Attendees: Allan Affeldt (co-chair) and Board, Susie Garretson (president), Susan Golightly, and Sam Henderson. Robert Breunig (CEO) and staff, Tracy Anderson, Sat Best, Elaine Hughes, Laura Rogers, and intern, Catherine Nichols.

Absent: Katrina Rogers (co-chair) and Board, Miguel Vasquez, Rowena Dickerson, and staff, Dave Gillette, Susan Olberding, and Lynn Yeager.

The meeting was convened at 2:10 PM.

The agenda was to discuss changes to the Institutional Goals motivated by Vision Statement review and other stakeholder feedback; share new stakeholder feedback since the last meeting; present the Institutional Plan in its newly structured, chronological format (esp. comment on the unequal distribution of work over 5 years); provide an update on missing Goals I, VI, and VIII; and establish the next steps and timeline for completion of the Institutional Plan in time for Board approval on August 5, 2006.

At the last IPC meeting, the committee agreed that looking at the Draft Institutional Plan in chronological order would help gain an interdepartmental, or institutional, perspective as well as help assess the Museum’s ability to complete its goals in a 5-year timeframe. Thus, Laura Rogers presented the Draft Institutional Plan restructured chronologically, 2006-2011. Seeing the action-steps in this order it became clear that the intended work is unequally distributed across the 5 years with the bulk scheduled for 2006 and 2007.

So, what’s next? Rather than revise for equal distribution with the IPC, Laura will schedule one-on-one meetings with each Key Issue Committee leader during which they will work on stretching out action-steps and ensure a realistic though ambitious 5-year plan, cutting material if necessary. In addition to revising the timeline, Laura and Key Issue Committee leaders will fill in other holes and edit the fine print.

Allan Affeldt advised that we do not cut the intellectual work that has gone into creating this very ambitious plan, especially if its inclusion would help solicit donations. Robert Breunig agreed that MNA needs to find a balance of real need and aspirations. We need to indicate that we are aware of our critical and primary objectives, while maintaining aspirations (these aspirations will be dependent on additional funding). It is important from an outside perspective as well as internally; we do not want to create false expectations amongst staff. Allan asked if MNA will lose face if it does not achieve a very ambitious plan. Robert said that the American Association of Museums (AAM) will not pass judgment on the Museum’s Plan, though during re-accreditation 10 years down the road they may question why we did not achieve our objectives. Susie Garretson asked if the Plan had to be a 5-year plan; can we expand and make it a 10-year plan? Robert said that 5 years is custom, and it becomes very difficult to plan 10 years out. The consensus was not to delete anything from the plan and maintain a floating line or list of aspirations that can be reevaluated annually. Laura suggested that the IPC not disband after approval of the Plan in August, but remain active and meet annually in September to review progress and revise the Plan, if necessary.

Right now we need to ask ourselves: What is absolutely critical and urgent, e.g. the Collections Center and deferred maintenance? And, what could wait for the next 5-year plan? For example, Laura distributed a list of New Hires and a list of Grants planned for 2006-2011. Today MNA plans to hire 26 new employees and write 29 grants, and this does not include staff and fundraising needs from Goals I, VI, and VIII? Laura and Robert plan to meet in the coming month to prioritize New Hires and Grants, and find an appropriate balance between departments.

Elaine Hughes asked why the new Ethnology Curator and Fine Arts Curator positions were listed under Collections and not research. This classification was noted as being a bit confusing, though we are trying to assess the overall institutional need for new staff. There are many positions that are not yet acknowledged on the New Hire list such as Marketing and Facilities staff. We need to identify and prioritize all of MNA’s staffing needs, and then shrink the 2006-2011 list of New Hires.

Moving along with the day’s agenda, Laura provided an update on Goals I, VI, and VIII. She will meet with Robert next week to complete Goals I and VI, and Karen Enyedy and Ernie DeVries have found it very difficult to find the time to complete Goal VIII. And, Laura told the IPC that she has received no stakeholder feedback since the last IPC meeting. Sat Best was surprised that there had been no feedback at the Annual Members’ Meeting last Saturday. Alan said that he interpreted the lack of feedback as a vote of confidence from members.

Lastly, we discussed changes to the Major Institutional Goals motivated by Vision Statement review and stakeholder feedback, as presented at the Annual Members’ Meeting last Saturday. Susie asked about the objectives under Goal IX, specifically “Understand and operate according to the ‘best practices’ of the museum and non-profit field” and the new content relating to recruitment of Board members. The IPC agreed that the “best practices” objective should be enhanced with action-steps that require the Board to review current literature regarding governance, e.g. BoardSource. The IPC also agreed that the recruitment criteria should not be included in the objective of Goal IX, rather in the strategy of that objective. Revisions to Goal IX and others will be made during upcoming one-on-one meetings.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:58 PM.

Respectfully submitted,
Laura C. Rogers