University of Minnesota Alumni Association
Advocacy Committee Minutes
September 22, 2010
Chair: Kip Thacker
Committee Members: John Adams, Judy Beniak, Leah Brus, Bernadine Joselyn, Marshall
Lichty, Mark Nagel, Alexander Oftelie, Bob Roesler, Thomas Trehus, Ertugrul Tuzcu, Sandy
Ulsaker Wiese, and Bonnie Welshons; via phone: Lisa Finsness, Alison Page, and Tom
McDonald
Staff: Mary Kay Delvo, Phil Esten, Bruce Rader, and Sarah Springer
Guests: Donna Peterson, University Relations
National Board Chair Ertugrul Tuzcu announced the resignation of former committee cochair Mary McLeod from the Alumni Association National Board and the Advocacy
Committee. She submitted her written resignation on September 19 th, effective
immediately. Kip Thacker accepted the sole committee chair position.
Kip Thacker began by providing background on the Alumni Association’s early history of
advocacy involvement such as: endorsing the enlargement of campus, urging the Regents
to request $30,000 for University Libraries, and discussing the Association’s appropriate role
in selecting a successor for retiring President Northrop. More recent work includes:
developing methods for regents selection, supporting bonding for the biomedical sciences
research program, the consolidation and reorganization of colleges in the University, and
the Central Corridor Light Rail Transit project.
Discussion and Selection of Advocacy Topics
Each fall the Advocacy Committee chooses priority topics to focus on. Kip Thacker and
former advocacy co-chair Mary McLeod, Alumni Association CEO, Phil Esten and Alumni
Association Director of Advocacy, Mary Kay Delvo met on two separate occasions with
Donna Peterson, Associate Vice President of Government Relations and Karen Himle, Vice
President, University Relations. They explored issues at the University’s forefront that the
Alumni Association’s Advocacy Committee could be helpful in addressing, impacting or
supporting. Additional topics were brought forward by committee members.
The Advocacy Committee’s charter outlines the following characteristics which guided the
committee’s discussion and helped them in determining which topics to focus on.
Characteristics of Advocacy Topics
•
Are truly substantive, affecting the University’s current or future ability to carry out
its mission;
•
Have a long-term impact;
•
Are often of a public nature;
•
Often require action by legislative bodies, governmental agencies, or the public at
large;
•
May or may not have been previously identified for study or action by other entities;
and
•
Are judged by the Advocacy Committee to be amenable to its action.
University of Minnesota Alumni Association
Advocacy Committee Minutes
September 22, 2010
page 2
The following topics were submitted for consideration by the committee:
1. Promote the four Board of Regents candidate openings and application process.
2. Allow time to address issues the newly appointed president may request the Alumni
Association’s assistance with.
3. Promote the perception among policymakers that funding the U of M contributes to
the creation of new businesses, new jobs, and drives our economy.
4. Increase awareness of policy-makers and the public on the net-cost of attendance
versus cost of tuition.
5. Study the delivery of higher education and how we’ll ensure people get a quality
higher education twenty years from now.
6. Promote the U’s message of being an economic engine to the general public and
alumni.
7. Build ongoing relationships with policymakers and legislators outside of legislative
session.
8. Engage students (seniors and grad students) to become part of the U of M Alumni
and Advocacy network before they graduate.
9. Support the University in staying ahead of negative public relations. Is there a role
for the Alumni Association to play?
Using the guiding principles, there were two topics which are already being addressed as a
matter of course and are very time-limited: 1) Promotion of Board of Regent Candidate
openings and 2) Allowing time to address issues the newly appointed president may request
the Alumni Association to assist with.
It should be noted that Bernadine Joselyn asked, "What is this committee's unique role”?
Her question helped to frame the conversation about mission-based advocacy vs. issuebased advocacy. Mission vs. issue based advocacy was a recurring theme throughout the
entire discussion. There was a lot of concern about how we could be helpful to the
University during these challenging budget times and around issues like tuition, the value of
the University to the state, how to increase student-focused work at the University and are
students and their families getting the education they are paying for. All of the topics
discussed lent themselves to mission-based advocacy.
Ertugrul Tuzcu cited that past roles of the advocacy committee have included both issuebased topics, like the Central Corridor Light Rail, and mission-based topics, such as
University funding. The committee may be equipped to focus on a mission-based topic vs.
identifying the many individual issues involved. Our efforts may be best spent promoting
the broad mission of the University rather than defending the University.
The following topics were discussed:
Increase awareness of policy-makers and the public on the net-cost of attendance versus
cost of tuition.
The discussion indicated agreement that the public is uninformed about costs of tuition,
research, and other University costs. We could shed some light on the issue, but it would
require significant research and data. It has also been a topic that raises questions of
“fairness” and “net price versus perceived price”. Topical details would complicate study,
such as the difference in cost of offering an undergraduate liberal arts education versus a
professional program.
University of Minnesota Alumni Association
Advocacy Committee Minutes
September 22, 2010
page 3
Study the delivery of higher education and how we’ll ensure people get a quality higher
education twenty years from now.
This topic was determined to be more of an academic research field rather than one for
committee action.
Promote the U’s message of being an economic engine to the general public and alumni.
Promoting the University as an economic engine is a good message, but it is already part of
the broader Alumni Association outreach efforts; it is unclear how the Committee could
measure it or take action. The Statewide Speakers Tour does utilize some general messages
to this effect, but could use more geographic or field specific information. It may be possible
to invite speakers to future committee meetings to boil down information by region.
The “economic engine” message is beneficial to the U to buffer it from negative press.
According to Donna Peterson, University Relations, they may be doing an economic impact
study in the future, maybe as early as this winter for some initial data. When the President
talks about University innovations, people do get excited and perhaps the committee could
spread the message to a wider audience. It would be extremely beneficial if the message
were targeted to local communities across the state.
Build ongoing relationships with policymakers and legislators, outside of legislative session.
The group sentiment was that this should be a component to everything handled by the
committee, but weren’t sure it could be a primary focus in itself? There is also a distinction
between policymakers and elected officials. The committee could try to identify other
players involved in policy development and create relationships there.
Engage students (seniors and grad students) to become part of the U of M Alumni and
Advocacy network before they graduate.
As the representative of the Minnesota Students Association, Thomas Trehus proposed this
topic as a way to engage students in a committee and in advocacy work that they usually
aren’t aware of. It would better prepare them for being alumni advocates. The committee
could promote the University as a source of pride and an opportunity for lifelong
involvement. Alumni Association CEO, Phil Esten, emphasized his desire to develop more
student involvement opportunities. This will be addressed during the strategic planning
process of the Alumni Associaiton.
It was also suggested that current students could get involved in the Statewide Speakers
Tour to demonstrate that students don’t get “lost” as the U, as many fear. Students could
also show the Alumni Association how they are communicating with each other; would help
us align with future alumni.
Support the University in staying ahead of negative public relations. Is there a role for the
Alumni Association to play?
There may be a role for the committee, but there is also a risk of becoming a crisis center
for the U.
University of Minnesota Alumni Association
Advocacy Committee Minutes
September 22, 2010
page 4
Following the discussion, each committee member received three votes to determine which
topic(s) would be studied
2010 / 2011 Advocacy Topic Selection
 Promote the U’s message of being an economic engine to the general public and
alumni, “value of the University of Minnesota”.
 Promote Board of Regent Candidate openings to ensure a qualified pool to choose
from
 Support the University ‘s legislative request
 Allow time to address issues the newly appointed University President may request
the Alumni Association’s assistance with
Further discussion will be necessary to determine the committee's role in advancing the
message of the "value of the University of Minnesota" in state/local community dialogue,
particularly in light of state budget expectations. There was a sense that we could engage
students in project like this.
Strategic Plan Update
Phil Esten, President and CEO of the Association provided an update on the strategic plan.
We are in year six of a five year plan. The previous strategic plan was based on research
done 15 years ago. Changes to business models and in leadership at the association,
University, and state levels emphasized the need to analyze key stakeholders, programs &
activities, etc. A Request For Proposal (RFP) was issued and the Association decided on the
Napa Group, an organization known for their work in Higher Education. The Napa Group
expects to make a recommendation to the National Board in March 2011. The entire process
will be completed during the 2010/2011 fiscal year. The consultants expect six to eight
initiatives will come out of the strategic planning process. It is likely that one of the
initiatives will ideal with advocacy opportunities directly.
Advocacy Update
Mary Kay Delvo, director of advocacy/public policy, provided an update on the advocacy
activities of the Alumni Association. The Statewide Speakers Tour is in full swing and this
year we are partnering with the College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences
(CFANS). The tour theme is: “Building and sustaining a strong economy: The University of
Minnesota’s Unique Role”. This program will highlight the connection between the nine
Research and Outreach Centers associated with CFANS and their impact on teaching,
discover and the state’s economy. For an updated tour schedule visit
www.MinnesotaAlumni.org/statewide_tour
Election Advocacy: For information and to get involved in election advocacy
visit:www.MinnesotaAlumni.org/Election_2010. Consider hosting a district meeting at your
home or in your neighborhood. It’s one of the most effective communication tools we have
with legislators.
Save the Date: The Legislative Briefing will be held on Wednesday, January 19, 2011. This
year’s event will feature President Bob Bruinink’s final Briefing presentation and powerful
new activities to help attendees connect personally with their legislators. We will likely need
your help during the event so plan to attend.
The next meeting will be held on November 10, 2010
Minutes prepared by Sarah Springer