DRAFT
NOTES
POLICY COMMITTEE (PC)
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Phillips Family Foundation, 615 1st Ave. NE, Ste. 330, Minneapolis 55413
Purpose:
 Approve previous meeting notes and outcomes.
 Receive updates on Electrical Energy and Higher Ed projects.
 Continue discussing PC’s Selection of Policy Topics
In Attendance: Jeff Allen, Bob Armstrong, Jim Boyle, Matt Byrne, Janna Caywood, Bright Dornblaser,
Kevin Terrell, and Barb VanDrasek.
Staff: Adam Arling, Pahoua Hoffman
1.
Introductions and negotiate agenda (5:00 – 5:05 p.m.)

2.
Approve Notes and Outcomes document.

3.
No changes were made to the agenda.
A motion to approve meeting notes and the outcomes document was made by Bob
Armstrong; seconded by Jim Boyle. Motion was approved unanimously.
Project Updates (20 minutes: 5:05 – 5:25 p.m.)
Electrical Energy –



The phase 3 electrical energy committee had its first meeting yesterday (Nov 10). All Policy
Committee members should be on the list to receive meeting notes as they are approved at
the following study committee meeting.
At the meeting Rolf Nordstrom from the Great Plains Institute was invited to share
developments about the e21 initiative. After his presentation, the conversation moved into
what participants see as our role and what we can reasonable achieve by the end of this
phase.
Overall concerns were raised by the committee about becoming a rubber stamp for the e21
initiatives recommendations, and that we ought to see their recommendations as soon as
possible for any real dialogue to happen and for us to determine our best path forward. Rolf
agreed to bring final recommendations to December meeting pending approval.
Higher Education –



4.
Contracted staff, Lindsey Alexander, had been doing one on one meetings with key
stakeholders over the last several months. To test some general recommendations that
emerged from those conversations, we applied and received funding from the Lumina
Foundation to hold a series of three workshops: Oct. 1, Nov. 5, and Dec. 17.
Pahoua Hoffman provided a document outlining summary of intent and goals for the three
workshops. The committee requested distribution of the draft recommendations that resulted
from one-on-one-conversations.
Staff has been in communication with Senator Bonoff’s office, which is looking to host a oneday summit to convene partners with the Citizens League’s help in order to define desired
higher ed attainment goals in Minnesota. How we meet these attainment goals could be the
question for further exploration in a Citizens League Study Committee.
Discuss the Selection of Policy Topics (60 minutes: 5:25 – 6:25)
Purpose: In reviewing the Study Committee Handbook, which we adopted at our last meeting, PC
members agreed it was critical that the Committee review and agree on the process for selecting
policy topics that the Study Committees should take on and how we can best execute the
Committee’s role in selecting and prioritizing this work. The goal is to come to agreement on the
selection process including the criteria for selecting policy topics.
Key Questions: Does the attached “Policy Topics Procedures” document begin to lay out a clear
and easy-to-understand process for selecting policy topics? What can we learn from past
practices? How can we improve the process? What are next steps?






5.
Staff brought a draft process for topic selection to the committee to be reviewed. A process
had been in use in the past and there is some documentation through 2007 in our files, but
due to staff changes and a different approach to project funding, the process has not been
followed.
The draft budget for 2015 includes project funding through June for energy and higher ed, but
also unrestricted project funding to support topic(s) chosen by the committee. There was
some concern that funders have been driving project selection too much over the past
several years. As such, the in the criteria document, resources remained in the bottom half
and the committee decided to rename each tier “primary” and “secondary” criteria.
Our process for adding topics to our list for consideration should place greater emphasis on
being proactive and elevating the analysis of experts in the field. Waiting until we hear about
an issue in the news may be too late for us to make a unique and impactful contribution.
Under March/April in the timeline, members suggested that “briefing sessions” before final
topic selection should somehow be more encouraged or required.
Project lengths may vary based on the scope of an issue. Perhaps during the leadership
update at the end of the year prior to the selection process, a budget update happens in
addition to a review of active projects the League is committed to.
The committee reemphasized its potential role in evaluating past policy recommendations
and impact. There may be a potential partnership with the Humphrey School in doing so.
Evaluation and next steps (6:25 – 6:30 p.m.)
 Staff to send committee members the higher ed draft recommendations that resulted from
one on one conversations and serves as the basis for conversation at workshops.
 Staff to share invitation list to higher ed summit and committee to help determine gaps.
 Committee to continue discussion of how we rank and weight criteria at the next meeting.
 Evaluation: Average 4.88 (5, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4.98, 5, 5, 5)
o Agenda was properly balanced for amount of discussion time.
Upcoming Meetings: December 9
Second Tuesday of each month, 5:00-6:30 p.m. at Phillips Family Foundation