Core Values Steering Committee Minutes - December 16, 2021

Survey Check-in/Discussion

Some of the subcommittees have indicated that they would like to do all-staff surveys as part of their process.  The EDI subcommittee has already done one.

Steering has been asked to limit the number of surveys to minimize survey fatigue for staff.  Chris and Kim reported that Larry indicated in their meeting that he wants the minimum number of surveys possible; and that he wants it to be very clear that any definitions, etc., shared with staff are DRAFTS only.

The group discussed the idea of creating a single survey to cover questions for all subcommittees.  If this is done, one idea is for each subcommittee to be allowed to submit a specific number of questions.  Sufficient time needs to be allowed for responding to surveys.  Most subcommittees would like to use survey results to help identify proposals rather than definitions.

There was discussion about the possibility of using information from previous surveys.  Suggestions were the 2020 organizational culture survey, the LEAP survey, and the 2018 Engagement Recommendations and Project Proposal.

In response to a question, Katherine stated that the EDI subcommittee received 102 responses, a worthwhile number.  She said that the quality of the responses was good and that some respondents wrote a great deal.  It seems that some respondents did not clearly understand what EDI is, even though the draft definitions were included in the survey.  The group agreed that definitions require explication.

Subcommittee Definition Discussions

The group reviewed the draft definitions put forth by the subcommittees for each Core Value.  The drafts took a number of different forms.  These forms included a phrase followed by bullet points; a statement with action statements; a single statement; and paragraphs describing the value.  The group discussed the formats as well as the content.

The EDI subcommittee crafted a definition for each term in the value, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion.  There was considerable discussion about the value of breaking the Core Value down in this way.  As liaisons, Katherine and Pauline will work with the subcommittee to develop a single statement defining the value as a whole.

The Innovation subcommittee created a short statement followed by an explanatory sentence.  Steering members liked the format.  There was considerable discussion of the use of the word “brave” in the definition.  Liaisons Kimberly and Jessica shared some of the subcommittee’s reasoning for the term, including that innovating can be scary.

The Integrity subcommittee’s definition consisted of a single sentence, although the group provided two different phrasings.  Erin commented that the group has been working on additional statements to be more purposeful.  The subcommittee will meet on December 17 to identify purpose statements.  Their conversation on Teams has included ideas about revamping the definition after Linda Clark’s presentation at the December 14 X Change session.  This led to a discussion about having Ms. Clark conduct a training session with the Steering Committee and/or the subcommittees.  Larry stated previously that there are financial resources available for the Core Value project.  Kim will follow up with Learning and Development.

The People First subcommittee’s definition used a “we” statement with explanatory bullet points.  Again, Steering appreciated the format.  The group discussed the pros and cons of using “we” or “I” statements as slogans vs. “action” statements.  This led to a larger discussion about the distinction between the People First and Respect values.

The Respect subcommittee utilized the statement and bullet point format.  Liaisons Darcus and Jill explained the subcommittee’s take on the difference between People First and Respect: Respect refers to meeting a person’s emotional needs, People First is less about emotions.  There was also discussion of the meaning of the phrase “Treat people the way they want to be treated”.

Overall, Steering liked the structure of a short slogan with bullet points.  Liaisons will encourage subcommittees to transform their definitions into this format.  There was no consensus as to whether definitions are to be “I” statements, “we” statements, or “no pronoun” statements; that decision is up to the subcommittees.

It was suggested that all draft definitions be combined onto a single page for easy reference by Steering and subcommittees.  Pauline offered to create the document and share it.  The combined document will clearly state that all definitions are DRAFTS.

Open discussions

Proposals

There was discussion of whether subcommittees are or should be able to view others’ proposals.  Not all subcommittees are ready to share their proposals.  Some might be shared as examples.  There should be someone in each subcommittee who is familiar with how to create proposals.  It is understood that there will be some overlap between subcommittees’ proposals.

A question was raised about whether slogans should be created as part of the definition or proposal phase; Steering agreed that it should be part of the definition.

SharePoint

The group discussed the option of making the Steering Committee SharePoint available to all subcommittees.  Consensus was not to do so, but liaisons may share individual items with subcommittees as they determine a need.

Questions from Subcommittees

Jessica shared that Innovation may have difficulty with proposals due to the fact that the system has no long range plan.  She asked if proposals should be short-term rather than long-term.  The group agreed that proposals may be long term with the understanding that they may be adjusted based on the strategic plan.

Katherine brought up two questions from EDI.  First, is it acceptable to submit proposals in January without budgets, but to add budget information after the final list of proposals is selected.  Kim stated that per the timeline, budgets are not due with January proposals.  Second, the subcommittee is concerned that the one page length will not allow enough space for a cohesive description, and wondered if the length might be extended later in the process.   The Steering Committee pointed out that the one page requirement was included so that committee members would have time to review all proposals.  Proposals that run slightly over one page will be considered, but longer ones will not.

Future meetings

Kim has scheduled Steering Committee meetings every other week through April 2022.  Decisions whether to meet in person or virtually will be made shortly before meeting dates.

Next meeting will be on Wednesday, January 12, 3:00-5:00 PM, on Zoom.

Action items: