a ‘check-in’ meeting next week that
will include new students.
 MSUSA – applications are out to students and will be coming into Kari
o One appointment to Academic Planning & Collaboration team. Started
recruitment process right before finals and break.
o Reaching out more to get the word out; link on website that outlines criteria
for being on each time. More applications are coming in.
7. Brief reports from implementation teams – attachment (November/December Team
Assessments)

Student Success – Connie Gores
o reviewing and discussing Gallery Walk comments and focus group feedback;
looking to see if it aligns with current thinking and what it says about the
CTF Steering Committee
January 21, 2015 meeting synthesis
Page 3
student experience; plans to meet with Diversity and Information Technology
Systems Design for cross-team discussion.

Diversity – Scott Olson, Will Tully, Meghan Phillips
o Looking at proposed concepts and working towards consensus – will be
working on finalizing concepts at next team meeting; they all seem like good
ideas but the one re: faculty development might be challenging since faculty
are currently not at the table; team is interested in addressing other topics
such as the educational gap.

Comprehensive Workplace Solutions – Sue Collins
o Made amazing progress by creating 25 building blocks for CWS model;
continue conversation about a model that will drive success at next meeting;
have not yet reviewed report from OERG in depth but at first glance it seems
to mirror the team’s current thinking
o Question: will the upcoming Summit be a good venue for testing team ideas?
 YES! We are looking forward to gathering feedback from other teams;
we need that before we test in front of employers.

System Incentives & Rewards – Phil Davis, Becca Larson
o Divided into two groups: HR and Financial. Looking at collaboration both on
regionally but also statewide with the lens of wanting things to work
seamlessly for students. Team has created an architecture that will allow for
other ideas from the teams. Team is also a talking about the cultural change
that needs to happen. Need to understand what happens now that helps
collaboration and partnership and what gets in the way – need to separate
legend from fact.

Academic Planning & Collaboration – Richard Hanson
o Draft transfer plan out for review per legislative mandate; Articulation
committees by faculty discipline is a key structural component of the plan –
important to bring people together. Team will review survey feedback at
Friday’s meeting; also plan to continue working on other issues around
transfer.

Competency Certification & Credit for Prior Learning – Annette Parker
o Spent a lot of time developing our team and building trust; it’s been really
exciting! Had several national organizations and systems meet with us – been
really great to see common themes and to see the current work in MN is
perfectly aligned with where the conversations are going nationally; will have
drafts ready for team review tomorrow. Faculty own this effort to work with
students about how they learn – this will be reinforced at Gallery Walks.
Team members have been bouncing off ideas with faculty on campus but
CTF Steering Committee
January 21, 2015 meeting synthesis
Page 4
continue to look for ways to engage faculty in discussion. We cannot move
this effort forward without the engagement of faculty.

Education Technology – Ron Anderson, Matt Ruble
o Started team discussions about tools and now moving to how do we help
people utilize tools – how do we expand instructional technologies – how do
we leverage technologies to support students, the need for professional
development for staff and faculty and how it impacts the work we do,
collaborative strategy for online education – should we have one, how do we
support innovation and emerging technologies. Should there be a common
technology infrastructure across institutions when there are differential
investments, etc. – how do we look at that as a system? Team is discussing
what do we need to provide – what do our student need? How does
technology impact student experience and education – it is not an even
playing field – not all of our students have the same access.

Information Technology Systems Design – Ramon Padilla, Richard Barnier
o Team has met three times since November Steering Committee meeting.
Reviewed pain points and categorized into buckets and expect 4-6 concepts;
wanting to be sure poster content is not jargon-y; also talking about what
feedback we want from poster content.
8. Topics regarding implementation of teams’ ideas
a. Discuss draft Implementation Framework – attachment
 Jaime walked the group through the draft implementation framework and noted
that this is a simple description of a very complicated process.
 The important question to be discussed: what is the CTF Steering Committee’s role
in this?
 Question: what’s the timeline on teams wrapping up work?
o Steven commented on his perspective - should have a bias towards action;
teams could talk for a long time and the action that will actually impact
students could be a couple more years out.
o Would hope that teams will work for one year and then have prioritized
actions to handoff for implementation
o Steering Committee should be facilitating ideas moving to action
o There’s also been talk about “what about our other ideas?” There could be
thought leaders that continue conversations and work after CTF
implementation teams have disbanded
 TABLE DISCUSSION: each table discussed key questions and reported out on #3 only:
o Coordination across all initiatives
o Receive and report when the group is done with its work
o Prioritize and stage
o Problem solve
CTF Steering Committee
January 21, 2015 meeting synthesis
Page 5
o Sense of accountability – right now there is anxiety about things fizzling out;
this group needs to keep shepherding this work
o Make sure teams have the tools to prioritize their own goals; create a tool
that will help teams tell us what their prioritization is, what’s ‘low-hanging’
fruit; want to respect all the work that teams have done
o Seems like we don’t have consensus yet! There really needs to be more
clarity
o NEXT STEPS: a sub-group will take the items discussed today and bring a
recommendation back to the full Steering Committee. Discussion to occur by
email over the next few weeks. Need to provide clarity to teams before
summit. Volunteers: June, Annette, Laura, Kayley, Richard, Adam, Kari.
Jaime will look for possible dates next week
9. Discuss and review CTF Implementation Team Summit draft agenda (Kathy Hanon and
Becca Larson) – attachment
 The CTF All Teams Summit will be held February 19-20, 2015 at Anoka Technical
College
 Kathy provided an overview of the agenda – small group from teams provided ideas
and flush out a draft agenda.
o Balance to find time for teams to work within their own team and with other
teams
o Recognized that fall teams will be at a different point with their ideas vs.
spring teams.
o To be prepared, teams are expected to do pre-work
 Thursday morning - focused on education about the work of all team
 Thursday afternoon - focused on coming to consensus about values and principles
for team work AND interdependencies and how teams will work across and between
teams
 Friday morning – important conversation about stakeholder engagement AND time
for teams to talk about their own next steps
 QUESTION: How do we manage possible fallout from the summit in terms of ideas,
esp. bold ideas?
o Need to be clear that this is current thinking and nothing is set in stone at
this point
o Acknowledge that some ideas might push people past their comfort zone
o Make sure anything that leaves the room clearly says DRAFT – be mindful of
the groups that may end up seeing the work of teams at this point!
o Make sure that team members know that they can have conversations on
their campus to correct misinformation
o Should the Steering Committee commitments be included in the Summit?
 A proposal has been made for Board of Trustees study session focused on providing
an update from CTF teams following the summit
 All Steering Committee members are welcome at the summit!
CTF Steering Committee
January 21, 2015 meeting synthesis
Page 6
10. Additional topics brought by members of the Steering Committee:
a. AFSCME’s Principles for Successful Reorganization (June Clark) – attachment
 Due to time, will make this an agenda item at the top of the next meeting
11. Standing discussion item: logistics issues (if any) that are not being resolved at the staff or
implementation team levels.
 Kayley reminded the group that there have been other discussion items that the
Steering Committee has not addressed. Agreement that these should be an agenda
item at the top of the next meeting.
12. Timing of next meeting
 Jaime will look at calendars for a meeting following the summit
13. Meeting adjourned