Attendees: Katrina Rogers (chair) and Board, Susie Garretson (president), Susan Golightly, and Sam Henderson. Robert Breunig (CEO), and staff, Tracy Anderson, Sat Best, Dave Gillette, Elaine Hughes, Michele Mountain, and Laura Rogers.

The meeting was convened at 2:08 PM.

The agenda was to review sample institutional plans received from the AAM Information Center, review all MNA Institutional Goals templates submitted by Key Issue Committee leaders, discuss the IPC presentation at the Annual Members’ Meeting on June 3, provide a summary of feedback from stakeholders and discuss how MNA will incorporate into its Plan, and discuss future dates of IPC Meetings.

Laura Rogers distributed sample institutional plans from the Memphis Brooks Museum of Art, the National Museum of Civil War Medicine, the Toledo Museum of Art, the USS Constitution Museum, and the Whatcom Museum to the IPC, asking the IPC to briefly review the format and content of each. How have these institutions organized their plans? How specific is their content? What can we learn from these plans, and apply in our own? Committee members asked to review the sample plans more thoroughly at a later time; Laura will send digital copies.

Focusing on the recent draft of the Major Institutional Goals for MNA 2006-2011, IPC members favor the current format, which is structured by objectives, strategies, etc. However, it would also be useful to create a partner document structured by chronology to better assess the challenge of reaching these goals in a 5-year timeframe. Is the current plan too ambitious; are the objectives too compressed; should we stretch this out to 10-years? In addition to gaining a better understanding of the time required to achieve the Major Institutional Goals, the partner document will present this 5-year plan as integrated rather than departmental. As it stands, the plan has been developed by Key Issues Committees who have considered a 5-year agenda within, more or less, a single department though their objectives often call for staff support from several Museum departments. Also, Key Issue Committees have considered financial needs within a single department. If the IPC integrates all departmental financial needs, we will begin to see the fundraising challenges beyond Goal I that will be charged to MNA staff, esp. the Development Manager.

Thus, restructuring the plan chronologically will provide a tool for gaining an interdepartmental, or institutional, perspective and measuring the time and human/financial resources needed to achieve MNA’s goals. The IPC aims to reassess the current draft alongside this partner document at their next meeting, downsizing the plan if necessary to ensure a realistic though ambitious 5-year plan. Laura pointed out that both the AAM and stakeholders had provided advice and/or feedback, which cautions MNA not to be unrealistic or too ambitious with its 5-year plan. She shared Accreditation tips she received from the AAM as well as a summary of stakeholder comments:

• “Collectively [these goals] are an enormous assignment.”
• “…a reader might question how realistic this plan is…”
• “…the goals seem unrealistic/unachievable in a 5-year time span. Ten at best.”
• “The goals seem pretty ambitious to me, but there’s nothing wrong with ambition.”

IPC members agreed that we may need to “draw the line” for a realistic 5-year plan. Katrina Rogers said, “Too much ambition is demoralizing.”

To date, 14 out of 155 stakeholders have returned a Survey & Suggestion Form responding to the Major Institutional Goals. More than half consider the plan to be excellent. Other good suggestions include:

• Set more specific governance and Trustee goals; esp. strengthening/developing the Board.
• Expand partnerships to include other museums, additional federal agencies, and/or the City of Flagstaff; e.g. the Heard Museum; and the National Forest Service, the National Park Service, USGS, the US Corps of Engineers, etc; and Flagstaff public art installations.
• There needs to be recognition that the visitor experience is an active, primary concern.
• There should be a focus on the quality and diversity of staff and board members.
• There is no mention of volunteers and their integration into the organizational structure.
• What about staff development, as in trainings and workshops?
• Use ongoing Civic Engagement to ensure MNA activities respond to the broad community’s needs.
• No prioritization is suggested in the document; are these prioritized? Should Goal VIII be moved higher on the list?
• You might consider a second Museum Shop in Sedona or Prescott.
• Perhaps NAU could be a collaborator in managing the library?

These suggestions were distributed to IPC members as anonymous, though the committee became curious about the identity of stakeholders. Are these suggestions credible? Robert Breunig and Laura assured the Committee that the responders are very credible, and shared the names of stakeholders from memory.

Following, the IPC discussed the upcoming Members’ Meeting on June 3. What should the IPC present? Robert suggested that Katrina present the Major Institutional Goals, similar to past presentations, though with an example of one objective with strategies, action-steps, and timelines to demonstrate how we are developing the plan. Katrina will direct interested members to the MNA website where the Institutional Plan will be posted and updated as it develops. She will also encourage them to continue providing feedback using the Survey & Suggestion Form, and demonstrate how we have already integrated stakeholder, member, and/or staff feedback into the Plan (e.g. changing Goal VIII from “Restore Our Good Name” to “Build MNA’s Reputation and Increase Attendance”), and will continue integrated suggestions when appropriate.

Lastly, Laura distributed copies of MNA’s Mission, Vision, and Values to cross reference with the draft of MNA’s Institutional Plan, focusing on the Vision Statement in particular. Susan Golightly commented that implicitly the goals coordinate with the vision statement, though we could make some adjustments. Katrina suggested that the ideas are there, but we should make sure the language in both documents, terms and vocabulary, coincides. The IPC agreed to tweak the language in the Plan before the Members’ Meeting on June 3. Robert, Laura, and Katrina will meet next week to modify the plan and PowerPoint presentation.

The next two IPC meetings will be held at 2pm in Pearson on Thursday, June 8 and Thursday, June 22.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:11 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
Laura C. Rogers