Follow MNA on
Facebook
Twitter

Attendees: Katrina Rogers (chair), Allan Affeldt (co-chair) and Board, Susie Garrettson (president), Susan Golightly, Sam Henderson, and Carolyn Shoemaker. Robert Breunig (CEO), and staff, Tracy Anderson, Sat Best, Marlene Lloyd, Elaine Hughes, and Laura Rogers.

The meeting was convened at 3:08 PM.

The agenda was to review the members’ institutional planning meeting held March 28, discuss the ongoing planning process, and future ICP meeting dates and timeline.

Robert conveyed the attendance at the members’ meeting to be lower than hoped with 26 people in total, though members who attended gave great feedback. Big suggestions included targeting our audiences; changing our long-term exhibits; enhance our library; and foster new directions and/or innovation in Native American arts.

Susan Golightly initiated a discussion about audience, or demographics, as related to a study completed by the National Parks in California. The study evaluates how parks can attract certain cultures to recreate according to their styles of recreation. For instance, would Hispanic populations enjoy more picnic tables because they are family-oriented? Would seniors enjoy more seats and more legible exhibit panels? Robert agreed that we need to address the needs of changing visitors. He mentioned that Texas Game and Fish did a similar study. Katrina suggested we include the Disability Awareness Commission’s Assessment of Public Space in the Institutional Plan. Susan also encouraged MNA to consider its local resources (i.e. cradleboard exhibit) and create a stronger community foundation.

Katrina asked that we evaluate our member outreach with regards to Institutional Plan feedback. The committee decided to send a small note with the Ballot telling members to check the website for up-to-date information, and to call MNA if they would like a hard copy of the Members’ Meeting Minutes from March 28.

Members asked about finality of Institutional Goals and next steps. Robert outlined, from memory, the AAM expectations for the Institutional Plan. Responding to the Plan as an ongoing process, Allan suggested MNA review the plan at the annual meeting, every year. The committee proceeded to review sub-committees from retreat and reassign as appropriate for new, condensed goals. Next, Katrina and Allan will email sub-committees and ask them to develop action-steps and timelines for each goal: deadline set for April 24. Review of Goal VIII generated conversation about “Restore,” which refers to the past; instead, the goal should be titled, “Build Our Reputation.”

Susan Golightly questioned why we have not synchronized the Master Plan and the Institutional Plan. The sub-committees are different in each planning process, and we do not want to forget an important element Robert reasoned that the Master Plan is 25 years, while the Institutional Plan is only 5 years. He cautioned against including too much, “We can’t include everything but the kitchen sink in a 5 year plan.” He continued to discuss the feasibility of the Institutional Plan. If we accomplished our goals in Collections and Exhibits alone, that would be enormous. Katrina suggested that the IPC cross-reference the Master Plan at the next meeting on April 13.

Robert mentioned that sustainability was a theme in the Master Plan that is not included, though should be included, in the Institutional Plan. It is implicit in every goal, but not directly stated. Perhaps we could include this point under Highest Standards. Robert also indicated “visitors’ needs” as outlined by CA Parks article could be incorporated into goals, esp. youth as associated with Discovery outreach and opposing year-round schooling initiatives.

Katrina revisited the topic of outreach, inquiring about feedback from specific stakeholders. Robert mentioned that Ann Deegan had created a list of stakeholders, and Laura can retrieve it and update. Committee members listed government/city workers (Visitors Bureau), other museums (Sharlot Hall and the Heard), tribal constituents, schools (NAU, FALA), sister institutions (Lowell, Arboretum), and past MNA Board Members as important contacts.

Regarding future IPC meetings, they will be held in Pearson on April 13, 27 and May 11, 25. The agenda for the next meeting will include a discussion of the California National Parks article and a review of the Master Plan.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:16 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
Laura C. Rogers