Cooperative Extension

Council for Strategic ChangeMeeting Minutes

September 11, 2009

10:00am – 3:00pm

Pyle Center, Madison

Present: Annie Jones, Lisa Lake, Sharon Klawitter, Steve Deller, Jeffery Lewis, Kimberly Porter, Nicholas Heckman, Kelly Haverkemp, Richard Klemme, Mary Meehan-Strub, Jackie Johnson, Thomas Schmitz, and Matt Hanson

Excused: Joann Hinz, Gregg Hadley

Meeting opened with a welcome from Annie and Rick

Check-in/volunteer to take notes: Kimberly Porter

Annie gave asynopsis of Strategic Planning (SP). The following items were discussed:

  • Formation of the strategic planning committee
  • Timeline
  • RBC Developer survey (informed initial work)
  • Values design team
  • Facilitated discussion with CEAC regarding mandates
  • Situational analysis with internal and external partners via survey and key informant interviews
  • Strategic issue identification – 10 emergency common themes (external/internal)
  • Vision design team
  • Strategy Development Summit – additional strategies identified
  • Recommendations presented to CEAC (32 members, all staff levels represented)
  • Implementation team and the formation of the Strategic Change Team

Annie distributed the Call for Nominations summary. She reviewed the purpose of the Council and member expectations.

Tom, Steve and Jackie shared additional responsibilities expressed byDesign Implementation Team members:

  • Provide communication to colleagues “culture of change”
  • Plan should serve as a living document/working document
  • Feedback/input required on-going on all levels of the organization
  • Leadership present on team, must continue to gain buy-in from the organization
  • Determination of who would be responsible for what strategies
  • Need for a council. Must be a priority.
  • Ongoing change entity

How much of CEAC’s time is spent on operational issues?

  • Rick and Sharon provided an overview of CEAC – updates on budgets, issues, HR/PD, Professional Improvement, Reporting, Effective Engagement, Policy, Program Area Presentations (i.e., PACE), Strategic Planning, Idea Bouncing, Data Collection, Feedback.

Things to think about, comments, and concerns:

  • How we work out decision making process?
  • What is our role in relationship to CEAC?
  • How do we hold the organization accountable for change?
  • How do we create opportunity for input/engagement without creating an imbalance W/L/Balance?
  • Stress that this will not be implemented top down.
  • Correct misinformation (i.e., Quad/Milwaukee County)

Comments related to expectations:

  • Hope to give colleagues voice in implementation – communication and input is important
  • Hopeful
  • Hope that the Council and colleagues are empowered through the process
  • Council is able to build a comfort level with one another – laughter is important
  • We get buy-in from people who are impacted by implementation
  • Make sure people have correct information
  • Analogy – We “tend to the garden” and create the conditions for implementation to occur

Getting to Know You

  • Members identified themselves on the Colors, DISC, Team Dimensions tools.
  • Lisa suggested the use of Strengths Quest, Emotional quotation Inventory . Sharon – intrapersonal EQ Score.

Review of the Plan

What Surprised you about the plan?

  • Little buy-in from leadership support
  • Reaction to the plan (i.e. Quad Counties)
  • Stigma about change
  • “Reorganization”
  • Was the plan bold enough
  • Oxymoron about change
  • Leaders – dealing with discomfort
  • Trust/Vulnerability
  • Need to be respectful of people’s feelings/perceptions
  • FTAC dissolution

Unhappy/Alarmed about the plan:

  • The statement “the success of the organization depends on Milwaukee County”
  • How would local partners feel? (perceptions) (benefits/cost ratio)
  • Resources (i.e. Milwaukee County)
  • Urban – rural
  • FTAC

Things you liked about the plan:

  • Culture and sub-cultures was included
  • Work across cultures
  • Some strategies have been completed (i.e., Dean)
  • Value driven statement included
  • Overarching strategic question included
  • Practicality of plan
  • Life/work balance
  • The plan is bold
  • Deeper collegiate understanding

Next Steps

  • Rick and Annie will schedule the meetings. Suggestion– 2 days a month for 6 months, 1 day a month after.
  • Possible dates:
  • November 9thand/or 10th Topics: team building, mission, vision, values, recommendations, work-plan
  • October 16thand/ or 20th Topics: Logic model, Evaluation, Communication, Recommendations, Situational Analysis.

Annie distributed draft of Cooperative mission, vision, and values. Things to consider:

  • Is this group finishing the mission, vision, and values? When /how does this team take this on?
  • Who decides when this is completed?

Next Meeting: Because the entire group is unable to attend either of the October options (October 16 and 20), Rick suggested that we hold meetings on both of those days and that people can choose which date they’d like to attend. The group suggested that topics are divided somewhat for the October meetings so that if people were available to attend both days, they could.

October 16 – Madison

October 20 – Madison

November 9 and 10 – Location TBD

Meeting Adjourned at 3:00 pm

Submitted by: Kimberly Porter