DRAFT
Charting the Future Steering Committee
November 14, 2014
Meeting Synthesis
Members in attendance: Ron Anderson, Richard Barnier, Mark Carlson, June Clark, Sue Collins,
Phil Davis, Connie Gores, Josh Hanson, Richard Hanson, Jerry Jeffries, Laura King, Adam
Klepetar, Rebecca Larson, Larry Lundblad, Kerrie Maleski, Scott Olson, John O’Brien, Ramon
Padilla, Annette Parker, Earl Potter, Steven Rosenstone, Matt Rubel, Kayley Schoonmaker
Members absent: Angelique Calotescu, Kari Cooper, Jim Grabowska, Kevin Lindstrom
Guests: Kari Campbell, Erin Edlund, Michael Eisenbeisz, Jason Fossum, Todd Harmening,
Elsbeth Howe, Kim Olson, Nancy Joyer, Jaime Simonsen
1. Introductions of Steering Committee members and guests. Parker, Hanson, and Gores
participated by WebEx.
2. The meeting agenda was reviewed and approved.
3. Review protocols for the Steering Committee and implementation teams as amended at the
10/7 Steering Committee meeting - attachment provided


Protocols for Steering Committee
o No additional comments
Protocols for implementation teams
o The question of having both MSUSA and MSCSA team members serve as coconveners was raised. Agreement that this is OK.
o Those on teams noted that these protocols are happening and working well, e.g.
System Incentives and Rewards development of a binder of all meeting materials
and review of the “parking lot” items
o Questions about whether #11 (Conveners should employ team members to
speak up and correct things at the team level as much as possible) is happening
and there was agreement that is in fact happening.
a. Discussion and possible action: consideration of Steering Committee
“commitments” (Kayley Schoonmaker) – attachment provided
 Kayley introduced topic and explained the provided sample is based on team
norms that all implementation teams started out with
 The group offered additions:
o “No inside language” – one team has a fine for use of acronyms
o Commitment to go back to constituent groups
o Make sure everyone speaks and conveners call on members to get
them talking
o Deal with behavioral matters discretely, no gossip
CTF Steering Committee
November 17, 2014 synthesis
Page 2
o Be disrespectful, spirit of generosity
o Suspend judgment
o Gather regular assessments of meetings - ITSD shared a sample team
assessment that their team uses
o Next Steps: Jaime will gather all team norms as samples for review
and a sub-committee will work on this (volunteers solicited: Kayley,
John, Ron, and Adam)
4. Debrief on the Gallery Walks
 Jaime provided an update on Gallery Walks – 33 of 40 have been completed; over
4,000 attendees thus far which exceeds our Gates goal of 2,000
 Clarification that attendee breakdown is known at the level of
student/staff/faculty/community member
 Clarification that this is paid for by Gates Foundation and we still have funds left
 16 student focus groups are also being held in conjunction with Gallery Walks;
transcripts are going to MSU, Mankato’s Organizational Effectiveness Research
Group (OERG)
 Spring teams received raw data at end of last week (week of November 10 th) in
addition to some campuses
5. Topics brought by implementation teams
a. Diversity of implementation team - President Hanson
o Diversity of implementation teams was raised as a concern early on among the
team
o It was noted that we heard strong feelings from some members of the SMSU
student senate last week about “how can you chart the future of an increasingly
diverse Minnesota when your teams are not diverse?” In fact, they expressed
concerns that “if you don’t fix this, you need to start over”
o Clarification of team member appointments; it is a shared responsibility since
bargaining units and chancellor are responsible for appointments
o Suggestion that Academic Planning and Collaboration and Diversity teams talk
together about this issue; also questions about whether Diversity team should
review other teams’ work from this perspective
 Diversity team will discuss and consider this
o It was noted that constituent groups took diversity into account but had to
choose from the pool of those who applied; also a bit uncomfortable because we
are only talking about visible diversity
o Suggestion to look through lens of differential impacts on different groups when
we are thinking about diversity
o Suggestion to look at the diversity statement on Century College’s website
b. Sharing information with IFO and MSCF member who are no longer participating
CTF Steering Committee
November 17, 2014 synthesis
Page 3
o Teams are still including IFO and MSCF members on email communications and
some teams have an existing practice of reaching out to members who are
absent from a meeting to catch them up
o Direction given was to continue to send materials and information unless people
request not to receive it; it was also recommended that contact information is
included in the follow-up emails and that it is made clear that members should
reach out with questions
6. Topics regarding implementation of teams’ ideas
a. How should the Steering Committee decide how to route recommendations for
consultation? What are the criteria for a recommendation requiring system-level
consultation (e.g., ASA Policy Committees; state-level meet and confers; and more)
versus campus-level consultation? - Adam Klepetar
o Questions about what is the concluding process of this work - Will there be a set
of recommendations that moves forward? When do we move to the actual
change?
o Discussion around needing to put a structure in place to manage this – is this
something organizational capability team could do?
o Timing for all teams will be different; need to pay attention to where the
responsibility lies; need clarity about the process
o Discussion that we need to decide how to route recommendations from teams
including where they are implemented, what consultation is required, etc.?
Might be Steering Committee given the cross-representation of members.
o CTF organizational capability team has struggled with this. They have lot of ideas
but need to consider timing, interdependencies; thinking is that the teams to
craft and shape this
o We need to do more work to have this conversation; we are “drafting in the air”;
there’s many pieces – consultation, articulation of dependencies, etc.
o There’s also been questions about transparency around decisions as team ideas
are handing off; we’ve agreed that will happen in Steering Committee to allow
this transparency
o Clarification that we don’t want a new consultative process; we already have
existing processes
o There will be questions about how to resource changes. If we don’t do this we
may not achieve much change in the end. How will campuses incorporate these
changes as they roll out? How will this be staggered?
o Discussion of needing to use a project management approach (especially to
understand the interdependencies in a project network diagram approach) and
possibly needing a dedicated project manager position
b. Discuss the idea of a CTF implementation team summit - Phil Davis and Becca
Larson, on behalf of System Incentives & Rewards team
o Becca explained System Incentives and Rewards team’s idea about a spring team
summit that would bring teams together to talk about recommendations and
CTF Steering Committee
November 17, 2014 synthesis
Page 4
o
o
o
o
how they intertwine with each other; proposed to have it during the winter
break (when students are off, understand finals differs amongst institutions);
possibly 2 day summit at end of December/early January or meet in December to
talk about Gallery Walk feedback; Jan/Feb to talk about interdependencies;
March to talk about next steps; possible location – St. Cloud
Group agreed this seems like a good idea with lots of potential
Clarification that Steering Committee members can attend
Clarification that the organizational capability team has discussed this idea;
teams want some time to review and incorporate Gallery Walk feedback;
February timeframe might make sense. There are funds remaining from the
Gates grant that could support this.
Next Steps: Jaime and Adam will work on summit idea and bring it to next Steer
Co meeting along with a call for volunteers.
7. Brief reports from implementation teams (October updates from teams were distributed)
o Student success – Josh Hanson
 Team members have been comfortable with how gallery walks are going
 Team members are satisfied with progress and super excited about our
team’s work
o Diversity – Scott Olson
 Focused on process
 Had great conversation with Chancellor about diversity and its
importance for the system
 Turning our attention to big things like the achievement gap
 Will be important to think about “gatekeeping” suggestions for campus
actions
o Comprehensive Workplace Solutions – Sue Collins
 Took a break after Gallery Walk content was completed – proud of that
work
 Had great conversation with six chamber presidents last week – although
they told us things that were hard to hear, e.g. “you’re not responsive”
 Continue asking about co-convener and want an additional SME
o System Incentives and Rewards – Phil Davis and Becca Larson
 Elected co-convener Becca Larson
 Took a hiatus in part to allow other teams to develop ideas that would
inform our work
 Pause conversation – binder developed of all work to date; looked back
at this work to see what needed more work
 Very honest conversation about leaving rank at the door and making
meetings a safe place
o Academic Planning and Collaboration – Dick Hanson
 6th meeting will be on Friday
 Looking at lots of data including best practices in other states
CTF Steering Committee
November 17, 2014 synthesis
Page 5

Also responding to legislative mandate about associate degree transfer to
universities
 Sending draft #1 to a variety of constituents with draft #2 in December
o Competency Certification and Credit for Prior Learning – Annette Parker and
Kerrie Maleski
 Kerrie Maleski elected as co-convener – she’s doing great and doing some
heavy lifting
 Trying to meet face-to-face for first 3 meetings but third was WebEx; feel
like we have a strong foundation of a team built; have also worked a lot
on definitions for our work which will help “catapult” our work forward
 Lots of discussion about withdrawal of faculty – we listened and
thoughtfully decided to move forward and reach out to faculty when it
came to analysis
 Working on definitions was very helpful; also working on statement
around change narrative
o Education Technology – Ron Anderson and Matt Rubel
 Matt Rubel selected as co-convener
 Challenges with distance technology – how ironic!
 Have chunked our work into three categories with three workgroups
assigned
o IT Systems Design – Ramon Padilla and Richard Barnier
 Richard Barnier selected as co-convener
 Thanks to spring teams – we were able to take advantage of all your
work; we’ve been running at full speed because of that
 Ditto of all the good things other teams are doing – we are doing those as
well
 Filled three flipboards with ideas – starting to synthesize those into
buckets
 Have also finished our response to Student Success team’s idea
8. Discussion and potential action: Consider each implementation team to adopt a broad
notion of “subject matter specialists” and consider using these two positions to add
students who would bring their personal experience and perspective to the team’s
deliberations. (Adam Klepetar and Steven Rosenstone) – attachment
o Important to consult with teams about what kind of specialist is desired;
question if the two students need to be one each from MSUSA and MSCSA? Is it
up to teams to decide? Suggestion that student associations work with teams to
do this.
o Clarification that teams have discussed this but no team has appointed
additional SMEs
o Questions about whether all teams need to do this?
 Would be prudent to make sure all teams benefit from this suggestion
CTF Steering Committee
November 17, 2014 synthesis
Page 6
o It was noted that multiple student perspectives are important; we can’t have too
many student voices
o Would student associations be comfortable with suggestions from teams about
specifically wanting student of color, rural student, etc.
 Caution that SME should be about competencies rather than diversity
status
o Needs for SMEs might change as a teams’ work moves forward. Could these
assignments change?
 Clarification that teams are already bringing in specialists/experts on an
ad-hoc basis as topic dictates
o Student associations should be encouraged to make an effort to reach beyond
the usual group of students who typically are engaged
o It will be important that these students will need an orientation by team to get
caught up and not feel left out
o Recommendation: “Strongly urged” is language; one from each student
association
o Suggestion that if a team decides not to add student SMEs, they provide
rationale to remain transparency
o Next Step: Teams will convey to Jaime the competencies needed for new SME
9. Additional topics
 CSC – Angie Calotescu; tabled since she was not present
10. Logistics
 No December meeting; Jaime will look at dates in January; meetings will be
scheduled for 2.5 hours
11. Meeting adjourned
Compiled by Jaime Simonsen