Attendees: Board, Susie Garrettson (president), Allan Affeldt, and Sam Henderson. Staff, Tracy Anderson, Sat Best, Dave Gillette, Elaine Hughes, Marlene Lloyd, and Laura Rogers.

The meeting was convened at 2:08 PM.

The agenda was to 1) update the committee on institutional planning materials online, esp. the online suggestion form, 2) update the committee on 120 letters sent to stakeholders earlier this week asking for feedback on the institutional goals, 3) discuss Key Issues Committees and documents submitted for the April 24th deadline, 4) and review the Staff Institutional Planning Meeting held on Wednesday morning, April 26th and concerns about changes within the official Goals distributed to the public.

Laura updated the IPC on new text and an online suggestion form posted on the MNA Institutional Planning website. Elaine expressed her continued concern with a discrepancy between the outdated Institutional Goals posted online, and the official Institutional Goals approved by the Board and shared with the staff yesterday morning. The committee agreed to attain the official Goals from Robert and replace the out-of-date document as soon as possible.

On that same topic, the committee discussed the Goals sent with the letters to stakeholders. Shall we send 120 new letters with the official goals? Laura suggested that we not send new letters, given the minor changes, but do make it a top priority to update the Goals online to reflect the final document approved by the Board on April 1, 2006. Dave Gillette requested that the letter to stakeholders be distributed to IPC members such that they are familiar with the information in case recipients ask questions. Laura will email the letter promptly.

Following, Laura discussed the feedback from and progress of Key Issues Committees since the instructional email sent on April 6, which set a deadline to received drafts of goals, action-steps, and timelines for April 24.

On April 24 only three committees had submitted drafts; the Executive committee had completed untyped drafts for each of its two goals, but did not submit; and four committees had submitted nothing. The following discussion addressed multiple strategies for streamlining the development of MNA’s Institutional Plan.

First, the IPC will clarify the AAM expectations for institutional planning, in general, and Robert’s expectations for institutional planning, specific to MNA. As leader of the Education committee, Tracy had asked and received an extended deadline for two reasons: the expectations for action-steps were vague and three weeks was insufficient time to create this document.

Thus, second, the IPC will extend the deadline for all Key Issues Committees to submit drafts. The new deadline for submission of drafts is May 15, and the IPC will review a final comprehensive draft of the Institutional Plan on May 25 in preparation for the Annual Members Meeting on June 3.

Third, Robert will generate a template for one of the Executive committee’s goals— #7 Develop Strong Partnerships, or #9 Operate at the Highest Standards—which will serve to ensure the final comprehensive draft presented to members will be consistent and thorough.

And lastly, Laura will become the point-person for both IPC and Key Issue Committees. Namely, she will send official documents and memos directly to IPC members and Key Issue Committee Leaders, and field their questions. This will improve communication and streamline the collection of all materials. After she receives and distributes a template created by Robert, she will phone or visit with Key Issue Committee Leaders to establish direct relationships.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:19 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
Laura C. Rogers