Retreat Discussion Highlights & Findings...

Background and Problem Stated

Potential Organizational Models

Findings & Action Items

Potential Organizational Models

Overview: Sample Models for National Organization

The following models are not mutually exclusive and meant only to provide Retreat participants with a common point of departure for their discussion.

Advisory committee would determine objectives, goals, and foci for the organization. Advisory committee would be made up of by a combination of seasoned policy professionals of color.

 
Pros

• Name recognition 
• Potential to tap individuals for financial and in-kind support 

Cons

• Role of non-advisory members would need to be determined 
• Advisory committee may not have time and/or energy to move initiatives along 

A series of working groups and committees coordinated by a central committee whose role it is to disseminate information and keep cohesion between working groups.

Pros

• Provides discreet tasks for individuals to focus on 
• Gives all potential members and opportunity to contribute where their interests and skills lie. 

Cons

• Little name recognition to draw financial and in-kind support 
• Separate organizational members who focus solely on working group tasks and lack a sense of community with other working group members. 

Model C: Chapter & National Board Model

Consists of representatives from the regional chapters and at-large or honorary positions. The national board would elect its own officers, approve new chapters, coordinate revenue sharing between chapters, and would serve as the official liaison between the organization and external groups (i.e. new PPIA program). This is shown is Figure 4.

Pros

• Ensures regional participation and facilitates national communication 
• Allows each individual region to voice to set national and regional priorities 

Cons

• Make take more time and resources to coordinate among chapters perhaps providing an obstacle for decision-making 
• Revenue sharing between regional chapters can often be difficult to coordinate 

Back to Top...

Findings & Action Items

Decisions Made by Group At End of Retreat

Strategic Planning Committee

Would be comprised of 6 groups of 2 (17 members) 
1- Synthesize information by November 10, 2000 
Create timeline for recommendations 
 

2- Create selection criteria 
For permanent APPAM representatives by January 6, 2001

3- Strategic Planning Committee- Have recommendations based on synthesized retreat information by February 9, 2001

Outline of Organizational Structure
 

1- For legality purposes, the body approved to use existing COMPP organizational shell (already 501 c.). It was suggested to change the name and for the Strategic Planning Committee to develop a new mission statement. Arguments were made to keep the name the same as it carries some resonance. 

2- The body decided to have a broader organizational membership definition than fellows (Sloan/Woodrow Wilson/PPIA). 

3- The body approved for the new organization to be open to all people who align themselves with multicultural leadership 
It was approved by the body that having a graduate degree would not be a pre-requisite for membership.

4- After reviewing the four organizational models, it was determined that the following organizational structure was preferable in order to have: 
a- A National Advisory Board 
b- Regional chapters 
c- A National Board with: 
d- Regional representatives 

The body discussed the definitive question of "What business are we in? " and developed the following action points/values:

1- Multicultural Leadership 
2- Networking/ building linkages 
3- Public Service 
4- Influencing the political process 
5- Empowering people of color 
6- Promoting professional development 
7- Recommend solutions 
8- Monitoring 
9- Academic Support

Back to Top...