|
TOCAR Collaborative Minutes
February 10, 2004
Concordia College
Present: CC: Jim Postema,
Johnathan Judd, Carmen Cornog; NDSU: Tegan Henke, Sandra
Holbrook, Jennifer Krueger; MSUM: Anita Bender, Phyllis May-Machunda,
Amy Phillips; YWCA: Lysa Ringquist
I.
Upcoming Collaborative Meetings:
·
March 9th –
Has been changed to MSUM, CMU 203. It will probably be a
larger meeting since Jim Addington from MCARI will be there lead a
discussion about accountability within the Collaborative.
·
April 13th –
NDSU, Chamber Room in the Union Building
·
May 11th – MSUM,
CMU 203. The location may change in order to host an
“end-of-the-year party.” If you have any suggestions for where
to have the party, please contact Amy.
II.
Discussion/Debrief from the Level III
training: Amy distributed a typed
list of the comments made at the Level III training during the
discussion about what the Collaborative can do for each of the
teams. The group used this list to prompt discussion/debriefing
about the training. (See attached)
Concordia
·
Good to have a vision and direction to
galvanized the team.
·
The training helped solidify the Concordia
team and give it more structure
·
Team did an initial SWOT analysis of the
recommendations to the College created by the Concordia TOCAR team
one year ago.
·
Able to come up with a one-year plan
focused on building and sustaining the Concordia TOCAR team on
campus.
·
Need to work on moving from a “committee”
structure to a “team” structure.
NDSU
·
Good for the team just to get to know each
other better.
·
Good to have intentional discussions about
the difference between educating and organizing – especially for an
institution in higher education.
·
In future Level III trainings would like
to see a more in depth discussion about the institutional layers
pertaining particularly to an institution of higher education.
·
Would like to look at other models in
higher education that are doing this training and work.
MSUM
·
Were able to get concrete ideas of where
to go.
·
Also found the training helped solidify
relationships on the Team
·
More work as a team ahead of us to sort
through all of the ideas that were generated during the training.
We need to prioritize.
·
Would have liked to have more time to set
priorities as a team before creating the six-month timeline. We
created too much work to do in a 21-week time frame.
·
Need to be intentional at looking at the
framework for organizing an institution so that we can continue to
keep it in our heads.
III.
General Conversation about the
Collaborative:
·
Must hold one another accountable in some
way
-
Keep a focus on organizing
-
Continue to ask each other questions, i.e.
What’s your strategy? Where are you with that strategy? How are
things going on your campus?
-
Continue dialogue about processes at each
institutions – challenge each other
-
Discuss “living the analysis”
-
Idea: Each team create a monthly plan
that they bring to the Collaborative meetings.
-
Look at the Collaborative as a time to
develop Collaborative Team.
·
What do we need from Ally training? What
are expectations?
-
Incorporate P1, P2, and P3. Use it as our
frame of reference.
·
Rotate facilitation among teams
·
Collaborative needs to talk about how to
adjust to different levels of understanding on the team.
·
Collaborative needs to have a general
discussion about the community members on the Collaborative team –
how much training is necessary, etc.
Amy and Phyllis will share the details of this
discussion with Jim to provide input where appropriate and to
incorporate into the discussion about accountability with the group
next month.
Next TOCAR Collaborative Meeting will be March 9th,
4-5:30pm, at MSUM CMU 203
Submitted by,
Anita Bender and Tegan Henke
|
