Untitled Document

MSBA Civic Education Committee
January 13, 2011
11:45am – 12:45pm
MSBA Honors Room – 3rd Floor City Center
600 Nicollet Mall, Suite 380, Downtown Minneapolis

Agenda
1) Negotiate Agenda
2) Civic Education Committee Budget
- We are under budget for the remaining fiscal year ending in June 2011.
- Tamara explained the new budget for 2011-12 and the differences from the previous budget.
- The budget was approved by the Committee.
3) Professional Development Workshop (i.e. Teacher Training)
- Jennifer suggested sending a survey to the 2010 workshop to ask for lesson plan ideas which
Tamara will do.
- David M. suggested lesson plans having to do with civility and Gary reinforced that idea.
Tamara will forward email that Gary had sent about this topic.
- Jennifer also suggested a lesson on the 1st Amendment – the right to assemble and petition
government.
- David M. (I believe) also suggested a lesson about women’s right to vote before, during and after
the war. Use the film Iron Jawed Angels and talk about Ellen Pole.
- Tamara will relay these ideas to Anne Hoyt Taff.
4) Subcommittee Reports
Policy – Legacy Amendment and Citizen Lawyer Award
- Elise congratulated Jennifer on being the Citizen Lawyer Award recipient
- Jennifer updated everyone about the MN Dept. of Education’s Social Studies
Revision Committee. They will announce the committee members soon. Members
had to commit to 10 full days of planning and that is hard for teachers if there is not
extra money in the budget for substitute teachers.
LITS – Presidents’ Day
- Presidents’ Day lesson plan is almost done. The subcommittee decided to create a
lesson plan that compares and contrasts FDR’s presidency to Obama’s as both
presidents served during a recession and a down economy.
Minnesota State Bar Association, City Center, 600 Nicollet Mall, #380, Minneapolis, MN 55402
612-333-1183 | www.mnbar.org | 800-882-6722
- New this year the subcommittee will be sending paper surveys to teachers in hopes
of capturing more data and also getting the students opinions of the presentations.
- Also new Brenda Miller and Jim Moore will be teaching a lesson plan for a
workshop at the Hennepin County Bar Associations Legal Expo on March 3rd.
Outreach/Partnerships – MASSP
- Eldon and Tamara met with Minnesota Association of Secondary School Principals
(MASSP)
- sent 500 brochures to MASSP to pass out at conf. in Jan. and to hand out at meetings
throughout Minnesota
- Eldon and Tamara are meeting with the International Institute of MN on Jan. 20
- Subcommittee will start establishing new and maintaining current partnerships and
research new initiatives for the Committee.
Diversity Pipeline – No report.
Operation Mediation – Next steps for the program
- Meeting reminder for next Weds Jan. 19th 3-4pm
- Follow up meeting scheduled for Jan. 21st to videotape mock mediations for future
trainings.
- Patrick is interested in being on this subcommittee.
5) Tamara’s Report
Operation Mediation – 27 trained mediators – students are using the skills but not reporting
them as mediations but the life skills are invaluable
Grants – Received MSB Foundation- $500, Education MN - $4,500 and Thomson Reuters $2,500
Professional Development Workshop – need task force members!!!!!
Conferences coming up – M.C.S.S. in Rochester. Only Tamara is going.
Website – Anybody interested in helping redesign the website? Moving the site to in house staff
and Wordpress format to 1) streamline MSBA look 2) free and easier to manage
6) Other Business – Welcome new member Patrick Zitek!
- Why did you all join?
- What do you want to accomplish?
- What value is in this for you as a member?
- Tracking volunteer hours

MSBA Civic Education Committee
November 11, 2010
11:45am – 12:45pm
MSBA Honors Room – 3rd Floor City Center
600 Nicollet Mall, Suite 380, Downtown Minneapolis

Attendees: Stephen Buckingham, Andriel Dees (via phone), Fritz Ebinger(via phone), Gary Hansen (via phone), Eldon Kaul, Brenda Miller, Elise Peterson, Dan Prokott (via phone), Brenda Tofte (via phone), Phillip Trobaugh and Tamara Patton

LITS –
a. Constitution Day – 2,121 students with 87 presentations.
b. Election Day – Did not send surveys yet, modifying the survey to capture more data. Did send a preliminary email asking if any presentations were schdeuled and got 12 responses with 3 presentations pending.
c. Teacher and Lawyer reporting – We are loosing data because Attorneys and Teachers are not all reporting the numbers of presentations or students who attended.

Operation Mediation - Completed refresher training with 5 kids on Nov. 5th. For Friday Nov. 12th’s training expecting 16 new students from the LINK Crew student mentoring group.

Traveling Oral Arguments – 500 hundred students from 4 high schools participated this year in Rochester.

Applied for the following grants – MSB Foundation- $3,000, Education Minnesota - $4,500 and Thomson Reuters - $10,000. So far the Committee has received $3,000 from various sections and District Bar Associations. Requests are still pending.

Budget – Currently we have a $14,615 deficit and $11,000 in projected revenue. Going to meet with my supervisor to reforecast the budget to include revenue to cover deficit. Also I am adding subaccounts for each program in order to get a better idea of how much each program costs.

Teacher Training – Need committee members. Anne Hoyt Taft has started looking at curriculum already. We are doing a moot court format this year with a persuasive writing element added in. The Minnesota Judicial Center is the location with the date again being the end of June. Do we need to create a separate committee for this?

Policy – Elise reported that the next initiative will be to request that the Civic Education Committee have a representative on the MN Dept. of Education’s Social Studies Review Committee coming up.

Diversity Pipeline – Tamara reported that the Committee held a training for volunteers for the Minnesota Urban Debate League (MNUDL) on Oct. 28th and continues to recruit volunteers for both Youth in Government and MNUDL.

Outreach/Partnerships – Eldon reported that he and Tamara will be meeting with different education councils and committees coming up.

LITS – Brenda Miller reported that this subcommittee will be meeting on Thurs. Nov. 18th to discuss ideas for Presidents’ Day and their involvement in the Teacher Training in June.

MSBA Civic Education Committee
September 9, 2010
11:45am – 12:45pm
MSBA Honors Room – 3rd Floor City Center
600 Nicollet Mall, Suite 380, Downtown Minneapolis

Present: Brenda Miller, Brenda Toffe, Gary Hansen, Elise Pederson, Anne Hoyt Taff, Luanne Pederson, Alan Haynes, Eldon Kaul, Fritz Ebinger. MSBA Staff: Emily Reilly.

AHT is coordinating this effort in the absence of a staff liaison. The lesson is a mock trial to be done in-class about social media. There is now a Lawyers in the Schools manual for volunteers to use. Volunteers will be surveyed after the event to get data on numbers.

ER reported that she checked in with Lissa Finne at the Court Information Office. Everything is on schedule and being taken care of. DP is working on the case briefs.

      ER reported that Tamara Patton was hired and will start as the New Civic Education Manager on Sept. 13.
5)   Committee Reports (12:25 – 12:50)
Policy: EP reported that the policy committee is tracking when the applications will be available for positions on the social studies standards committee at the legislature. The standards will be re-written this year. Citizen Lawyer nominations will be accepted this fall. EP brought up that there may some opportunity for the committee to support a particular position with regard to the standards. EP will follow-up on this. EP said that she would like to add some members to the sub-committee.
               Diversity Pipeline: AH reported that the committee will be supporting the judge training efforts of the MN Urban Debate League this fall/winter again. AH will be meeting with the debate league about this. Middle school tournaments will be on 11.11, 12.9, 2,10 & 3.15. AH has been in contact with YIG and is working on setting up a meeting with them.
               Partnerships: EK reported that the partnerships sub-committee will revisit any past partnerships to utilize this year. EK raised the question about whether the committee can do a policy position with regard to the state standards and the legacy amendment funding for civic ed programs. GH raised that the deadline for legislative proposals for this session is Oct. 29.
               Election Day: BM raised the question about whether or not there will be an LITS activity for Election Day due to the transition of the new staff. AHT & EK may come up with an outline to start from for an activity. EK thought that the Secretary of State may have some materials from the Senate Race recount that may be available.

MSBA Civic Education Committee
July 9, 2010
11:45am – 12:45pm
MSBA Honors Room – 3rd Floor City Center
600 Nicollet Mall, Suite 380, Downtown Minneapolis

Committee members present: Amy Bergquist, Jennifer Bloom, Stephen Buckingham, Andriel Dees, Colleen Doran, Anne Hoyt Taff, Brenda Miller, James Moore, LuAnne Pederson, Dan Prokott, Joseph Schauer, Susan Smith and Brenda Tofte.

1) Negotiate Agenda (11:45 – 11:50)

BB negotiated moving agenda item 6 to the top of the agenda.

AD and AB provided background information on the training.
BB informed the Committee that this year’s budget narrative set as a goal the hosting of two stand-alone teacher trainings. He also asked JB when the best time of year was for these trainings.
JB responded that the summer was the best time for teacher workshops because there is a relatively small amount of money available for staff development to pay for subs. She added that districts maybe willing to pay for staff development funds if the Committee were to host the training somewhere in Greater Minnesota.
DP asked whether we could send a letter to the teachers who participated in the training letting them know about Lawyers in the Schools and encouraging them to participate.
JM said that perhaps the Committee should reach out to attorneys in those areas to see if they would be interested in participating before contacting the teachers to be certain there is interest among local bar members before promising anything to teachers.
AB said that committee volunteers could make themselves available to provide consultation as teachers go through the lesson plan provided at the training.

Consensus: BB would draft a letter thanking them for participating in the program, mentioning the Lawyers in the Schools program and offering the Committee as a resource to help identify a willing attorney in the area to adopt their school and offering to help provide a volunteer to provide assistance as they go through the mock trial, very possibly via phone.

SS said that the Committee could use Skype as a way to get teachers to interact with lawyers.

3) What should go in a comprehensive Lawyers in the Schools manual for volunteers? (12:05 – 12:25)

BB introduced the idea of having a comprehensive Lawyers in the Schools manual for volunteers. He said that he had received feedback from committee member David Moody that the manual be kept short.
JM asked who the audience for the manual would be.
BB said that the manual would be given to the primary contacts for each organization but that it would be made available to all volunteers.
DP stressed his agreement with DM’s point that the manual be kept short. He added that when drafting it BB should think of it more as a checklist than at manual.
JB agreed saying that the language of a “comprehensive Lawyers in the Schools manual” made her nervous. Having a long manual might overwhelm and scare off volunteers.
DP said that the manual should be kept as short as 4 – 5 pages and include helpful hints and unique issues volunteers may encounter.
JM said how to enter the school and find the classroom should be included. He added that having a similar checklist for cooperating teachers would be valuable.
JB said that the checklist could advise teachers to have a student meet volunteers at the front door.
BB took notes and agreed to draft a manual for the Lawyers in the Schools subcommittee to review consistent with the recommendations made during the meeting.

4) Updates: Budget/Fundraising, new project to work with immigrant communities (12:25 – 12:35)

BB gave background on the budget saying that the Committee had received considerable revenue to date from district bar associations. He added that committee members should expect to receive a fundraising letter from the Committee in the coming weeks.

BM said that asking district bar associations for funds at their fall meetings might be a better idea because they receive more requests in the Spring.

BB also added that he reached out to someone at both Pillsbury United Communities and the International Institute to try and setup a meeting to discuss civic education needs of immigrant youth. He went onto say that someone from the International Institute had called him back and indicated that such a partnership might fit well with a new initiative of the organizations.

DP added that Pillsbury United Communities was a client of his firms and that he would be willing to do some outreach to try and identify a contact.

BB informed the Committee that his last day as the staff liaison for the Civic Education Committee would be August 20th, 2010, as he would be starting law school at the University of Minnesota in the fall.

MSBA Civic Education Committee
May 13th, 2010
11:45am – 12:45pm
MSBA Honors Room – 3rd Floor City Center
600 Nicollet Mall, Suite 380, Downtown Minneapolis

Committee members present: Kim Holst, Amy Bergquist, Jennifer Bloom, Stephen Buckingham, Andriel Dees, Brenda Miller, Dan Prokott, Gary Strauch, David Walker (via Phone) and Susan Smith

1)         Negotiate Agenda (11:45 – 11:50)

2)         Which of the proposed projects should the Committee pursue in the coming bar year and      what are the next steps? (See attached; 11:50 – 12:10)

DP Described why there was a need for a new project. Namely that Operation Mediation was only going to exist at Johnson High School next year and that there would be no expansion efforts.

JB Commented that the two proposed projects—curriculum drafting and working with immigrant communities—could really be compiled into a single project: drafting curriculum used when working with immigrant communities.

AB felt that the Committee needed to be careful when working with guest-speakers and English Language Learners. She also expressed concern about developing curriculum prior to the social studies standards review.

GS Said it was important to build rapport between teachers and the Committee through partnerships.

DP mentioned that the Committee had begun to do that this year through the Lawyers in the Schools program.

KH thought perhaps we should focus efforts on expanding and improving the current Lawyers in the Schools program

Consensus Agreement: Have the Outreach and Partnerships Subcommittee reach out to several organizations that work with immigrant youth to see what immigrant youth needs were in the area of civic education and evaluate options based on that information.

3) Law Day 2010 Debrief (See attached; 12:10 – 12:20)

BB mentioned that around 115 presentations were made for this year’s Law Day activities and that feedback was generally positive. The best feedback came from those who participated in the formal Lawyers in the Schools program. There was great reaction to the lesson plan that was created on illegal downloading. The biggest issues were partnerships between schools and organizations where one or the other groups was unresponsive to the other’s request.

AD said that her experience at Olson Middle School was positive.

4) Should the Committee do a teacher training at the Education Minnesota Conference next fall? If so, one what topic? (12:20 – 12:30; See attached)

BB gave background information stating that the Committee could apply to make a presentation at the Education Minnesota Conference in the fall.

AD said that perhaps they should give Alan Haynes an opportunity to repeat the presentation he had done at the social studies conference because there had been so few attendees at that workshop. She went on to say that perhaps the topic of college and career access for diverse students would do better at a more general conference like Education Minnesota.

5) Updates: Budget, Traveling Oral Argument, End of Year Teacher Training, 9-Days in June Presidents’ Reception Fundraising, Employment Law Section, New Logo (12:30 – 12:40)

BB mentioned that the Civic Education Committee would have to raise $11,000 of direct expenses in the new fiscal year but that staffing would be kept at its current level.

BB informed the Committee that 22 classroom visits were made as part of the Committee’s initiative to prepare students before oral arguments were heard a New Prague High School. The Chief Justice said the students were more prepared than they had ever been.

BB let the Committee know that they would receive $5 for every ticket sold to the Presidents’ Reception at the goal was to have 1,000 attendees at the Reception.

DP let the group know that he and BB had meet with a representative from the MSBA Employment Law Section, which was creating a Speakers Bureau. The Civic Education Committee agreed to help the Employment Law Section promote their Speakers Bureau in turn for information about what schools the Section visited.

DP presented the Committee with the new committee logo.

6) Subcommittee involvement (12:40 – 12:45)

DP said that the Committee was looking for a new member to head up the Lawyers in the Schools subcommittee.

7) Discuss Civic Ed in MSBA awareness survey (12:45 – 12:55)

MSBA Civic Education Committee
March 11th, 2010
11:45am – 12:45pm
MSBA Honors Room – 3rd Floor City Center
600 Nicollet Mall, Suite 380, Downtown Minneapolis

Committee Members Present: Amy Bergquist, Stephen Buckingham, Andriel Dees, Colleen Doran, Margaret Erickson (via phone), Gary Hansen (via phone), Kim Holst (via phone), Anne Hoyt Taff, David Moody (via phone), James Moore, LuAnne Pederson, Trista Roy
MSBA Staff Present: Brian Bell

1)         Negotiate Agenda (11:45 – 11:50)

2)         Should the Committee use the ABA’s Law Day lesson plans? If so, should they be             modified in anyway? ABA Law Day website (click here to view handouts under lesson plan) (11:50 –             12:05)
                        - Middle School – No Illegal Download
                                    - No Illegal Downloading Student Handout
                        - Secondary – International Environmental Agreements
                                    Treaties and International Agreements Student Handout
                                    International Environmental Agreement Resources
                                    Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
                                    Montreal Protocol
                                    UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
                                    Kyoto Protocol
                                    Draft Copenhagen Accord

JM said that he did not think treaties are compelling topics. He added that if we do use treaties, there are better topics than environmentalism.
AHT offered lesson plans that she had on global warming and how it is dealt with at different levels of government (e.g. local, state and international).
AS said the group could use the middle school lesson plan for high school
SB critiqued the middle school lesson plan because it had no mention of music downloading which seemed like the most relevant topic.
CD recommended expanding “Case Study 6” which deals with music to include illegal downloading of music. CD also mentioned that her teenaged children looked at the lesson plan and said that having a lawyer come in and talk about illegal downloading sounded “preachy.” CD added that we need to clarify the manner with which the lesson plan should be presented.
AHT offered the idea to add a social media component to the lesson plan.
AD said that the William Mitchell Summer Law program did something on social media which the students enjoyed.
AS said he disagreed with changing the lesson plan because he thought it would be interesting to students as is.
SB said it might not mean an expansive change of lesson plan just changing some of the case studies.
AD recommended convening an ad-hoc committee.
The group agreed to use the middle school lesson plan for all presentations middle and high school and SB and AHT agreed to work with BB to modify the lesson plan.

BB reviewed the Operation Mediation summary with the group pointing out the amount of resources spent versus the number of mediations occurring.
JM asked why BB thought there were not mediations occurring.
BB said that the program lacked an engaged faculty member at the school and that under new school leadership there were fewer of the types of “mid-level” conflicts that peer mediation is designed to handle. BB added that sometimes peer mediators had difficulty getting the disputants in the mediation to share their side of the story.
CD said that perhaps they could try the program with younger students because they would be more open to sharing.
AD agreed that younger students maybe more open to sharing.
AD asked BB to share his thoughts on how they should proceed.
BB said that the Committee had set a goal to expand to another school next year and that perhaps they should reach out to another St. Paul school since there seemed to be interest at the district level, or that there was a Cambridge Judge, James Dehn, working with a peer mediation program at Princeton High School and that perhaps the Committee could assist with this program. He also mentioned that the Committee should consider ending the program at Henry should the program not see any additional effort on the part of the school. BB also recommended that the Committee continue its program at Johnson High School next year because it was so new and the school advisor for the program is heavily engaged.
AB recommended contacting Judge Dehn and/or Princeton High School for recommendations of another school to work with.
The Committee raised no objects to BB’s suggestions other than AB who recommended not closing the door on the relationship with Henry in case someone else stepped forward at the school the following year.

BB reminded the Committee that a letter had be sent out to 1,000 social studies teachers to promote the Presidents’ Day activity and said that the response had been limited with only around 10 teachers contacting him as a result of the letter. BB recommended that the Committee not send letters out in the future for the more narrowly focused Presidents’ Day and Election Day activities. BB added that the presentations in terms of numbers had gone well with 71 presentations reported and that the average rating for the presentations was very high.
TR said that her experience with the Presidents’ Day activity was very good. She said that her students were very engaged in the presentation.
AD said that though she had not made any presentations she was pairing with another attorney to adopt a middle school in North Minneapolis and that her partner who made all of the presentations said they went well.

5) Updates: Diversity Pipeline Subcommittee; End of June Teacher Training, St. Thomas Citizen Lawyer CLE (12:30 – 12:40; Alan)

BB gave the update for the Diversity Pipeline Subcommittee Chair, Alan Haynes, who could not be present. BB said that Alan Haynes had given a presentation on developing critical thinking skills at the Minnesota Council for the Social Studies (MCSS) Conference but that it was only attended by one person. BB recommended that in light of low-attendance at this and last year’s MCSS presentations done by the Civic Education Committee, the Committee should no longer apply to do presentations at the MCSS conference.
AB said that perhaps they should consider doing another presentation but something more similar to the presentation they did at the Education Minnesota Conference, on how to make the judicial system engaging and relevant to students.
BB also said that the Committee was continuing its partnership with the Minnesota Urban Debate League by helping the organization recruit judges for its middle school competition.

AB said that the Committee would be doing an all day teacher training at the end of June tentatively scheduled to take place at the U.S. Courthouse in Downtown Minneapolis. She also made a pitch for volunteers to assist with the training.

CD updated the group on the Citizen Lawyer CLE saying that is was to take place from 4:00 – 5:15 Monday, March 22nd at St. Thomas.
BB added that Steve Simon, Lissa Brabbit, Fr. Griffith, Andrea Specht and Larry McDonough would be panelists.

BB updated the group saying that staffing had been kept the same for the Committee but that the Committee would have to raise $9,000 of direct expenses [Note: that number was later raised to $11,000] but that the MSBA’s new Government Affairs Director had some responsibilities for fundraising for the Civic Education Committee. BB also added that the Committee would be raising funds by selling tickets for the 9-Days in June Presidents’ Reception. Although a budget for the Presidents’ Reception had not been set, the draft budget included a minimum of $10 per going to the Civic Education Committee for each ticket they sold.

MSBA Civic Education Committee
Thursday, January 14th
11:45am – 12:45pm
MSBA Honors Room – 3rd Floor City Center
600 Nicollet Mall, Suite 380, Downtown Minneapolis

Committee Members Present: Andriel Dees, Amy Bergquist, Jennifer Bloom, Collen Doran, Stephen Buckingham, Alan Haynes, Kim Holst, Dan Prokott, David Walker, Ben Weeks, Margaret Erickson
MSBA Staff Present: Brian B. Bell

1)         Negotiate Agenda (11:45 – 11:50)

2)         Comments on draft 2010 – 11 goals and budget numbers (See Attached; 11:50 –             12:00)

BB gave background information on the budget highlighting that though the Committee had to raise all direct expense in FY 2009 – 10, this year they would be able to request direct expenses.

BB Noted several things on the budget including that the Committee’s budget request was $5,000 larger than the original 3-year budget plan but that the difference would be made up by fundraising. BB also noted that some of the measurable goals had shifted based on changes the Committee made to how the programs operate. For example, Lawyers in the Schools would be evaluated based on the number of pairings rather than the number of presentations, which the Committee has less control over and is more difficult to track. The peer mediation program would be evaluated based on the number of schools trained rather than the number of mediations. Again that original measurable is difficult to track and the Committee has much less control over the number of mediations that take place at the school.

AB recommended adding a metric that discusses the number of informal mediations that take place.

DP instructed committee member to review the budget and send additional comments to BB.

3) How should the high school Presidents’ Day Lesson Plan be improved? (See Attached 12:05 – 12:15)

DP instructed committee member to review the lesson plan and send additional comments to BB.

5)         Which of the below lesson plans should be used for our middle school activity? (Note:
            These lessons will be modified in order to be easy to use for the attorney and fit within             one, 45 minute class.
                        a. The President under the Articles of Confederation                                                                          http://edsitement.neh.gov/printable_lesson_plan.asp?id=459
                        b. Presidential Job Posting
                                    http://www.educationworld.com/a_lesson/02/lp254-01.shtml
                        c. What Qualifications does a President Need and what Qualified President Washington?
                                    http://www.georgewashington.si.edu/kids/activity2.html

AB and AH recommended dropping the reading level of the high school lesson plan and use that lesson plan for middle school.

AH recommended adapting the Head of State lesson plan by having fewer comparisons to make it more appropriate for middle school.

DP recommended combining the Presidential Job Posting lesson plan and What Qualifications does a President Need and What Qualified President Washington.

6) Should we send out a promotional letter to 1,000 social studies teachers regarding Lawyers in the Schools? If so, what should be included in that letter? (12:15 – 12:20)

BB gave background on this idea and mentioned that AD recommended that the letter be very focused on Presidents’ Day and Lawyers in the Schools.

BB said he was willing especially because these schools would eventually participate in the full Lawyers in the Schools program.

7) Update: 9-Days in June Presidents’ Reception (12:20 – 12:25)

BB let the Committee know that they would be selling tickets for public education with out mock trial whose advisory committee voted down the idea. That makes it more difficult for them to sell tickets but they get a greater percentage of the tickets they do sell.

8) Updates: Diversity Pipeline, Citizen Lawyer CLE and Award, Operation Mediation and
Teacher Training. (12:25 – 12:40)

AH provided an update on the Diversity Pipeline Subcommittee mentioning that their was a training to take place after the meeting for attorney, middle school debate judges.

CD said that the Civic Education Committee met with the St. Thomas Law School Alumni Association and was moving forward with the Citizen Lawyer CLE at St. Thomas.

DP said that the Committee would be training students at two new schools Harding High School and Johnson High School. He mentioned that the number of mediations taking place at Henry was limited and that consequently the coaches had been moved to being “on-call” for mediations.

BB said that the Committee had been awarded a $4,500 grant to conduct an all day teacher training and that based on a survey sent to teachers that training was going to take place early in the summer.

Note: The Diversity Pipeline Subcommittee will meet immediately before the full committee meeting at 11am. The Diversity Pipeline Subcommittee will also be hosting judge training for attorneys interested in judging for the Minnesota Urban Debate League’s middle school competition.

MSBA Civic Education Committee
Thursday, November 12th
11:45am – 1:00pm
MSBA Honors Room – 3rd Floor City Center
600 Nicollet Mall, Suite 380, Downtown Minneapolis

Committee Members Present: Amy Bergquist, Jennifer Bloom*, Andriel Dees, Colleen Doran*, Gary Hansen*, Alan Haynes, Eldon Kaul, Brenda Miller, Elise Peterson, Dan Prokott, Trista Roy, Nena Street and Ben Weeks

1) Negotiate Agenda (11:45 – 11:50)

BB proposes moving item #7 re: Presidents’ Reception to the top of the agenda and adding a decision item on presenting the Citizen Lawyer CLE at 9 Days in June.

2) Update: Lawyers in the Schools (Ben Weeks; 12:00 – 12:05)

BW reported that using the new Lawyers in the Schools approach whereby the Committee paired schools are paired schools with law firms, 45 “matches” had been made, shy of the Committee’s goal of 55 matches. Overall the Committee reached around 100 classes for the Constitution Day activity.

EK asked what the program was doing to ensure that retired attorneys, unaffiliated with an employer, could participate in the program.

BW acknowledged that the in ability of the program to accommodate unaffiliated attorneys was one of the biggest shortcomings of the new lawyers in the schools model but that the Lawyers in the Schools group would work to address the problem, perhaps by setting up regional groups of retired or solo attorneys.

BB said that in some instances district bar associations had adopted schools and that retired attorneys could involve themselves through the relationship between their district bar association and an assigned school.

3) How can we do a Citizen Lawyer CLE at St. Thomas? Update: Citizen Lawyer CLE and Award (Eldon Kaul and Dan Prokott; 12:05 – 12:15)

CD reported that a meeting between the Alumni Department at St. Thomas and the Civic Education Committee had been set up to discuss the potential to host the Citizen Lawyer CLE at St. Thomas.

DP reported the Citizen Lawyer CLE went very well at Hamline with the only problem being that several of the panelists did not show up until halfway through the presentation.

Added Agenda Item) Citizen Lawyer CLE 9 Days in June

BB proposed to the Committee that the Citizen Lawyer CLE be convened during 9 Days in June. Members of each judicial district would vote on whether the Committee would present the CLE in their district.

BB recognized that the Committee was doing a great deal and that conducting the CLE would include a considerable amount of work.

AD said that she thought the proposal should be accepted but that a member from each of the judicial districts should serve on the Committee to advise the CLE to alleviate some of BB’s work.

AH reported that the Diversity Pipelines Subcommittee efforts to partner with Youth in Government (YIG) stalled do to the resignation of a YIG employee the Committee had been working with.

AH discussed the Committee’s plan to partner with the Minnesota Urban Debate League’s middle school program. The Committee would help recruit volunteers to judge at tournaments.

AH said as a former debate coach, his experience with the program, spoke to its ability to encourage students to pursue careers in law.

AH informed the Committee that many urban schools participating in debate were at a disadvantage because they could not purchase materials used to support their arguments. He believed that the Committee could help in that capacity.

5) Should we and how can we thoughtfully and without appearing ideological “internationalize” some of our curriculum? And Partnerships Subcommittee Update (Eldon Kaul; 12:25 – 12:35)

EK said that after meeting with the organization World Savvy, he and BB had discussed ways to internationalize the curriculum as part of “preparing students for a global work force.”

BB added that the lessons could be comparative in nature and be used to teach students about the U.S. system. BB recommended that the Lawyers in the Schools subcommittee consider and how to proceed.

EK said that the Outreach and Partnerships Subcommittee sent a letter to the managing partners at the top 50 law firms promoting the Lawyers in the Schools activity. Although, not a great deal of individuals responded to BB that they were interested, EK was following up with phone calls and receiving a warm reception.

6) Feedback on peer mediation’s plan to expand a more limited program—focusing on training—to Johnson High School and Highland Park High School in St. Paul. Update on Henry Program (Dan Prokott; 12:35 – 12:45)

DP informed the Committee that attorney-coaches had successfully trained student mediators at an all-day Oct. 1st training and that the mediation clinic had started at Patrick Henry High School.

BB said there were some scheduling problems with some coaches and that as a consequence the mediation clinic was sometimes cancelled.

DP went on to say that BB and he had met with two St. Paul educators in hopes of providing training at two new schools in St. Paul. The Committee would not be responsible for conducting the day to day operations of the program, just training the students.

7) Should the Committee partner with the MSBA Presidents’ Reception at the end of the Convention, 9-Days in June, to fundraise? Update: Fundraising (including Presidents’ Day training) (Brian Bell and Amy Bergquist; 12:45 – 12:55)

BB summarized by saying the Civic Education Committee would sell tickets to the Presidents’ Reception being held on the 9th Day in the Twin Cities. The Committee would receive proceeds from the tickets sales in the proportion that tickets were sold by public education (includes Mock Trial) as compared with the Minnesota State Bar Foundation. The Civic Education Committee would split the “public education” proceeds with the Mock Trial program.

BB pointed out that this would provide good publicity for the Committee and that the Committee would be looked positively upon as helping the MSBA transfer from its old 2.5 day geographically centralized convention to this new 9 Day geographically de-centralized convention format.

BB also stressed that if the Committee accepted the proposal those (esp. at large firms, law schools and districts) should be willing to sell tickets to their contacts.

BB concluded by saying, there were no plans to fund the Committee’s direct expenses and that this had potential to fund all of the Committee’s direct expenses.

Committee members including (DP and AD) asked how much the tickets would cost; how many would need to be sold and what was the potential for fundraising

BB said that those numbers had not been set and would not be until the meeting of the 9 Days in June Committee met. The same meeting the Civic Education Committee needed to make a decision by.

DP and AD said that the Committee should hold off voting and should vote by email and that BB should determine how many tickets will the Civic Education Committee be expected to sell. How much are the tickets? And should be able to give a definite example of what the input (i.e. number of tickets sold) and what the outputs are (i.e. proceeds garnered by the Committee).

[Note: BB followed up with the MSBA and confirmed that the Committee was deliberately being asked to make a decision before all of the details were determined. At the time the minutes were authored an email vote had been called on the motion.]

AB reported that she, Andriel Dees, and MSBA President-Elect Terry Votel had presented a workshop at the Education Minnesota Professional Conference on making civics real and conducting a mini-mock trial.

AB also informed the Committee that they had applied for a grant through the Education Minnesota Foundation to do a full day version, on President’s Day, of the workshop conducted at the Education Minnesota Conference.

MSBA Civic Education Committee
Thursday, September 10th
8:30am – 9:30am
Dorsey and Whitney – Hong Kong Room
50 S. 6th Street, Downtown Minneapolis

Committee Members Present: Amy Bergquist, Andriel Dees, Margaret Erickson, Brandon Fitzsimmons, Gary Hanson, Eldon Kaul, Jim Moore, LuAnne Pederson, Elise Peterson, Dan Prokott, Trista Roy, Aaron Street
Guest: Leo Brisbois, MSBA President
MSBA Staff: Brian B. Bell

1)         Negotiate Agenda (8:30 – 8:35)

            BB: Cedes time to special guest Leo Brisbois, MSBA President.
            DP: Suggests moving peer mediation discussion up in the agenda.

LB says that he is going to repeat the message he discussed with AD, DP, EK and BB at their smaller meeting, which was that he is their to help in whatever fashion the Committee saw fit. He went on to assure the Committee he felt that their work was important and wrote his September President’s page on the very topic.

3) Lawyers in the Schools Update and Feedback (8:35 – 8:45; Ben Weeks)

BB Reminded the Committee that at the last meeting they had agreed to modify the approach to the Lawyers in the Schools program whereby law firms, bar associations, county attorneys offices and the like would adopt schools to deliver between 2 and 4 presentations throughout the year. Brian said the matches were going well and they had matched roughly 15 schools, with a goal of reaching 26 by Constitution Day and 55 by the end of October.

JB Said that she had worked with BB to do a beginning of the year training and that it had good well but in future years should be longer.

3) Peer Mediation Update: Should we continue ahead with expansion with the temporary absence of committee chair? (8:45 – 8:55, Brian and Dan, see attached)

DP provided an Operation Mediation update stating that Madge Thorsen, the chair of the Operation Mediation subcommittee, had to step aside for several months; and, that he had agreed to co-chair the Committee in her absence.

BB Went on to pose the question to the group as to whether the program should be expanded, doing new trainings very several new schools in light of what was stipulated in the budget narrative and Thorsen’s absence.

AB Suggested asking Henry whether they would be willing to speak on our behalf and said that maybe a good expansion strategy.

JM Noted that those on the Committee who were already volunteering tend to be stretched and wondered if we needed to first recruit more volunteers first.

Note: No formal decision was made but instead the topic was deferred to the Operation Mediation Subcommittee, which met the next day and decided to email teachers the Civic Education Committee already worked with to determine their interest.

4) Diversity Pipeline Update and Appeal for Volunteers (8:55 – 9:05; Alan Haynes)

AH said that the Diversity Pipeline subcommittee had decided it would focus on advising to groups of students in a South Minneapolis Youth in Government (YIG) Delegation a partnership that had started with the YMCA the previous year.

AD went on to say that she had made progress getting support from a predominantly African-American student group at South High to start a YIG group there.

AS Said he had no success getting touch with the Roosevelt High School where he had advised a group of students the previous year, to determine whether they wanted to continue their program.

6) Outreach and Partnerships Update (9:05 – 9:15, Eldon Kaul)

EK reported that he had signed a letter to the managing partners at the 50 largest firms asking them to sign their school’s up for the Lawyers in the Schools program.

He also noted that they were revisiting the list of potential partner organizations that was created in the first year of the Committee’s existence.

5) Citizen Lawyer Award Update (9:15 – 9:20, Elise Peterson)

EP Said the vote to approve a Citizen Lawyer Award was successful and ceded the floor to BB.

BB mentioned that the General Policy Committee, Operations Committee and Assembly were taking up the idea of the Award at their meetings the following day. BB Also, noted that the award was deliberately distinct from the Graven Public Service Award as it focused on members public service as it relates to their work educating the public about civics, the government and law.

7) Citizen Lawyer CLE Update (9:20 – 9:25; Dan Prokott)

AD said that that William Mitchell had hosted a Citizen Lawyer CLE in mid-August that it was attended by around 30 people and was a good event.

DP Said that the Committee was planning on hosting a similar event for Hamline Alumni on Oct. 8th but that they were a little behind in scheduling speakers etc.

8) Next steps and agreements

Convener: Dan Prokott

MSBA Civic Education Committee
Thursday, July 9th
8:30am – 9:30am
Dorsey and Whitney, Suite 1500 – Hong Kong Room
50 S. 6th Street, Downtown Minneapolis

BB adds discussion of Election Law curriculum drafting project. BB recommends that the Committee skips agenda item 2 until discussion of item 3 is heard.

BW: Proposes modification to Lawyers in the Schools approach whereby lawyers and schools would sign up to participate three times through out the year and the Committee’s efforts would focus on developing new relationships and training materials for attorneys. BW highlighted advantages of the program of which included removing the scheduling and communications problems when the Committee acted as a conduit and ability to grow the programs size because the work was decentralized; the program could build upon itself; and committee could focus on expansion. Furthermore, training materials could be enhanced because more attention was paid to training materials.

DP Noted that BB’s primary responsibility would then shift toward developing and maintaining the relationship.

JM Said he thought this would work great for large firms but expressed concern that solo/small attorneys working outside of a large firm setting may not be able to participate because they would be able to recruit the volunteers to honor all commitments to the school.

DM Said the Program would need to differentiate what the requirements of the attorney lead, captain, did and what the expectations of casual participants were. He went on to say that there is always the possibility that participants will not follow through on their commitment but that getting commitment to buy in an agree to an established number of presentations was the key.

DP Said that we should start with the volunteer and schools we already work with and try and get them to participate.

NS Thought that we could address JM’s concern by knowing that yes the program may be best suited for large law firms first but that as the program grows attorneys that work with solo/small firms could sign on and work with BB to identify other attorneys interested in working with that group.

EK Mentioned that the Texas Bar does a similar program and that we should contact them to determine how they make the program work well. Also said that volunteers should be instructed to work with their school to meet the schools needs.

AD Said that the number of opportunities throughout the year should be limited to below the proposed 6.

DP (After discussion with the Committee) Proposes that the model be changed to an expectation of two – four visits and that four days occur throughout the year as opportunities for lawyers to get involved.

BB states that the Committee was allowed to carry over its remaining balance from the previous fiscal year to the current. Coupled with donations the committee received from the Minnesota State Bar Foundation, several district bar associations, the Patrick Henry Foundation, and individual committee contributions the Committee had commitments of slightly over $4,000.

BM Agreed to go to her district bar association in the fall and ask for a contribution

DM said that although his district did not have the funds to approve the Committee’s request in the ’08 – ’09 FY the issue was tabled until January.

DP Gave an update on operation mediation based on the report that was attached to the agenda. Mentioned that the Committee would be back at Patrick Henry the following year and that the Committee may attempt to train two more schools that had existing programs, but not provide the level of programmatic support the Committee had to Henry.

AD said the Committee would be convening its Citizen Lawyer CLE at William Mitchell Friday, August 14th at Noon.

DP Agreed to follow up with Hamline on the CLE as he was an Alum. (Note: The CLE was eventually tentatively scheduled for the afternoon of Thursday, Oct. 8th)

BB said that the Committee’s project to draft curriculum on Election Law with Kids Voting – MN was moving ahead smoothly. BB said that the lesson’s would focus on Ranked Choice Voting, The Franken-Coleman Recount, Voter ID and Eligibility, Ways to Vote (i.e. early voting, mail in voting, etc.).

8) Next steps and agreements

Civic Education Committee
Thursday, May 14th
11:45am – 1:00pm
Minnesota State Bar Association
600 Nicollet Mall, Suite 380; 3rd Floor City Center
Honors Room

1) Negotiate Agenda (11:45 – 11:50)

EK adds debrief of Supreme Court traveling oral arguments prep.

b. How did it go?

Overall things went well with only 1 cancelation from a volunteer. Most of the feedback was positive though some felt the lesson plan was too advanced for students.

AD – Reported that things went well in her presentations and that it takes a certain amount of creativity to tailor the curriculum to make it relevant.
BM – Said all of the volunteers she worked with had a good experience and did a good job.
EK – Said that things went well even though he presented to 75 students at a time and they had little if no exposure to the Civil War prior to his visit.
EP – Again reported that her experience was positive and that she tried to modify the lesson plan so that is was relevant to students.
BW – Asked whether we were at capacity in terms of the number of schools we went into.
BM – Said that there is potential for greater expansion in Greater Minnesota
BB – Concurred but did note that we are nearing capacity for these programs.

BB – Explained that volunteers were recruited to brief 30 classes on the case to be heard in oral arguments by the Supreme Court in front of the school. This meant that nearly all of the 800 student who heard the case were briefed by an attorney representing the Civic Education Committee.
DP – Explained that he had synthesized the briefs for the attorneys and that it was a difficult case in part due to the number of people involved in the crime—it was a 1st degree murder case—and in part because of the names of the Hmong defendants were so similar.

3) Budget update and suggestions on fundraising strategy (12:00 – 12:15)

DP – Reported that the Committee maintained BB’s staff time at .8 FTE but that all direct expenses for the Committee were cut.
BB – reported that the Committee had a budget of $8,000 in the current fiscal year and had budgeted for $10,000 for the upcoming fiscal year.
AD – Said there maybe monies available through LSAC for admission for pipeline diversity programs.
BW – Recommended seeking out in kind donations.
BM – Recommended going to district bar associations and agreed to ask to District 5 bar association for money to support the program
DM – Agreed to make a request to the District 12 Bar Association.

4)         Should changes be made to the attached subcommittee structure for the upcoming             year? Appeal for subcommittee chairs. (12:15 – 12:20)

BB – Discussed the logic behind the new subcommittee structure stating that they were directed at specific programs vis-à-vis general areas. BB also explained that the subcommittees would likely only meet when there was a need and said that because they would meet with less frequency, committee members were encouraged to join multiple subcommittees.
EP – Volunteered to chair the policy subcommittee
BW – Volunteered to chair the Lawyers in the Schools committee
AH – Agreed to serve on the diversity pipeline committee

COMMITTEE AGREED TO NEW SUBCOMMITTEE STRUCTURE

5)         Should the Committee partner with Kids Voting-MN to draft lesson plans related to Election Law? (12:20 – 12:30)

BB – Explained that the Committee would write lesson plans for students on Election Law along with Kids Voting - MN. He also mentioned that these lesson plans by nature would have to be directed at high school students. He suggested that lesson plans relate to IRV, the recount, among other topics.
BW – Mentioned that the right to vote would be a good topic.
BB – Said that doing lessons on IRV maybe appealing to Minneapolis teachers
BM – Suggested doing general lessons on the judiciary and delivering them to teachers for professional development purposes. Though to be done at the beginning of the school year, they would need to get on school districts radar early.
DP – Agreed to follow up with Minneapolis Public Schools about teacher development at the beginning of the school year.

COMMITTEE AGREED TO LAUNCH PROJECT TO PRODUCE LESSON PLANS ON JUDICIAL SELECTION IN COOPERATION WITH KIDS VOTING – MN.

6)         Citizen Lawyer CLE and potential for conducting the program at another law school. (12:30 – 12:35)

EK – Mentioned that the Committee would like to conduct the Citizen Lawyer CLE at other law schools.
AD – Said that she had received interest in conducting the CLE at William Mitchell from their Alumni Relations Director.
BB – Said that committee members David Schultz and Colleen Doran had reached out to Hamline Law School and St. Thomas Law School about hosting the Citizen Lawyer CLE at their law school.

7)         Should the Committee give out a “Citizen Lawyer” award each year? (12:35 – 12:40)

BB – Explained that the Committee could give out an award sponsored by the MSBA if it developed a set of guidelines for granting the award and had that criteria approved by the Assembly.
EP – Agreed to develop these guidelines with the Policy Subcommittee

COMMITTEE AGREED TO DEVELOP A CITIZEN LAWYER AWARD

9)         Who is willing to staff the Civic Ed. booth at the MSBA Convention? (12:40 – 12:45)

LG, DM and EP agreed to staff a booth at the Convention. BB agreed to ask other committee members to do same via email.

8)         Leadership Update (12:45 – 12:55)

EK announced that DP and AD had been recommended to co-chair the Committee in the coming year.

5)         Next steps and agreements (12:55 – 1:00)

BB – Would be more deliberate about giving instructions to teachers re: preparing students for lawyers in the schools presentations.
DM – Would reach out to the District 12 Bar Association for potential funding
BM – Would ask the District 5 Bar Association for funding for the Committee.
BB – Would send appeals for funding to Committee members
BB – Would send emails to committee members asking for volunteers to sit at the booth at the MSBA Convention.
BB – Would send email to committee members asking them to volunteer to serve on a subcommittee.

Civic Education Committee
Thursday, January 8th, 2009
11:45am – 1:00pm
MSBA – 3rd Floor City Center
600 Nicollet Mall, Suite 380
Honors Room

Committee Members Present: Amy Bergquist, Jennifer Bloom (via phone), Ben Dollins, Colleen Doran, Margaret Erickson (via phone), Justice Gildea (via phone), Gary Hanson, Kim Holst, Eldon Kaul, Brenda Miller, David Moody (via phone), Jim Moore, David Schultz, Pat Trask, Phillip Trobaugh, Ben Weeks
MSBA Staff Present: Brian Bell

AB gave background into the activity explaining that it was a conglomerate of activities that discuss presidential power in the context of the Constitution, historical precedent and President Obama’s inaugural address. CD felt she was unprepared to talk on that subject. AB and BB explained that there would be a straightforward lesson plan that could be used by anyone. JM asked what grade level it would be directed at. AB said upper elementary and above. LG said that she wanted to make certain that the lessons were very neutral, politically. Note: the Committee informally approved AB and BB going ahead to produce this lesson taking into account these comments.

BB provided background into the three lessons. BM said that she thought it was a great idea to do K – 4 activities but that the lesson did not go any higher than that. There were comments that the Gettysburg address lesson plans was less relevant than the other two. JM wanted to know if we would be able to fill commitments for all of the grade levels. There was some discussion surrounding the tension between expanding the program to all grade levels and the ability to fill all of the classes. There were fears that if teachers who were waitlisted for Con. Day would be waitlisted again and therefore would be unable to do the presentations. What came out was a strategy where promotions would be sent to teachers who had been waitlisted, once we could confirm volunteers would be found, begin expanding to other groups. The Committee approved doing all three of the ABA’s Law Day activities covering all of the grades.

BB explained that a subcommittee of individuals was going to meet in order to discuss programs that would both educate students about civics and add to the diversity pipeline. He explained that several projects the programs subcommittee was interested in working on would fall within this category. He told committee members to contact him if they were interested in this work.

BB explained that 17 students were trained on December 18th; that the feedback was very positive; but that a follow-up training was scheduled and students would be ready to mediate conflicts soon.

6) Update: spring CLEs (formerly Convention CLEs) and feedback (12:35 – 12:45; David and Eldon)

DS gave background into the Right to Vote CLE explaining that it would no longer be taking place at the Convention. The topics would include a discussion of state and federal laws pertaining to the right to vote, the Senate recount, redistricting and non-American ways to vote. He also explained that the Committee had approached both the American Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society about the CLEs. The Civic Lawyer CLE would discuss the state of civic education and lawyers’ responsibilities in education students about Civic Education. Elizabeth Beaumont, a professor at the University of Minnesota and the director of Public Education at the ABA both agreed to speak. This CLE also would not take place during the convention.

BB highlighted old and new areas found in the budget narrative including expansion into the areas of professional development and continuation and growth of current programs and pilots.

***Please RSVP to Brian Bell at 612.278.6309/bbell@mnbar.org by Wednesday, January 7th***

Civic Education Committee
Thursday, November 13th, 2008
11:45am – 1:00pm
MSBA, 3rd Floor City Center
600 Nicollet Mall, Suite 380, DT Minneapolis
Honors Room

Committee Members Present: Amy Bergquist, Jennifer Bloom, Andriel Dees, Eldon Kaul, Jim Moore,
Committee Members Present Via Phone: Ryan Briese, Mary Pat Byrn, David Moody, Tim Selander, Nena Street, Phillip Trobaugh
MSBA Staff: Brian Bell
Guests: MSBA President Mike Ford, Andy McKean – Liberty Day President/CEO, Duane Jindra – MN Liberty Day Coordinator

Agenda

1) Negotiate Agenda BB negotiated agenda item 9 to be informational rather than decision driven. AMENDED AGENDA APPROVED

DJ gives background into Liberty Day proposal. The program would be piloted in DJ’s 5M2 district which covers South Central Minnesota. The Lions clubs in that district would recruit schools willing to allow volunteer attorneys to make in class presentations. During the presentations the volunteer lawyer would handout copies of the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence. They would then ask the students 24 Q & A’s about the Constitution.

AM backed up DJ, by explaining that working with bar associations was a pilot project. AM talked about how variations of this program had been successful in other states working with other organizations (i.e. Colleges, Lions and Kiwanis Clubs).

EK asked what Liberty Day had done with the Colorado Bar Association. AM said that what Liberty Day had done with the Colorado Bar Association was limited – that they were starting a pilot project similar to what they hoped to do in Minnesota.

JB asked what the cost was associated with the program. AM said that the cost for the materials was $1.00 per student. AM said that the Lions clubs maybe able to underwrite the cost. BB clarified that that would have to be approved by each local Lions club. AM said that the program could be funded through a variety of avenues including sports teams (i.e. Minnesota Twins), retails stores (i.e. Wal-Mart) etc.

JB said she felt the questions were superficial, but acknowledged that they were directed at 5th graders. JB also said that she had called her counter-parts in other states and that they indicated that the price tag per child was $40. Finally, JB added that she picked-up on some bias in the materials. For example, one question asks whether capital punishment is considered cruel and unusual punishment in the Bible (secretary’s note: BB followed up with Liberty Day re: this question and AM said this question had been removed from the questions after it had been inserted by a former staff member). EK mentioned that in a previous conversation with Liberty Day AM was emphatic that the program was apolitical. BB mentioned that another question highlighting the fact that the Sixteenth Amendment – which grants the federal government the authority to collect taxes on income - highlighted that fact that original discussion around the Amendment stipulated that the income tax would never exceed 2% of income.

General consensus around the project was that it was untested vis-à-vis our program which was tested.

NS made a motion to decline the offer, but allow them to come back to us once they had done a pilot project. The motion was seconded and PASSED.

EK asked if BB had followed up on whether anything else was going on regarding the ABA’s Rule of Law efforts. BB said he had and that judging by the website, the efforts had moved away from actually having American judges preside over cases to education efforts. BB asked MF if he knew additional information regarding the ABA’s Rule of Law efforts and he did not.

DM gave the idea of doing a CLE around the Committees “Lawyer-in-the-Classroom” activities. NS said a similar idea had been submitted and rejected last year. DM said the idea should be considered.

The idea was brought up to discuss the consequences of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on Civics. JB also brought up the idea to incorporate into the NCLB CLE topic standards generally. Some committee members feared that with a new congress and administration, NCLB would be changed and maybe irrelevant in June. JB said that the standards piece would still be important.

EK suggested and the Committee agreed to defer the conversation to the Executive Committee.

BB briefed the Committee on the number of visits the Committee made on Constitution Day and for its judicial selection activities.

            Constitution Day:                                            Judicial Selection Activity:
120 classes                                                      77 classes
            26 schools
            5 outstate                                                         1 outstate
            60 volunteers                                                   30 volunteers
            100% said they would participate again         Most would participate again

6) Should the Committee have a formal volunteer and participating teacher policy of expectations? If so, what should be included in that policy? Who should ultimately be responsible for finalizing that policy? (12:15 – 12:25)

BB said that although most said that the judicial selection activities had gone well, there were some problems with “no-shows” and unprepared volunteers. JM added that a teacher had felt comments made about her class by one volunteer (not a committee member) were disrespectful. MP said that adding a policy to correspondence with teachers had the potential to discourage a significant number of teachers from using the Committee’s programs. Others on the Committee agreed. The conversation turned toward creating a policy directed at volunteers. BB agreed to draft such an expectations policy to be approved by the programs subcommittee.

BB prefaced this conversation saying that DM had brought the idea up to him suggesting that the Committee do a Lawyers-in-the-Classroom activity around Presidents Day. EK suggested that the Committee plan a Civic Education Summit similar to the one from the previous year. JB (Executive Director of the Learning Law and Democracy Foundation and Partner of the previous years Civic Education Summit) said she was interested in having another summit that a lack of funding was a problem. The previous Civic Education Summit cost $5,000. JB said that she was open to approaching the previous years funder and had someone in mind as a no-cost speaker.

8) Discuss resources available to the Association through pubic access. (Mike Ford, 12:35 12:42)

MF reported that MSBA Legal Issues Director Nancy Mischel, Marketing Director Margaret Dean and Director of Public Relations Pat Everheart are working on the development of a process by which we will identify approximately 80 public access television stations and develop them as outlets for public education material.

This effort is being described as the “Development of a public education electronic information highway infrastructure in Minnesota.” The current focus of the information highway program is on the issues du jour of legal system funding and judicial selection.

However, MF believed that once they figured out how to do this the information highway will become available to committees such as the Civic Education Committee.

MF thought the Committee might then be able to video tape civic education materials, for example, that could then be seen by students on television at the direction of their teachers and followed the next day with testing or follow up by the teachers in the classrooms.

9) Debrief Committee following Play by the Rules program. Are any committee members interested in exploring whether the Committee should apply for a grant to bring the Play by the Rules program to Minnesota? (12:42 – 12:45; Review information linked to below).

BB explained that he attended a national conference on the Play by the Rules (PBR) program. He reported that the PBR program is headed by an organization in Alabama that produced this booklet containing practical legal advise for youth for other states. They had funding available for the Program and would not have further information on those funding applications until March. JB added she attended this conference the previous years and felt that Legal Stuff—a similar publication done by Hennepin County—was sufficient for Minnesota and that if anything the discussion should surround how to make that program better. The conversation was differed until funding applications for the program were available (most likely in March).

BB informed the Committee that progress was being made regarding Operation Mediation. The Committee had identified sponsors at the school; was planning to host an informational session; and had tentatively scheduled a training date.

Volunteer Opportunity: Be a We the People Judge (12:50 – 12:55, Jennifer)

JB gave attendees background into the We the People program. JB asked attendees to volunteer to judge student presentations of the Program. JM suggested that BB send out an e-mail to the Committee letting them know about this opportunity. BB agreed to do so.

Next Steps and Agreements (12:55 – 1:00)

BB would convene an Executive Committee Conference Call to decide on CLE options for the Convention
BB agreed to draft a volunteer policy to be approved/modified by the Programs Subcommittee
BB agreed to send and e-mail to the Committee regarding the We the People program

***Please RSVP to Brian Bell (bbell@mnbar.org) by Wednesday, November 12th***

MEETING MINUTES
Civic Education Committee Meeting:
Thursday, Sept. 11th: 11:45am – 1:00pm
MN State Bar Association:
600 Nicollet Mall
3rd Floor City Center, Suite 380
Honors Room

Members Present (in-person): Amy Bergquist, Jennifer Bloom, Colleen Doran, Eldon Kaul, Jim Moore, Nena Street, Phillip Trobaugh, Ben Weeks
Members Present (via phone): Mary Pat Byrn, Margaret Erickson, David Moody, David Walker
Staff Liaison: Brian Bell
Guest: Mike Ford, MSBA President

BW informed the Committee that 1,000 hand addressed letters had been sent out to 1,000 Government and Civics teachers statewide. BB noted that the response to letter was strong and resulted in many requests for volunteers on Constitution Day.

BB gave background into the activity. He noted that this year the Committee had two activities, one directed at high school students and the other at middle school students. BB noted that the larger potential audience was part of the reason so many teachers were requesting Constitution Day visits.

BB informed the Committee that there were requests to visit around 200 classrooms. BB confirmed with teachers in 70 classrooms that the Committee would visit. BB put the other teachers on a waiting list.

BB encouraged committee members to send the available e-mail text to their networks.

CD agreed to send the information to the appropriate people at St. Thomas to be forwarded to law students. JM asked MF if he would be willing to send the e-mail to the entire bar membership. MF indicated he had requested district bar presidents send the information out to their membership, but said he would consider JM’s suggestion more.

BB mentioned that he had written a Letter to the Editor (which was published) and that he would submit a press release. ME requested she be sent the press release.

PT informed the Committee that he was not prepared to make a formal proposal of the Committee’s strategic plan as he had been busy working on Constitution Day. He did let the Committee know the projects the Subcommittee would be working on: lawyers in the classroom on Constitution Day and Law Day, AVID, Adopt-a-School and Operation Mediation.

BB informed the Committee that the program was scheduled to be launched at Patrick Henry High School but that it had yet to be. Part of the reason it had not been launched was because the Committee had yet to identify a person at the school willing to champion the program. BB informed the Committee that a teacher had been identified at the school willing to discuss the program, but he was still trying to set-up a meeting to confirm support.

a. Strategic Plan (Dan Prokott; see attachment)

DP was not present to present the strategic plan. BB summarized the attached document.

b. Kids Voting-MN Judicial Selection Activities (Brian; see attachment)

BB said that the judicial selection activities were finished and that he was working to leverage Con. Day to deliver the activities in schools. BB also mentioned that these activities coincided strongly with the priorities of the MSBA. The goal of the project was to visit 50 classes.

c. Supreme Court at Moorhead

BB mentioned that the Committee had had conversations with Lissa Finne in the court communication office about helping them recruit volunteers to brief students on oral arguments that were set to be heard at Moorhead High School in October.

NS informed committee members that members of the Committee were working with YIG to start a delegation at Roosevelt High School in South Mpls. She added that they were having some difficulty finding a teacher who was willing to champion the program and that they may not actually be able to establish a delegation until the following year. BB added that regardless of whether this delegation was started, the committee had been referring volunteers to delegations elsewhere in the Twin Cities.

5)         Policy Subcommittee Update (12:40 – 12:55 )

a. ACTION ITEM: General policy statement (Tim and Colleen; forthcoming)

            CD gave context to the policy statement saying that after discussions with JB it had been determined that a legislative policy position was not the best available option. JB supported CD by informing the Committee that Minnesota is a local control state and that curriculum policy is predominately handled at the district level. She gave examples of failed legislative policy put forth by other disciplines (esp. geography). BB added what JB had pointed out in previous conversations, which was that social studies teachers can receive as little as one class of political science in college. This fact has contributed to the declining quality of civics education. Consequently, the Committee’s efforts to bring lawyers to the classroom to provide their unique knowledge is a great way to improve civics education. References to No Child Left Behind were removed. There was also some discussion about removing references to science, reading and math; though, in the end they were retained.

BB agreed to forward press release to ME.
CD agreed to forward Con. Day information to St. Thomas.
Policy subcommittee agreed to redraft approved policy statement based on comments.
PT agreed to make a formal Programs Subcommittee strategic plan.
BB agreed to follow up with Lissa Finne at the state court communication office.

***Please RSVP to bbell@mnbar.org. Please indicate if you would like to participate via phone***

MSBA: Civic Education Committee
Thursday, June 26th, 2008
11:45am – 1:00pm
Minnesota State Bar Association
3rd Floor City Center Suite 380; 600 Nicollet Mall
Honors Room

• Update Committee on Civic Education activities at the Convention
• Update Committee on and receive feedback about new projects
• Determine whether the Committee should have a booth at the Education Minnesota
Conference
• Update committee on the Subcommittees their direction and new chairs

Members Present: Jennifer Bloom (by phone), Mary Pat Byrn, Colleen Doran, Margaret Erickson, Hon. Lorie Gildea (by phone), Sharon Horozaniecki (by phone), Jasmine Jonell, Eldon Kaul, Brenda Miller, David Moody, Dan Prokott, Tim Selander, Nena Street, Pat Trask (by phone), and Ben Weeks
MSBA Staff Present: Brian Bell (staff liaison)

2) Update Civic Education Committee at the Convention (11:50 – 12:05)
- BB gives background into Civic Education Committee Activities at the Convention:
Civic Education Booth – 50 members stopped by the booth BB was able to engage nearly half in a conversation about the Committee
Reception – BB mentioned that attendance at the reception was very low with fewer than 10 people showing up, though it was worth a try
Convention CLE – LG gave background into the CLE with support from EK and BB. The CLE was attended by around 40 people. EK mentioned that he heard a very positive response from CLE participants. ME said that as an audience member she thought the event was great.
- DM said that he felt the booth was a very good idea.

ACTION ITEM: David Moody motioned that the Civic Education Committee have a booth at the Convention next year the motion was seconded and PASSED.

3) Update Committee on new projects and appeal to get involved (Brian, 12:05 – 12:30)

a. Diversity Pipeline – Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID). NS gives background into Diversity Pipeline and makes an appeal to committee members to step forward and lead this effort. NS explained the meaning of Diversity Pipeline which includes supporting and encouraging students in their effort to attend law school. BB explained a partnership with the Minneapolis Public Schools AVID program to develop lessons related to peer mediation and the college and career opportunities of social studies. MP asked how many schools in state have AVID. BB did not know but agreed to follow-up. NS made an appeal to the Committee for someone to lead the diversity pipeline work.

b. Kids Voting – MN – Judicial Election Project
BB briefed the Committee on this project which includes some members of the Civic Education Committee partnering with members of the Judicial Committee and Kids Voting – MN to draft and deliver activities to high school students on judicial elections. Ideally kids voting would place these candidates on their November 2 ballots.

c. Operation Mediation
BB mentioned that the Committee was unable to get support from a teacher at South High to lead the mediation program. Patrick Henry has sense been identified as a site for potential launch. The Committee reviewed the timeline for launch drafted by BB.

d. Youth in Government
The Committee is looking for volunteers to help coach student delegations to the YMCA’s mock state government. The government

4) Should the Committee pay for a booth at the Education Minnesota Conference? (12:30 –
12:40)

JB said paying for a booth is very expensive and said our idea to share a booth with Mock Trial was a good one. JB also mentioned that there are nearly 10,000 teachers at the conference. DP said that a booth was a good idea for reaching outstate teachers helpful from a partnerships stand point.

ACTION ITEM: Dan Prokott motioned to use $212.50 to share the cost of a booth with the Education Minnesota Conference the motion was seconded and PASSED.

5) Subcommittee FY ’07 – ’08 Wrap-Up, future direction and introduction of new
subcommittee chairs (12:40 – 12:55)

Biggest activity was Civic Education Summit in February. DP was introduced as Subcommittee chair and said he’d like to more clearly define the difference between programs and partnerships.

f. Programs
MP announced that the two major programs were on Law Day and Constitution Day, where attorneys visited area classrooms to lead activities related to those holidays. MP laid out two challenges for the Committee: 1) developing more programs so the Committee was doing more in class programming compared to how much they were meeting 2) defining the difference between programs and partnerships. NS announced the Philip Trobaugh was the new programs chair.
g. Policy

JG was not present to give the subcommittee wrap-up. NS mentioned that the
            Subcommittee’s work was limited during the second half of the year. Colleen
Doran and Tim Selander were introduced as the new subcommittee chairs. As new members to the Committee generally they did not have a clear direction outline for the subcommittee but planned to meet soon to discuss.

6) Next steps and agreements (12:55 – 1:00)

- BB would determine how many schools in the area have AVID programs

MSBA: Civic Education Committee
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, April 17th, 2008
11:45am – 1:00pm
Hennepin County Bar Association
3rd Floor City Center Suite 390A; 600 Nicollet Mall
Isle’s Room

Committee Members Present: Susan Burns, , Justice Lorie Gildea, Kim Holst, Eldon Kaul, Jim Moore, David Schultz, Tim Selendar,Aaron Street, Dan Prokott, Nena Street, Ben Weeks.
Committee Members present via phone: Mary Pat Byrn, David Moody
MSBA Staff Present: Brian Bell

1) Introductions (11:45 – 11:50)
Committee introduces themselves esp. new members and staff liaison

2)         Mission Update SEE ATTACHMENT (11:55 – 11:55)
            NS gives background into process for drafting and approving committee mission.
            Mission was approved by e-mail vote on April, 11th

3) Review Subcommittee Missions/Goals (Executive Committee, 11:55 – 12:10)
MPB gives background into Programs 3 armed strategic plan:

MPB and BB agreed to put this proposal in writing
EK explained that the Subcommittee had compiled a list of 60 organizations relevant to Civic Education and assigned subcommittee members to make contact with those organizations. The Committee also helped to plan a Civic Education summit a report is being published as a result of that summit. EK explained that the ultimate goal was for the Committee to play an active role in creating an organization that would provide infrastructure for all of the Civic Education Organizations in Minnesota. EK also discussed a meeting BB and he had attended with Eco Ed an organization that has had great success penetrating schools.
BW explained that AS, BB and he had met and planned to launch a website function that would allow attorneys to volunteers as subject area experts. This website would also allow teachers to request subject experts.
BW also explained that the Communications Subcommittee planned to dissolve because the primary focus was on the MN Civic Education Matters website which had little need for a full Subcommittee.

ACTION ITEM: Ben Weeks made a motion to dissolve Communications Subcommittee the motion was seconded and PASSED.

NS announced that all subcommittee chairs were open for FY ’08 – ’09 and to contact EK, NS and BB if one wished to be a Subcommittee Chair.

5)         Civic Education at the MSBA Convention (12:15 – 12:25)
            LG gave background into the CLE on the Rule of Law that the Civic Education Committee sponsored.
            NS made members aware that the Committee had a table at the Convention. BB agreed to follow up on his availability to staff the table. Which would help to determine if others were needed and what sort of materials to provide
            BB announced the potential social events during the Convention. LS suggested we do something in connection with the golf outing. DS suggested that we have an open social event for all convention attendees or perhaps something in the metro area available for more people to attend. BB agreed to follow up on an open social event and potential connection with golf outing.

NS reviewed individual budget requests. LG suggested we include reimbursement for CLE participants. DS asked how rigid this budget was. BB informed the committee that any amendments would have to be approved by the assembly he would follow up on how rigid those amendments would be.

ACTION ITEM: Motion was offered and seconded to approve the budget: motion PASSED.

Skipped because most info was in subcommittee goals. BB encouraged committee members to sign-up for Law Day.

Partnerships and Programs Subcommittees would draft formal goals/mission to be approved by the group.
BB agreed to:
Follow up on social event and table at the convention
Submit amendments to assembly and explore CLE reimbursements

MSBA Civic Education Committee
Meeting Summary
February 21, 2008 - 11:45 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Dorsey and Whitney

Members Present: Jennifer Bloom, Mary Pat Byrn, Colleen Doran, Margaret Erikson, Kevin Finnerty, Justice Lorie Gildae, Jim Gunn (by phone), Amy Hertel, Leah Klimoski, Brenda Miller, Jim Moore, David Mooty (by phone), Divya Raman, Aaron Street, Ben Weeks, and Tram Nguyen (MSBA Staff).

Mission Statement and Strategic Goals and Planning:
The Committee reviewed the draft of the mission statement and made some changes. After much discussion, motion was made for the Committee to adopt the following working draft of the mission statement and for committee members to send any changes to Ben Weeks in the next week. Subcommittees should proceed by initiating planning process and identify goals.

The MSBA Civic Education Committee leverages the unique knowledge, skills, and resources of the Bar to help educate youth about the rule of law and civil rights and responsibilities. We seek to accomplish these goals by developing programs, building partnerships, and influencing public policy.

Convention CLEs Status Report:
The Rule of Law CLE (Chaired by Justice Gildea) and Diversity Pipeline/Operation Arbitration CLE (headed by Nena Street in conjunction with the Diversity Committee) programs were approved by the Convention Committee. Speakers and titles are due February 29, and the full program descriptions are due March 21. If you would like to work on these programs, please let Nena or Eldon know. There is thought about breaking the Diversity Pipeline/Operation Arbitration CLE into two programs; one on diversity pipeline; and one on classroom projects.

Discussion of the Budget:
There is approximately $8200 left in the budget for this fiscal year. Subcommittees are encouraged to submit budget proposals for funding of projects or programs. Requests of $500 or less will go through the Civic Education Committee Executive Committee for approval; and those that are over $500 will go through the full Civic Education Committee for approval.

Civic Education Summit:
Eldon Kaul and Jennifer Bloom gave a report on the Summit. The Summit was successful with approximately 50 participants.

Present: MSBA President Brian Melendez, Co-Chairs Eldon Kaul and Nena Street, Members Bob Brown, Mary Pat Byrn, Nick Dranias, Margaret Erickson, Kevin Finnerty, Kim Fuhrman, Gary Hansen, Brian Larson, Brenda Miller, Jim Moore, Dan Prokott, Aaron Street, Elizabeth Wefel, Kris Wendorff, and staff liaison Melissa Roberts Beukema. By phone: Members David Moody and David Walker.

Next Meeting: November 29, 2007, 11:45-1:00, MSBA
***Oct. 25th meeting canceled***

Present: Eldon Kaul, Nena Street, Jennifer Bloom, Ben Weeks, Kim Holst, Aaron Street, Kevin Finnerty, Margaret Erickson, Dan Prokott, Elizabeth Wefel, Mary Pat Byrn, Amy Hertel, Leah Klimoski, and Melissa Roberts Beukema. By phone: Lorie Gildea and David Moody.

1. Introductions and house business. Everyone present introduced themselves. Minutes from both June 18 and July 12 were approved and have been posted on the committee's website (the one linked to mnbar.org NOT mnciviced.org).

a. Communications. BW gave an overview of the web site and indicated that the photos were being updated. He described the three different sections focused on youth, teachers, and attorneys. The plan is to start out with links to other sites and gradually add our own content so that there is at least something on the site. The group will add "under construction" to all the pages so people know to look back. The teachers section will have lesson plans added as soon as possible and hopefully will also include a curriculum idea sharing section. Once the site has been fleshed out and cleaned up marketing will start, including the basic task of getting the site on the MSBA site map.

b. Partnerships. EK talked about the secretary of state trying to set up a national conference on civics in Minneapolis. The committee is currently focused on building a list of potential partners and then contacting them strategically to ask how the MSBA could support their work. There is still the possibility of the MSBA co-hosting a summit.

c. Policy. KF indicated that this committee is trying to really focus on what other states are doing with policy statements and whether the MSBA should follow suit or take more of an initiative stance. Jim Gunn is looking at the survey results again and evaluating whether another survey should be conducted.

d. Programs. MPB talked about having a dual track focus on both immediate activities and long-range goals. The committee is immediately looking into Constitution Day, Kids Voting, the MN Council on Economics, and Youth in Government. She suggested that perhaps there should be a list serve for subcommittee and committee chairs so that there would be communication given how much overlap there might be.

3. Operation Arbitration. MAIN SUMMARY: NS mentioned that the committee needed to make a decision about this project ASAP since Brian Melendez was planning to talk about it in the October Bench & Bar. DP and MRB raised the importance of looking to mediation before arbitration. NS asked for volunteers to assist with the curriculum. Support for the program, co-sponsored with the ADR section, was passed unanimously.

ADDITIONAL DETAILS: NS and Brian met with both the ADR section chair and the past president of the MN Council of Social Studies teachers (MCSS), who handles current programming. They agreed to start with just 4-6 Minneapolis schools this year and expand the program in the future. There was some talk of attorneys going once a week and being on call for appeals, but no final decisions have been made. NS would lead the effort for the committee and there are no foreseeable financial impacts. Schools initially chosen would not already have peer mediation programs in place. To enhance the civic ed component there may be a possibility of including information about the judicial system and due process in with the curriculum.

- MPB & NS are going to the LRE in New Orleans and will report back at the next meeting.
- EK will contact the schools about participating with us in Constitution Day.
- The reimbursement policy was announced. Committee members should try to pay for their own parking where possible, but if it's a hardship receipts can be submitted to Melissa. Meals will be paid for if a meeting is arranged through the MSBA and is during a meal time. Otherwise members will need to cover the cost of their own refreshments when they meet.
- LG suggested partnering with the judicial branch and perhaps doing some work on educating people about judicial selection.
- Tentative future meeting dates were chosen: 1/17, 2/21, 3/20, 4/17, 5/22, and 6/19. All from 11:45-1:00 at the MSBA unless announced otherwise.

Present: Eldon Kaul, Nena Street, Ben Weeks, Kevin Finnerty, Bob Brown, Dan Prokott, Mary Pat Byrn, Amy Hertel, Leah Klimoski, and Melissa Roberts Beukema. Via phone: Jim Gunn, Pat Trask, David Moody, and Margaret Erickson.

1. Committee Overview. EK went over the ABA and CIRCLE reports briefly, recommending that all new members read the materials. He briefly described the Committee’s past work, including the principal and teacher survey and the possibility for coalition building. NS talked about current work such as the development of the web site, the possibility of relaunching the survey, and strengthening our relationship with the secretary of state’s office. NS indicated that in the coming year the Committee would be moving beyond research and into actual initiatives. She indicated that major program decisions need to be made such as whether to host and convene a summit and whether to institute President Melendez’s Operation Arbitration.

Discussion ensued about whether to support Operation Arbitration given the need to decide quickly whether the civic ed committee would take it on as a project. There was a question as to whether the volunteer attorneys should act as mediators and arbitrators, or instead as mentors to students. NS suggested partnering with the ADR secton. LK and AH indicated support assuming that the committee wouldn’t be recreating an existing program. MPB questioned whether this really falls under the definition of civic learning. To that point, NS responded that it was largely political as the President’s project, but that it was also a way to increase leverage and partnerships with the schools. EK indicated that it would be similar in some ways to the Mock Trial program. BB said that he supported it provided that it was not the primary focus since it would be a good way to build relationships. JG expressed some concern of scattering too broadly given the number of people on the committee and its available resources. NS questioned whether it would work better if ADR section spearheaded and we were in a more supportive role. BB suggested that the committee talk with JoAnn Knuth to get recommendations for schools that would be good matches for test initiatives, both for this project and others. It was also decided that she would be a good go-to person to assess demand for various projects.

2. Updates. MRB gave a brief update on the web site design delay and agreed to send the site to the communications subcommittee once it was ready. EK gave a brief wrap up of the June MSBA Convention CLE, Civic Matters, saying that it went well and that we are in a good position since President Melendez named this as one of his top focuses. NS announced that she and MPB would be attending the LRE conference in September about civic learning.

3. Subcommittees. NS and EK described each of the four subcommittees: Communications (includes the web site), Programs, Policy, and Partnerships. They emphasized the need for every committee member to choose a subcommittee on which to serve. DP raised the question of how they will all connect given that some activities will flow through multiple subcommittees.

Present: Eldon Kaul, Amy Bergquist, Bob Brown, Jim Gunn (by phone), David Schultz, Nena Street, and Melissa Roberts Beukema

1. Survey Results. The majority present agreed that the survey questions were good and that the results could still be used as baseline data for any future surveys. It was stated that in order to survey students we will need to secure the state Department of Education and the Minnesota Council of Social Studies teachers as full partners. DS suggested that perhaps we could join in with the MEA or Department of Education booths at the State Fair and perhaps offer the Legal Stuff brochure as a prize for completing the survey.

2. Web Site Status. The site will be called Minnesota Civic Education Matters. NS and AB reported that they had dealt with the Avenet contract and initial design work, as well as created a content shell. DS emphasized the importance of checking with students about how they see the site. BB suggested that we could pilot working on the site as a service learning project for high school juniors or seniors and indicated that he might know someone (Russ ?) at Columbia Heights who might be interested. AB expressed that it was important that teachers be able to have input directly into the site. MRB mentioned the importance of marketing the site and measuring success through means such as the number of hits per month or the number of active partnerships linking to our site. It was suggested that perhaps Jennifer Bloom has some lesson plans that could be included on the site.

Another idea was to have an interactive discussion board pertaining to content in the Legal Stuff brochure as a way to connect lawyers with the community, and particularly youth. A blog might be another way to appeal to teens.

Other brainstorming ideas included:
- measuring our progress by the number of media contacts (doing PSAs for example)
- Inviting youth, teachers, media and others to stop by the State Fair event if one happens
- Try to secure publicity in newsletters for teachers and other education professionals.
- It was also suggested that we could perhaps ask Avenet what they suggest to build visibility of the site once it goes live.
- Maybe young lawyers would want to be involved?
- Maybe some type of award could be developed to encourage participation and interest in our programs.

3. Convention Update. EK and MRB briefly went over the meeting held with the panelists for the CLE.

4. Status. The Committee was given copies of the progress report submitted to the Assembly.

Civic Education Steering Committee Minutes
May 14, 2007, 11:30-1
MSBA Offices
Next Meeting: June 18, 2007, 11:30-1, MSBA

I. Welcome & Introductions: Minutes from the last meeting were approved and have been posted on the web site.

II. HCBA Legal Stuff Brochure: The Committee will join in partnership with HCBA and will plan to use 1,500 copies over three years. The joint grant application was submitted June 1st.

III. Web: Michael Norton of Avenet joined the meeting for this portion to discuss using their services to launch our web site. He indicated that they would start with a template and build from there basing it primarily on other sites they have done for nonprofits and government entities. They also have some issues with flash so there may be still be a question about what types of games can be on the site, but the Committee was assured that it would be possible to do some form of games, quizzes, Q&A, and news briefs. MR expressed the necessity to have the site up and running by the end of June and to also pay for services by that time. MR also agreed to send him the links to our model sites. He indicated that the site could be up in as little as two weeks up to three months. He estimated the cost would be $1500 for design, $9.95 for the domain name, and then the monthly hosting fee.

AB and NS agreed to be the primary contacts for the site given MR’s vacation and the need to get the site launched. BB and JG suggested that it might make more sense to just get something up now and put “under construction” on some pages.

Michael then described the process where we would receive three mock up designs to review prior to making a final choice. The Committee outlined for Michael some primary concerns, including: that the site can be accessible through a school’s internet screener and that we want it to be as interactive as possible without sacrificing speed of loading the page. MR agreed to speak with TX to find out what they are running and then get that information to the people at Avenet.

IV. Survey Results: We unfortunately experienced a very low response rate. There was some discussion, to be discussed more thoroughly later, of redoing the survey in the fall (perhaps October). JB mentioned how important it would be for us to look at the major school districts’ calendars in making that choice. It was also decided that perhaps we should not try to be so scientific in the sample and instead go for a higher response rate. Putting it on the web site was one possibility. It was decided this would be still be used to determine which projects to pursue into the future at the June meeting so that the Committee can continue to move forward in its progress.

V. Dorsey Event Update: NS gave an overview of the event, which included 110 RSVP participants and 30 walk ins.

Civic Education Steering Committee Minutes
April 26, 2007, 11:30-1
MSBA Offices
Next Meeting: May 14, 2007, 11:30-1, MSBA

Present: Eldon Kaul (Chair), Joseph Satter (guest from HCBA), Bob Brown, Jim Gunn, Nena Street, Amy Bergquist, Jennifer Bloom (regular guest), & Melissa Roberts (staff).

I. Welcome & Introductions: Minutes from the last meeting were approved and have since been posted on the web.

II. Updates: MR described both the Military Reintegration Event and the HCBA/RCBA Legal Expo. Contact her for more information about either event. NS reported that they are receiving very high response rates for the upcoming civics event at Dorsey.

III. Survey: The survey was pushed back a bit to allow time for Joann Knuth to review the cover letter with her board. It was approved and the survey letters were sent out on April 26th and the survey closes May 10th. Joann will send out an e-mail about the survey as well. Jennifer will check with people at MCSS for inclusion of any information and their logo in that e-mail as well. MR will do an analysis report of the findings by May 17th.

IV. Legal Stuff Brochure: Joseph Satter from HCBA joined us for part of the meeting. He first outlined the current status of the brochure. It was started in 1993 and there is no charge for the booklets; there is a shipping and handling charge for mailing them. They charge $15 for a classroom set of 30; this may increase with the postage rate hike. 30% of the books are sent out to greater MN. They mail one copy to all high school social studies teachers, but they are targeted primarily to metro area educators. They use that mailing to advertise the Legal Expo and the Metro Area Speakers Bureau. Currently the brochure is not available online, but it will be by the end of the summer. The newest update will be done in June.

JB mentioned that it could be a useful tool for teachers and could be turned into a powerpoint Jeopardy game. Several committee members made recommendations for new sections of the brochure, including: immigration, citizenship, digital issues, and what to do if a parent is arrested. Joseph noted these, but said that this latest update would be too soon to embark on adding new sections. The book is updated roughly every three years. It was also suggested that perhaps it could be the basis for an online Q&A. We could also link it to Law Moose (described as the findlaw for MN) and relevant case law/statutes.

The Committee then discussed its possible role in a partnership with HCBA on the brochure. Joseph mentioned that it is less expensive per book to order more copies so if we do want to expand distribution we should order collectively and we'll need to determine whether we'll do this soon. It was agreed that the two organizations would submit a joint grant request to the Bar Foundation, which is due in June. Currently they give HCBA $3,500 for 15,000 copies to be used over three years. Joseph thought his committee would be amenable to including a blurb about us in the resources section of the book. He explained that the hesitation to partner is that they see our role as highlighting what district bars are doing rather than getting into turf battles about credit. It was suggested that a compromise could be listing us on the back cover under support rather than as a partner with a logo.

V. Web Update: MR brought up that in order to meet our June deadline we need to get materials to the web folks within the next couple of weeks.

Civic Education Steering Committee Minutes
April 5, 2007, 11:30-1
MSBA Offices
Next Meeting: April 26, 2007, 11:30-1, MSBA

Present: Eldon Kaul (Chair), Bob Brown, Cindy Lavorato (via phone), David Moody (via phone), Nena Street, Don Willeke, Jennifer Bloom (regular guest), & Melissa Roberts (staff).

I. Welcome & Introductions: New committee member Nena Street was introduced. She is an associate at Dorsey & Whitney in Minneapolis. Minutes from the last meeting were approved and have since been posted on the web.

II. Survey: JB agreed to test the survey with teachers. DM will test it with the teacher he knows and EK will test it with Joanne Knuth and Lana (last name?). The results of these should be completed by Friday, April 13th. MR shared Bridget's concerns about how difficult it would be to identify which private schools should be included in the sample population. JB suggested that it may be less expensive to purchase a list than to pay Bridget to identify the grade levels of the schools; however, BB offered to take this task on so it could be completed quickly.

The Committee then discussed what changes, if any, need to be made to the cover letter and opening paragraph for the survey. JB said to reduce the amount of information on what the Bar is doing and to talk more about how we will serve them. DW echoed this and suggested using language that talks about the survey as a tool to serve teachers. DM said that we should emphasize that they will get immediate feedback in the form of compiled survey results and analysis. The opening paragraph and letter both need to emphasize the confidentiality of the survey. The letter should be finalized by April 16th and go out by April 20th, with the link live at that point. The follow-up letter to non-respondents should be sent April 25th.

III. Legal Stuff Brochure: MR gave an overview following her meeting with Joseph of Hennepin County Bar Association (HCBA). EK said that the Committee should not recreate something that already exists. DW said that we should see what all of the Bars are doing rather than just HCBA. EK expressed that we all seemed to be in agreement on moving forward with in partnership with them. Someone suggested that perhaps the Committee should add members who could serve as representatives from regional bars. It was decided that this should be mentioned, if possible, in the survey follow-up letter. EK agreed to see if the same clerks from Mr. Kelly's office who drafted the When You Turn 18 brochure could work on the revisions for the Legal Stuff booklet. MR will let Joseph know that we will partner and will get specifics from him.

IV. Law Day: Next year's Law Day should be planned earlier (starting in summer?). For this year, we will do an editorial that includes a plug for the upcoming Dorsey civics event and ask Mr. Kelly to sign on so that we can try to get it published in newspapers.

V. Web Update: EK plans to invite some of his friends who are web savvy to one of our meetings to get another perspective on what we're doing. MR reminded the Committee that this needs to go live by June. CL offered to use her son as a test audience. NS suggested building the language using existing guides by getting either help or permissions from Street Law and MJF groups (NS gave MR contact information for these individuals) rather than trying to find someone to create new language.

VI. Lawyers in the Classroom: EK mentioned that we cannot just have a speakers' bureau. DW suggested that we ask other states for very detailed information on how this is done. MR mentioned that we would still need to do a modified version because our resources are not as high as those in the "star" states recognized for their quality classroom initiatives. CL suggested that we could find volunteers by offering CLE credit. EK returned to the previous question of whether pro bono credit could ever be awarded for this type of work. DW emphasized that we need to identify a solid structure first. EK said he would ask Jim Gunn to spearhead the effort and look at logistics, time, and financial resources, especially looking at TX. CL suggested that it wouldn't be necessary to run a program centrally if we instead created a model that the regional bars could run independently. DW wondered how a program would be publicized. JB suggested that we tap the Young Lawyers for assistance. MR said that it was critical to be intentional in forming school partnerships. BB said that it's not as hard as we think it is and that we can check out how things are going and create a template for local groups while providing centrally located facilitation and support. He and JB seemed to agree that lawyers were already in classrooms informally and that we just needed to pick up on what's already happening. NS suggested that offering templates and lesson plans would also be helpful for law firms who want to connect with schools.

VII. June Convention Update: EK will bring up the question of support for extending pro bono credit with audience members. It was suggested that a short (3 questions) survey should be given to attendees of both this CLE and the Dorsey event asking what they think the Committee should do and whether they would be willing to be involved. MR will take the finalized survey to the Dorsey Event.

VIII. Dorsey Event: NS gave an update on the civics event to be held at Dorsey on Thursday, May 10, at 4:30 p.m., which the MSBA is co-sponsoring.

IX. Mark Ritchie Event: EK, DW, and JB all attended the event on civics hosted by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. They reviewed the event, which led to a discussion of the Bar's role and how "civic education" is being defined both externally and within the Committee. Approximately 70 people attended the event where the purpose was to bring together all the groups working on civics issues. DW is working with a spin off group focused on synthesizing what's happening so that the various groups are aware of each other's activities.

JB commented that there was about an 80/20 split of civic engagement to civic education groups represented. She went on to say that there isn't always clarity within the community about the connection between traditional civic education and civic engagement. She suggested that the Committee's role is really to focus on civic education because the focus on civic engagement is already so big. MR and DW commented that they didn't think those two concepts could be separated, which led to some back and forth amongst all the members who were present. EK suggested that the Bar could act as a summit convener (perhaps with Civics MN?) and suggested that he does see a separation between education and engagement. JB said that there is too much of a perception of partisanship when engagement is the language used. The challenge as she explained it is how to preserve traditional civic education with so much focus on engagement. MR expressed another conception of the question as how to teach civic education in a way that is engaging to students that encourages them to become active. BB echoed what EK and JB had to say commenting that if the civic education piece is done well then civic engagement should naturally follow.

Present: Bridget Murphy (survey intern), Eldon Kaul (Chair), Bob Brown, Jennifer Bloom (regular guest), Amy Bergquist (law student representative), & Melissa Roberts (MSBA staff liaison)

Introductions took place and meeting minutes from February 20, 2007 were approved.

I. Law Day: EK mentioned that Ramsey hosts an essay contest. Hennepin has in the past offered free legal advice for 15 minutes at areas throughout the metro. Maybe there is a way to connect Law Day with the survey? In the future we will plan this project earlier and will perhaps combine it with the student council/government groups at area schools. This year's theme is Empowering Youth, Assuring Democracy. All committee members should brainstorm what we could do and be prepared to make a decision at the next meeting. In the meantime, MR will talk with the coordinator for HCBA to see about partnering this year.

II. When You Turn 18 Brochure: Someone suggested the Committee check out a brochure that Legal Aid produces. JB suggested the Committee find out more about the Legal Stuff brochure that HCBA publishes (MR will meet with HCBA about this and report back at the Apr. 5 mtg). If this happens, someone will need to update it every two years with the legislative cycle: is there a need for a subcommittee based on law areas to do this? The Committee needs to find a way to interact with teachers who have questions. The plan is to have both web and hard copies of the brochure. As a postscript, following the meeting the Committee was asked to review the final version within a week's time (sent out March 26th).

III. Budget Narrative. MR gave an update on the budget to date and the priorities established by the operations committee and administration of the MSBA. MR is developing methods of measuring the committee's success. If you have any ideas or questions (or would like to see the official narrative) please contact MR.

IV. House Meeting and June Convention Update. Judge Renee Worke, who knows Dennis Donovan (our facilitator), will make a few comments at the session and wants to promote it however she can. It was suggested that perhaps Justice Anderson could participate as well. EK suggested that perhaps 5-8 people who attended the last house meeting session could be a part of future mini-sessions. MR mentioned the desire of the Bar to broaden it so long as it's successful. AB suggested the idea of doing the talks as an ongoing series over happy hours. MR suggested that the Committee wait until after the June convention to launch any additional meetings in light of time and other committee priorities.

V. Survey Update. MR will ask the web folks if we could assign a unique id for survey respondents. BM identified that the first paragraph of the survey (the introduction) needs to be crafted in a way that will produce the highest response rate. JB reported that MCSS has decided to endorse the survey, but they will need to see a final draft for review. BM asked for guidance on the population sample and it was determined that it would be 400 principals and one teacher of their choosing. K-5 surveys will be dropped in favor of just surveying students in middle and high school at this time.

Civic Education Committee Meeting Minutes
February 20, 2007, 11:30-1:00, St. Thomas Opus Hall

Present: JoAnne Knuth (President of the MN Secondary School Principals Association), Bridget Murphy (survey intern), Eldon Kaul (Chair), Bob Brown, Cindy Lavorato, Jennifer Bloom (regular guest), Amy Bergquist (law student representative), & Melissa Roberts (MSBA staff liaison)

Introductions took place and meeting minutes from February 5, 2007 were approved.

I. House Meeting Recap. Some members of the Committee questioned whether the goals of the house meetings were really accomplished. AB commented that it seemed like the facilitators had an agenda. There is though consensus to have another one and a couple participants have spoken with MSBA executive director Tim Groshens about how much they enjoyed them. EK felt that specifics weren't delved into enough, but appreciated the opportunity for the conversation. CL indicated that it was a good opportunity to bring lawyers into policy issues and that people are definitely on a spectrum of awareness. Parts of the community are still awakening to the notion, she said, and echoed that the Bar can be unique acting in this arena. MR suggested bringing in more people. EK thought the series should inform the June forum.

II. Survey Review. The survey should definitely be web based and there can be a split so that administrators click one button and teachers click another to get to their respective survey questions. Key points that emerged were:

a. Population. The population should include K-5 and 6-12. They should be directed to the principals with guidelines for them to pass it on to teachers. There was a desire to include all school types (public, private, alternative, charter), but make sure that private schools aren't overrepresented.
b. Terms. JK suggested that a statement be included at the beginning of the survey referencing the existing Minnesota standards. The terminology will need to be different for elementary and high school. Terms should be included at the beginning of the survey or as a link and should be built from the state education standards terminology. MR will ask the web staff about whether that can be a hyperlink in the invitation or throughout the survey.
c. Questions. JB suggested adding questions that try to capture whether any change has occurred in recent years. Question 29 will be changed to curriculum coordinator. JK said to make sure the questions reflect information that we are truly seeking.
d. Timeline. A presurvey letter should be sent out announcing the survey opening, a reminder e-mail should go out half way through the survey period, and a last reminder should go out by e-mail the day before the survey closes. The target date for the survey is May 1st so the letter should be sent April 15th with the population identified by April 1st.
e. Other. BB wondered if having so many open ended questions or places for "other" would make results compilation more difficult. The survey will be limited to 15 minutes. JK also suggested getting as many endorsements as possible and adding a statement about the purpose of the survey to the beginning. EK will work on the opening statement. JB reminded the Committee of the importance of expressing that the MSBA wants to be a partner not executioner.

The next meeting will be held Monday, March 19, 2007 from 11:30 - 1:00 at the MSBA offices.

Civic Education Committee Meeting Minutes
February 5, 2007, 11:30-1:00, MSBA Offices

Present: Kay Englund (Target Start Something program), Eldon Kaul (Chair), Bob Brown, Jim Gunn (via phone), David Moody (via phone), Amy Bergquist (law student representative, by phone), Dick Ericson (MSBA staff), Holly Wu (MSBA staff), & Melissa S. Roberts (MSBA staff liaison)
Introductions took place and meeting minutes from January 10, 2007 were approved.

I. Start Something (Kay Englund): Kay Englund, an education specialist and consultant working for Target Corporation's Start Something program, joined the Committee for the first part of the meeting to discuss the program. She began by mentioning that the management of the program would soon be transferred to the Tiger Woods Foundation, but that Target would continue to be a founding sponsor for the program. Start Something is a free, character education program aimed at youth ages eight to 18 and is subdivided into a section for elementary students, middle school students, and high school students. The main foci of the curriculum are character development, volunteer service, and career exploration. It is a nationwide program that is available to schools, youth groups, and even individual students. The program kit includes lesson plans, a book of questions to consider about character, and access to a website that has information on career possibilities and good decision making. Each kit includes approximately 15-20 hours of teaching material. Ms. Englund does see an inherent overlap between civic education and character development as they both work toward developing a more engaged citizenry.

To date the program has been used by over 120,000 youth leaders and over five million youths. Included among participants is the Minneapolis Public Schools system at the middle school level. Additionally, various United Way programs operated in the Twin Cities are using the program. Maryland was successful in securing the state's Department of Education in supporting the program. There are grants currently associated with the program to help local groups implement the curriculum, but the last time those will be available (at least through Target) is September 1st of this year. One of the most successful programs has been the team of St. Paul police and Target employees who are working directly in the schools.

Ms. Englund offered the Committee a few suggestions on how to spread its message. She indicated that a key way to access schools is to participate in educator conferences with an information booth, give away promotional items, and workshops. Also, working with groups like FHA and FFA may be an option. Finally she suggested the Committee keep messages simple, clear, and complete and to always test them with focus groups first.

The Committee then brainstormed about how it could be involved. Ideas included creating a mentorship program for attorneys and youth, having a booth at any upcoming conventions (both MSBA and education), and that we would link to the Start Something program on our web site.

II. Web Site Update: MSBA staff members joined us to talk about the progress of the web site to date. EK would like to launch the site The Committee will need to get any changes to Dick and Holly as soon as possible. The most effective way for them to make changes is for committee members to print out a hard copy of the page and make edits on the page and then submit them to the web team. Holly mentioned that it was necessary for the shortcut button titles to be short. We are still looking for people to take on the task of writing some of the original copy (or modifying it from another state) for the web content, but Eldon mentioned the possibility of finding some interns to assist with this. The Committee will need to retype any publications it wants to include on the site because scanned copies don't translate well to the web. EK mentioned a desire for more photos of Minnesota to be included on the web site. This can be done if committee members submit high resolution, uncopyrighted photos for use. It was suggested that the MN Historical Society may be a good source for photos. EK wondered about changing the home page title. Please submit any suggestions. MR suggested adding a counter to the page to measure hits on the site.

EK asked about including the text from "History of Our Courts" and Dick said we would need to check with Judd of the MSBA about that because some of the information it contains is copyrighted. The Committee agreed that it should seek out students to test the site before it goes live. These students could include National Honor Society and student council participants, as well as those who may have been involved with the juvenile justice system.

JG asked whether as the site grows it would be possible to include a search button. The staff indicated that would be possible one of two ways: 1) for free if the Committee is okay with allowing minimal advertising on the site through a company like atomz or 2) for a small fee. MR asked about whether the web address could be changed for simplicity. There are two options here as well: 1) for free, change the part of the address that follows www2.mnbar.org or 2) pay a fee for an outside name. The Committee may wish to investigate this cost. Dick suggested that businesses typically pay $200 initially and $50 each month thereafter for such a service. MR has found a lower service for individuals of $10 per year and wondered if they might be able to do something for businesses too.

III. House Meetings: The committee members in attendance at both the house meeting and the civic Education meeting debriefed the meeting for other committee members and to make suggested improvements for next time. EK suggested putting the questions out to participants before the meeting to have time to reflect on their thoughts before the meeting. AB echoed this. EK felt it was a good first meeting and that the learning in that could contribute to the June forum. MR suggested that the methodology of this approach and connections to civic education be made more explicit for participants. AB liked having a larger group for diversity of participants. EK and MR held a phone conference with facilitators Harry Boyte and Dennis Donovan following the meeting. Those minutes are also included here.

IV. Survey Update: EK said that he would begin sharing drafts of the survey with representatives of our stakeholders and encouraged other committee members to do the same. MR asked that committee members get their thoughts to her by next week so those can be relied to Bridget in a timely fashion. DM expressed excitement about the survey and indicated that there was good progress so far. It was suggested that the survey's reliance on the ECS/NCLC survey may help with getting endorsement for the survey. MR agreed to refer Bridget to the list of schools on the web site to begin constructing the actual survey design. It was mentioned that teachers and administrators may see things differently so the question of whether this first survey should go to teachers, administrators, or both is complicated.

V. General Business: The Committee discussed what time is best for meetings. MR is out of the office on Wednesdays and Fridays and finds Mondays to be best for her. AB can make Tuesdays in person and could call in on Thursdays. JG finds Thursdays very difficult. The next meeting will be the 20th. EK asked members to think about how a lawyers in the classroom project would work so that the committee can move forward. He also expressed the need to expand the definition of pro bono to include the types of projects the committee is proposing. EK also mentioned that he met with President Kelly and Justice Paul Anderson and that 2008 is the state sesquicentennial, which would be a good opportunity for committee involvement.

VI. House Meeting Phone Conference Minutes: HB agreed to send articles to MR about the Minnesota Works Together project to share with participants. It was suggested that the questions could have been sharper and more precise. DD connected with Bob Seng afterwards and was glad to have him and the students there especially. He mentioned that getting a read on the culture of lawyers was taking a bit of time and that as the experts on that the Committee should share its thoughts freely with them about what would work best. HB felt there was a good mix of participants and that they might be helped by more examples of civic practice by attorneys. He agreed to come prepared with those examples and to bring in the skill work. DD may bring a judge he is working with on veterans' issues and asked MR to encourage participants to bring a friend to the next meeting.

Present: Eldon Kaul (Committee Chair), Bob Brown, Jim Gunn (by phone), Cindy Lavorato (by phone), David Moody (by phone), David Schultz, Don Willeke, Melissa Roberts (MSBA staff), Jennifer Bloom (ongoing consultant), Amy Bergquist (U of MN law student), and Bridget Murphy (Survey intern).

I. Minutes from December 12, 2006 were approved.
II. General Updates: DS announced that he had been awarded a Fulbright in Armenia and would be gone from the third week of February through the end of March. EK and JB updated the Committee on the progress of Civics Minnesota (www.civicsmn.org).
III. Survey Update. Bridget began by describing her work to date as being primarily a literature review of the CIRCLE report and existing surveys from other states. She had questions for the Committee about what to copy and whether to be more objective or prescriptive in designing the questions. She also wanted to know who the target population is for surveying.

EK indicated that the Committee initially needs to focus on an inventory similar to New Jersey's without abandoning the idea of doing a student survey in the future. BB suggested that focus groups be used when we get to the student survey stage. MR commented that the seemingly prescriptive questions were based on support for the CIRCLE report's recommendations so there would not be a need to shy from those as the Committee was in support of those recommendations. BB suggested that the survey be tested for clarity and vocabulary before being sent out officially. EK echoed that he would like to test it as well, preferably with JoAnne's group and the MN Council for Social Studies. BB observed that they wouldn't completely reflect the general population of educators.

BM raised the question of whether the survey should go to teachers or administrators. AB thought the survey would be ignored by administrators and at best would be passed on to teachers. BB reiterated the importance of gaining endorsement then. DS talked about the low response rate a previous survey he worked on received even with incentives. JB offered to have something to gauge interest at her booth at the upcoming MCSS conference. EK said that this would need to be separate from the main survey. DW asked if we really need a survey. EK emphasized that the results of things like NAEP only go so far in an individual state and so we need to do this taking a positive attitude in the survey questions. DS was more concerned about the recipients who are not passionate about the issue becoming respondents. BB and MR both felt that there needed to be a way to measure and support the idea of bringing civics into all areas of the curriculum. JB highlighted the importance of asking teachers about their perceptions over time. MR, DS, and BB all agreed. DW asked whether the Dept. of Ed has this data. JB and DS pointed out though that there are no universal standards for how civics should be taught in schools so the data does not exist. She went on to say that the standards are scheduled to be rewritten in 2010 and that the Committee might do well to create an Assets Checklist that could be amended for the community beyond schools too. DM mentioned the importance of getting the ball rolling on projects even as the Committee moves ahead with the survey.

IV. House Meetings & June Forum. MR updated the Committee on the June MSBA Convention Forum. The forum was approved for both the convention and CLE credit. MR will apply for that credit after receiving information for the convention planners on which date the forum will be held.

MR then updated the group on the two-part house meetings coming up in January and February. Executive Director Tim Groshens has expressed interest in expanding this to new cohorts of attorneys if this trial set goes well. It was decided that all committee members would either invite or submit to MR for invitation on their behalf two to three names by Thursday, January 18th. Attendees will need to attend both sessions.

V. Web Site Update. EK said that we just need to get something up and expand on it next time. MR took the Committee through a packet of web pages to get a sense of what members liked and wanted for the Civ Ed site. CL suggested that MR put together a list of what is best and what we want, send it to the Committee for review, and then submit that to the web people at the MSBA to get things started. Dick of the MSBA will join the Committee at the Jan. 29th meeting. CL also sent out her son's impressions of those sites and MR will incorporate his views into creating the list of suggested sites. At a later point MR will check with Ask Speak Vote about being included in their "Go Local" links. JG reminded the group that TX has offered to let our site link to their games.

VI. Lawyers in the Classroom Test Projects. JB indicated that there would be value in an "Ask the Expert" lawyer listing on the web site so that teachers could readily identify relevant ways to bring lawyers into the classroom. JG and MR both indicated support for doing a project like TX's Pipeline Project where attorneys adopt a classroom for an entire academic year. Although there was support among other committee members there seemed to be a need to start smaller. JB brainstormed that in some of the hundreds of classrooms participating in We The People there may be teachers who are not as confident in that curriculum and may want assistance. BB observed that it would be interesting to find a way to use video to bring the program to rural schools as well. All agreed that one of the first steps might be figuring which lawyers are already in the classroom in some fasion.

Present: Eldon Kaul (Committee Chair), Don Willeke, Cindy Lavorato, Bob Brown, David Schultz, David Moody (by phone), Jim Gunn (by phone), and Melissa Roberts (MSBA staff).

II. Committee Status Report & Timeline (EK). Eldon raised the issue that the committee needs to definitely choose how to proceed at this point. Cindy asked about CLE credit. Eldon said that the issue had been raised, but that changes are already being made to the pro bono credit policy so decision makers were reluctant to make any other changes at this time. He suggested, and Bob echoed, that perhaps public recognition in, for example, Bench & Bar, would suffice. Melissa agreed to check if program funds roll over if unused to the following year; they do not.

Web. Melissa gave an update on the web site indicating that the Bar does not currently have the resources to do things like flash games (see TX LRE site), but that a civic ed site could go up as soon as we have more basic content to submit. Eldon raised the issue of timing related to the balance between content and design. Bob brought up that its importance could be validated by the number of hits a site receives. Cindy offered to have her 14-year-old check out web sites for appeal and get back to the committee.

David S. asked what our unique footprint would be for the site? Cindy encouraged it to include civic engagement (as opposed to just education). David S. suggested that the site should address what roles are available for attorneys in civic education so that the site serves the internal community as much as the external community. There would be dual goals and multiple audiences, he suggested. Jim mentioned that law students in Oklahoma had rewritten information to make it more relevant for their purposes so perhaps we could do the same here. David S. offered the idea of having a page that emulates the look of a ballot screen. Bob thought it might be a good idea to target it not only to youth and attorneys, but also to recent immigrants. Eldon asked the committee to look again at the information they have from their states and bring the content they wish included to the next meeting. Melissa will ask the MSBA computer staff to attend a future meeting once content has been chosen to discuss layout.

III. Survey. Melissa updated the committee on the search for a survey assistant. Eldon brought up that the committee will need to get permission from the schools to conduct the surveys and so the committee will need to be very clear about why a survey is happening. Melissa will get the California survey. Bob will invite someone from Target and someone from the Department of Education in MN to one of the committee's future meetings. Melissa will invite Bridget to upcoming meetings where the survey will be discussed.

IV. Lawyers in the Classroom Projects. Don suggested that it would be unwise for the committee to create something new and that instead attorneys could help with We The People or a similar program to be more economical and avoid recreating the wheel. David S. echoed that this could facilitate entry for future, possibly expanded, programs. Melissa thought that the committee should not close itself off from other types of classroom participation in the future. Bob said there was merit to going with WTP and Project Citizen, but the committee should think beyond that as well and try to get the Dept. of Ed stamp of approval on future programs. Jim offered up the way other states have general guidelines available for lawyers and teachers, but allow them to individually select the most appropriate curriculum (see TX partnerships). IN Iowa there is a summer conference with a teacher stipend to encourage the exchange of ideas and information. Eldon stated that he thought it best to do more innovative programs in the future, but to support existing programs to get the ball rolling. David S. agreed saying that this would be a way to test the concept. Don suggested the idea of an attorney speakers bureau for classrooms. David S. expanded this suggesting that teachers could receive a list of attorneys qualified and willing to speak on topical issues. Melissa mentioned again the importance of making the topics relevant to young people in a current events way. Bob brainstormed that a mentoring program might also work as a way to get lawyers to commit to being "on call" for a core area of knowledge or being generalists for classroom discussions. David S. mentioned the importance of promoting a program to ensure its success. Eldon agreed to follow up with Jennifer Bloom about a WTP/attorney partnership and that the committee could start by recruiting people from the Hennepin and Ramsey county young lawyer groups. David S. suggested AP classes as a possible site for bringing in lawyers. Melissa felt this was too much like preaching to the choir since they would be more likely to be aware of civics in the first place. Bob suggested trying to implement programs in alternative schools not bound by district regulations.

V. House Meetings. Bob will work with Jackie at St. Thomas on getting space. Melissa and Eldon will work on getting forum time at the June convention.

VI. Publications. David S. thought it would be possible to find students to alter other states' publications for Minnesota. Committee members should send e-copies and bring hard copies of good publications to the next meeting.

Present: MSBA President Patrick Kelly, Public Achievement Director Dennis Donovan, Committee Chair Eldon Kaul, Bob Brown, Jim Gunn (by phone), David Moody (by phone), David Schultz, Jennifer Bloom, Margaret Dean (MSBA marketing director), and Melissa S. Roberts (MSBA staff).

II. Publications (Margaret). Eldon began by summarizing the Committee's goals of setting up a web site and getting some substantial publications out (a CA sample was passed around and Eldon mentioned the "When I turn 18" publication). Margaret responded that anything is possible and depending on the sophistication of the design could be done either in-house or through an outside printer. She mentioned that there is a strong writing capability on staff so drafting text would be one task in particular that they can do. There is no in-house printing, but there are several area printers that the Committee could use. Patrick mentioned that Iowa could get us a copy of their publication, which is passed out in schools and at the fair, which the Committee could modify slightly for Minnesota. Melissa mentioned that they could also be used as springboards for discussion in a lawyers in the classroom project. David S. wondered if the Committee would need to pay royalties and it was decided that the Committee will just wait and see, but it is likely not going to be necessary to pay. Jennifer mentioned the "Legal Stuff" brochure published by the Hennepin County Bar, which is used by teachers around the state. Eldon asked and Margaret confirmed that the Committee could have the publications available as PDFs on the web site as well. Eldon summarized that the Committee will review the options and decide what is best for a MN publication. Jennifer brought up that when designing a publication the color and design size should be minimal to make downloading and printing as easy for teachers as possible. Melissa will work on getting publication examples from Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin, and California and will then share those with Margaret to give her a better idea of what the Committee is planning.

III. Survey. Eldon would like to check with Holly and Dick (MSBA staff) about doing an online survey. Bob thought it would be better to have the survey connected with the Bar web site. Eldon emphasized that the Committee needs to do an inventory of schools to make change here in Minnesota to have an impact so the survey needs to be a key part of committee efforts. The goal would also include measuring student awareness. Before we moved forward everyone agreed that the laws and wording about surveying students were reviewed. Jennifer suggested a focus on a limited cross section rather than trying to survey all schools and students in the state. Bob agreed and suggested a stratified random sample to find the 10 target schools, which Patrick thought was the best way to go as well. David S. said it was tough to get into the St. Paul School District without having partner approval so the Committee will need to strategize to seem like insiders. Bob echoed that the Committee should get some type of endorsement and that perhaps the Department of Education could be brought in. Everyone agreed that the tone of the survey needed to emphasize the community working together to promote civics not trying to undermine teachers. David S. said he especially liked the idea of having lesson plans and other resources available online. He also suggested offering incentives for teachers to complete the survey. Jennifer raised the question of how to reach teachers who aren't already supportive of civic education (as those involved with Mock Trial - a suggested mailing resource - are likely to be).

Eldon asked if there was consensus on this issue. Most people agreed that the Committee needed to watch costs and that an electronic survey was the best way to go. David M. suggested that we precede immediately with the web site and lawyers in the classroom project because the Committee doesn't need survey results to begin that work. David S. said the Committee will ideally be ready to hit the ground running in September.

Eldon mentioned that the Committee needs to winnow down its options for action and programs. Jennifer suggested that perhaps the Committee should look to other states where the Bar is not the coalition leader. Patrick suggested that Michigan is perhaps most similar to the MN Bar. Jennifer will call people she knows in Michigan to learn more about how the Bar functions with the other organizations.

IV. Dennis Donovan. Dennis attended this meeting since we had a limited number of committee members in attendance at the Nov. 14th meeting. He stressed that this work is about everyday politics. He mentioned that most people view civics through a more traditional lens, but that the work of Minnesota Works Together is more about revitalizing civic life through citizens as co-creators rather than as people fighting over scarce resources. MWT stems from Minnesota's Populist history and aims to have young people involved as actors in the political system rather than waiters. He expressed his continued interest in working with the Committee to get a group of lawyers together to create a "Citizen Lawyer" model through house meetings. The goal of the house meeting is to ask and answer the questions of what is valued in the legal community and to begin to teach the skills needed to create change and move from a me to a we culture. He stressed the importance of having a cross-section of community members including students, retirees, teachers, and practicing attorneys and judges. Melissa will e-mail the chart of civic engagement approaches to committee members again.

David S. indicated that a group of core members could get started at the meetings and thought of it as an opportunity to get dialogue going among other members of the legal community. He then brainstormed that perhaps bar leaders could get involved and maybe something could even happen at the next convention. Patrick echoed that having a house meeting with bar leaders at the next convention (at the end of June) would be a good idea. Planning for the convention is starting now so concrete planning will need to start right away if this is going to happen. Jennifer raised the question of what an engaged citizen looks like as a place to start. David S. and Dennis both mentioned how important it was to ask targets (in this case students) what they want. Bob mentioned again that the media must be involved in any efforts. Eldon asked if anyone was willing to take on the organizing of the house meetings or convention forum. No one volunteered. Melissa and/or Eldon can follow up with people who were not in attendance at the meeting to see if they are willing (Cindy, Don).

V. Conference Review (Eldon & Jennifer). Eldon mentioned that one of the main things he came away with from the conference is that the Bar can really take a role in forming a coalition. Jennifer mentioned that each group would bring what it can and that the Bar can do a survey and be a convener. Eldon announced that the MN delegation from the conference would be meeting December 15th. Other states, he mentioned, started small and then expanded. The Committee needs to think about what kind of message and vision it wants to send out. He indicated that the, Patrick, and Justice Paul Anderson would meet about how to achieve this goal. Bob expressed that there can frequently be frustration over gaps and overlaps when groups aren't all working together so there should also be a broader summit publicized in the media that anyone could attend. David S. mentioned that we could also look to financial partners like Otto Bremer Foundation. Bob echoed that and mentioned the Target Foundation. Jennifer identified that the working group would be different from a summit, which will take more planning and money.

VI. Patrick Kelly Remarks. Patrick said that the Committee needs to get together some tangible goals so as to secure its budget for the future. He indicated support for a web site, convention forum, survey of 10 schools, and lawyers in the classroom project. The Committee needs to get moving to establish the survey and web site in parallel time while planning for the forum, if that is a chosen project.

Present: Eldon Kaul, Cindy Lavorato, David Schultz, Harry Boyte (HHH CDC), Dennis Donovan (HHH CDC), Dick Ericson (MSBA), Holly Wu (MSBA), & Melissa Roberts (MSBA)

II. Interactive Web Site. Dick and Holly stayed for part of the meeting to work with the Committee on how to create an interactive web site similar to other states the Committee has researched. Melissa will send web links to the other states to Dick and Holly the afternoon of the 14th. Dick reported that there was no limit on how many documents we could have on the site. For the more extensive work, we can start with the assumption that it will be possible. We need to begin by collecting all that we want and forwarding it to Dick and Holly. They will then report back on time frames and possibilities. There should be no problem providing links to other organizations.

III. A New Perspective on Civic Engagement. Harry and Dennis led the group in an interesting discussion about the lenses through which to view civic engagement and steps for the MSBA moving forward.

a. House Meetings. These are discussions facilitated by Harry and Dennis free of charge. Committee members would need to find another 20 or so people (for a total of 10-25 participants) representative of the MSBA in terms of gender, ethnicity, rural v. urban, student v. retired, liberal v. conservative, and so on. This group would need to commit to two or three meetings of approximately 1.5 hours each. We would provide hospitality as well. They would lead us in discussions about how to create a "citizen lawyer" model by addressing things like: 1) what is the role of lawyers and law firms in creating a civic tone? 2) What is the cultural impact of the law? 3) How can the MSBA be a catalyst for change? We will aim to hold these meetings in January and February.

b. Chart by Harry. See attachment. There is a larger interest in working with partners over the long term to improve citizen life in Minnesota resulting from a cultural shift. They have done over 100 house meetings to date and there is widespread concern over the consumer culture taking hold. Civic theory states that we have to look at the whole context rather than seeing the field as a stand alone item. The real question is: what will make a cultural difference? A person could also think of the chart as concentric circles. The liberal column refers to the traditional notion of civics focused on cognitive and academic views on elections and government. The communitarian approach is about 25 years old and focuses on volunteerism and service learning. The commonwealth approach has gained popularity in the last 10 years and if focused on the common good. Minnesota has been seen as having a commonwealth culture. In this view, democracy is a way of life. To achieve the commonwealth ideal we would need to excavate older traditions like neighborhood houses, Dayton's business practices, and the Humphrey drugstore to start with past successful models. This is not about work that gets done in the off hours, but is about who a person is at the core. It's about collaborating to create public goods that are attentive to the impact on civic life. Governments and nonprofits have been separated from the actual community in recent years. In the liberal tradition government is outside the community; in the third it is embedded. Harry and Dennis brainstormed that the legal community could work on restorative justice, storefront clinics, or other ideas building off what they achieved with citizen legislator house meetings.

c. Public Achievement (PA) and Minnesota Works Together (MWT). Dennis led this discussion about the creation of PA and MWT. Dennis was working on church-based community organizing with organizations like SPEAK (now ISAIAH), received training in Chicago, met Harry, and started working with U.S. Bank, St. Thomas, and others on improving life in St. Paul. PA organizes people with a coach and works on issues of importance to the people involved by sharing the skills of power, negotiation, relationship building, and politics). He did this work with his own students when he was principal of a school where he saw the very culture of the school shift as students learned these skills. MWT is seen as being in a critical time since it can create substance beyond the inevitable rhetoric that will come during the two-year window leading up to the 2008 election. MWT is working on encouraging these shifts starting in neighborhoods, early childhood programs, and more. They have also done work with others to create citizen teacher and therapist models. Remember though that no one is an expert in finding a problem - people are co-creators. There is also a Citizen Health Program with a cultural wellness component. A past leader of HUD also participated in this approach with the Office of Neighborhood Self Help using government as a catalyst rather than simply a provider of goods.

IV. Illinois. Cindy reported on Illinois' civic education efforts and provided the group with copies of their newsletter along with other documents. Their primary focus is on the newsletter and Mock Trial program. They are also closely connected with the Constitutional Rights Foundation in Chicago. CRF does a lot of their teacher trainings, but gets a small grant to do so from the Illinois Bar. They have two staff members (equivalent to one full-time staff) with a budget of $20k for Mock Trial and an additional $30-40k for other programs. In the newsletter they expand on their mandates and programs.

V. Pro Bono Credit. Eldon raised the issue of how pro bono could be expanded to include credit for civic education work. He will talk with Justice Paul Anderson. David brought up that CLE credit expansion will go before the state supreme court soon. The Committee will want to get any petition in prior to their review. Eldon will speak with Patrick Kelly about this as well and will share any insights pertaining to future action with Melissa. It was brought up that people are looking for outreach opportunities and so perhaps this could fit within the balanced life CLE credits.

VI. Progress to Date. This is a continuous process and there may yet be changes to the project sheet provided. The discussion with Harry and Dennis may send us in a new direction where the Committee would be doing something unique among bar associations. The status report and projects will be discussed in more detail at the next meeting.

a. Melissa will send out recommended reading (from Harry and Dennis) prior to the meeting on the 28th.
b. Melissa will gather possible dates for house meetings from Harry and Dennis so that the Committee can choose dates on the 28th.
c. Dennis will attend the meeting on the 28th as well since we were missing a number of members at today's meeting.
d. Eldon will speak with both Patrick Kelly and Paul Anderson about pro bono & CLE credits.

Present: Eldon Kaul, Bob Brown, Jennifer Bloom, Jim Gunn (by phone), David Moody (by phone), Melissa Roberts

I. Introductions & Approval of Meeting Minutes. The meeting began at 11:30 a.m. and the minutes from the October 5, 2006 meeting were quickly approved. Melissa has posted these on the civic education steering committee web page.

II. Review of MPR's Voting & Its Discontents Show (Melissa). The show presented few new facts as it is a "light" news show, but it did have voices from a wide range of people represented on the topic of voting and nonvoting. The show is accessible via www.mpr.org and was from In the Loop, which aired on October 20th.

III. Discussion of the CIRCLE Report.
a. Reaction to Recommendations: Jennifer noted that the report narrows down what needs to be done to five or six steps. What parts of the recommendations will be picked up is dependent on who is looking at the document (for example, teachers vs. civic education community organizations). She and Bob discussed the fact that fewer than 2,000 high school teachers are members of the social studies organization. Everyone seemed to agree that teachers teach what they are comfortable with and know themselves. There is a tension between the desire to maintain control of school environments and the desire to teach students critical thinking about the way schools and governments run. Research and experience show that interactive models of learning about civics are more effective though. We need to understand more clearly the obstacles to implementing civic education. The Bar needs to determine how it can influence administrators to think more about the need for civic education. Bob agreed with Jennifer's assessment and added that there should be a specific focus on the judicial system. David said that he would like to see more hands-on classroom activities like Mock Trial and to look more closely at an adopt a classroom (like the Pipeline Project) program. There should be an emphasis on both student and teacher education. Jim echoed what David and others said, but he also sees a need to snag teachers in their own educational process. Bob interjected to bring up the "methods" class that teachers have to take. Jennifer said this was happening, but that the Bar could make it a package deal. Perhaps MNSCE and the Private College Council could be involved too. Eldon raised the need to identify the current standards in place.

b. What does the Committee Want to Do? Jennifer brought up that all standards come up for revision at some point and that the Bar needs to be poised for action when the social studies standards are up so the Committee should monitor these standards as we move forward. The Bar could assist teachers in implementing programs and would need to start by identifying what the existing terms really mean. Bob said that we need to put this work in context and perhaps reach beyond the social studies classroom. David agreed with the idea of not limiting the Committee to work solely within the classroom and talked about promoting citizenship. He mentioned using Law Day, Constitution Day, Presidents' Day, and the 4th of July as clear possibilities for doing so. He brought up the election statistics and said that the Committee's charge goes beyond just the classroom. He suggested that the MSBA President could use his bully pulpit to further the issue. He also suggested using scenarios that "bring it home." Eldon brought up the need to build a coalition. Jennifer mentioned that citizenship is frequently viewed more narrowly by the social studies and education fields. Melissa countered that this is the opposite within the emerging field of civic engagement. David says that either way we need to motivate citizens. The group seemed to agree that the ultimate goal was to have a more educated and engaged citizenry. To that end Jennifer suggested that we need to present recommendations that will apply beyond definitions. Eldon talked about a conversation he had with the Executive Director of Citizens League about Map 150, a MN survey about attitutdes toward government and public policy. The Director said the survey indicated that there is a lot of confusion regarding governmental functions and that citizens perceive government officials/resources as distant and unavailable. Melissa asked if the current office holders were identified in the phone book blue pages and was told that they are not.

c. Coalition Building. Eldon said that we need to get in touch with state officials and school administrators to make this a top-down priority. Bob said that this is a big area and that we can't do it alone so we need to focus on two things. The first is facilitating the creation of a coalition and the second is to delineate the Bar's role. Jennifer suggested that the Bar could serve as a sort of speakers' bureau. Bob referred to the statistics he brought in on election coverage when pointing out that we need to bring the media into whatever we do and the Bar can have influence on this. Eldon will send around the voting and other editorials highlighting what's been said (submitted but not published) on behalf of the Bar.

IV. Arizona Surveys (Eldon): The real question is whether it is worthwhile for us to pursue doing some survey work in Minnesota. The state organizations apparently tried to do this in the past, but there was a very low response level and it was biased given the likelihood of groups self-selecting. Melissa commented that she really liked the student survey given the potential to identify how students are accessing information and the best ways to appeal to them. Jennifer mentioned that the student survey would be difficult given the length (in the context of limited class time). Others had concerns about how some of the controversial topics (like attitudes on "moral" issues) could be asked in a survey. Eldon mentioned that we could adapt the survey to make it a better fit for our purposes. Jennifer and Bob both emphasized the need to do a survey scientifically. Jennifer also pointed out that we need to have a clear idea of what we hope to get out of doing a survey given the costs associated with conducting one. The main purposes indicated were: 1) to lend credibility to any public policy efforts; 2) to let supervisors and citizens know that there really is a problem in their districts; 3) the gauge student access and motivation. Jennifer suggested that this might work better with a personalized approach. For example, attorneys with children in school could take the survey to the school. The challenge here would be preserving scientific method standards. David cautioned that this may be a challenge given limited energy and time. The possibility of a middle ground where perhaps the Bar and graduate or law students could conduct a survey was raised. Bob stressed that we should aim for a stratified random sample and perhaps do a phone survey. The Committee needs to find out about what the value has been in other states and how their results have influenced policy makers, if at all.

V. Florida (Jennifer): The program in Florida, the Law Related Education Association, is not a Bar program. It was started in 1984 and is an independent nonprofit organization. Similar to Texas, it has the We the People programs. It also supports Kids Vote. Other programs include a teacher in-service with the court system, an international teacher exchange program, and works with a national civics group. They also have a competitive moot court program, law-based magnet schools, and a law honor society. It's less of a coalition than some of the other programs we've looked at thus far. They receive approximately $215,000 from the Bar annually out of a total budget of roughly $900,000. Much of the remaining budget is for and comes from the international teacher exchange program. They have four regular staff members and also rely on consultants. The rumor mill is that the CIRCLE and other grants are not stable funding sources so they need the commitment of other partners to donate money or in-kind items.

VI. North Carolina (Eldon): NC did a survey and using the results created a civic index report. They found that less than 10% of NC youth can name their senators. There is an income gap on the question of whether one trusts the government with higher income respondents answering more positively. NC has a very low voter turnout with only 50% of eligible voters participating in the 2004 election. The report includes recommendations.

Establishing a coalition again seems to be a good idea, suggested Eldon. We don't have CIRCLE money, but we do have the ability to (as the Bar) host a summit of interested parties who may wish to become coalition partners. The Committee will have to deal with the perception that MSBA has a lot of money to get partners to contribute. Funding could potentially come from law firms who wish to participate as well.

VII. California (Eldon): There are a wide variety of coalition members in California including government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and schools. The Bar is less involved there. They have three main prongs of work: 1) best practices for schools; 2) communications for the larger community; and 3) public policy advocacy. They work with agencies to promote civic education and identify resources for schools and the larger community. They relied heavily on the CIRCLE recommendations and are an active group.

The definition of civic engagement came up again related to what goals we are actually trying to achieve. There seemed to be consensus that the Committee hopes to lessen the costs and burdens while improving the efficiency and effectiveness of civic education. The Committee should also look at the question of how we get better population representation in voting.

VIII. Next Steps: David suggested that we get to work on coalition building before the first of the year and that we could potentially base it on the NC plan. He said we need to jump in and go. Jim suggested the possibility of creating a periodic newsletter that would be shared among the groups involved in the (potential) coalition to identify gaps and overlap.

IX. Election Statistics (David): David pointed out that we can see voting declining since the 1950s and this creates concern. Jennifer brought up that in spite of this MN still has one of the highest voter turnout rates in the country so we have to be prepared to respond to that argument if the Committee or Bar suggest there is a problem with civic engagement in MN. Melissa brought up the possibility of involving the Secretary of State's office. Jennifer seemed to think that may not get us very far, but it might be something to revisit following the election.

a. Eldon will send around the voting editorial and other relevant articles intended to be published on behalf of the Bar.
b. Melissa will add numerous organizations to the list of potential coalition partners and will research groups that might be more traditionally conservative to reduce the appearance of potential bias. She will then send the list to Jennifer who will review it. Following that it will be distributed to the larger Committee.
c. Eldon will speak with Jeff Schrade about the impact of the AZ surveys and what lessons have been learned.
d. Eldon will get a copy of the NC index report.
e. Eldon and Jennifer will be the Congressional Conference on Civic Education, November 18-20.
f. David, Bob, Jennifer, and Eldon will form a committee subgroup to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of doing a survey in MN.

XI. Topics for Upcoming Meetings:
a. Okalahoma (Jim) - 11/14
b. Conference Review (Eldon & Jennifer) - 11/28
c. Purpose Statement for MSBA (Eldon & Melissa) - 11/14
d. Review of survey investigation (Bob, David, Jennifer, & Eldon) - 11/28
e. Set winter meeting schedule (11/28) - please have available dates for January and February with you.
f. If you have additional topics you want to be sure are covered at the upcoming meetings (11/14, 11/28, 12/12) please let me know ASAP.

Next Meeting: Tuesday, November 14th from 11:30 - 1:00 at St. Thomas. We will have pizza and soda for lunch that day (with a salad for Jim) - please let me know if you have any special dietary needs by November 2nd. The meeting will be held at Opus Hall, University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis Campus, Room 330 (http://www.stthomas.edu/campusmaps/mpls/ust_parkingb&w.pdf). Parking information will be included with the agenda for the next meeting, which will be sent on Tuesday, November 14th.

Members present: Eldon Kaul, James Gunn (by phone), Cindy Lavorato (by phone), David Moody (by phone), Emily Reilly (MSBA staff), Melissa Roberts (MSBA staff)

I. Minutes from the September 5 and September 20 meetings were approved. They were posted on the Committee web site October 9. Minutes from the October 5 meeting will be presented and approved at the Committee's next meeting, Tuesday, October 24 from 11:30 - 1:00.

II. Texas Civic Ed Program Discussion (led by Jim): Jim spoke with the Director of Law Related Education (LRE) Programs, Jan Miller, about the Texas initiatives and summarized their discussion for the group. The organization is separate from the State Bar. However, the group has an extensive affiliation with the We the People and Project Citizen groups within the State Bar. There is no formal consortium or coalition, but rather occasional contact among programs. One of the program's strongest assets seems to be its web site. There are links on the site that connect users to games about civics and law, which can also be downloaded and played offline and also include multi-user features. It is free to download the programs. The copyright for many of these programs is held by White Board Labs based in Houston. Jim mentioned trying a game about jury selection that was fun. Ms. Miller indicated that they work with several organizations, are easy to work with, and could likely tweak the Texas programs to make them more applicable to Minnesota without much difficulty. The question of cost was raised and at this time the cost is not known, but Jim had the impression that it would not be very expensive in spite of some potential licensing issues. Law Focused Education, Inc. is closely connected to the Law Related Education program, but they are separate entities. Sumners, a Texas-based grant-making organization, is one of the primary financial supporters of the program. Most of the funding does come from their State Bar though with occasional funding through nonprofit grants. The Bar gives approximately $260,000 to the program to cover staffing, workshops, and small conference fees. The program has four full-time staff members.

Ms. Miller's group runs several programs. They offer teacher trainings of three to six hours each to instructors at the elementary through high school levels. They also have a Pipeline Project for attorneys in which attorneys sign up for a two-year commitment of four lessons per year in an adopted fourth or fifth grade classroom. Lesson plans are available for both teachers and attorneys; the plans focus on both national and Texas-specific legal issues. Currently approximately 200 attorneys are involved with the program and the number of schools involved is not known. It was noted that the attorneys are frequently paired with schools where their own children attend. The Committee will receive a PDF of lessons in the next few weeks that we can take and use (they are viewed through the Publisher program). Jim has not yet received this, but is following up again with Jan Miller to ask that it be sent to us. They are also trying a program called All Rise for junior and senior high school levels with judges, but this program is in its infancy and limited information was available.

There are two major events related to civic education in Texas. There is an annual LRE conference over two days designed for teachers and attorneys. The conference includes a keynote speaker and breakout sessions. This year's speakers are the TX Attorney General and a historian from WI who will speak about the founding fathers. The Texas Young Lawyers also operate within this group as an independent committee whose prime project is creating a library of videos available to schools. The LRE also works with the Bill of Rights Institute and takes part in the TX Citizen Bee. This is a high school competition about civics. Jan Miller suggested that we contact Victoria Hughes of the Bill of Rights Institute (www.billofrightsinstitute.org) if we are interested; there is also a for-profit branch, Bill of Rights, Inc. that sells law-related curriculum. Jan believes that the Bill of Rights Institute is interested in taking the Citizen Bee national, but is testing it in Texas first. There was a question about whether the Close Up Washington program still exists. Ms. Miller's number one piece of advice was to get a good web designer. They are really emphasizing replacing paper and have found that more people participate online than by any other means.

III. General Discussion Raised: It was mentioned that there is no formal relationship with the Department of Education. There is the possibility of looking to the National Crime Prevention Council for mini-grants. Street Justice is a likely partner. Again, these are not formal relationships, but are instead cooperative partnerships. There has been a reduction in subject areas like the social sciences given the current pressures related to testing. It was also brought up that Oklahoma has an entirely Bar-funded LRE, which Jim has agreed to research.

IV. Arizona Civic Ed Program Discussion (led by Eldon): Eldon spoke with Jeff Schrade of the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services and Education (AZFLSE). This organization is separate from the Bar, but they are closely related. Board members are mostly attorneys from the AZ State Bar. It was noted that AZ has mandatory Bar membership, which makes the Bar a more regulatory group than simply being a professional association. The group has a $1 million budget, which started as the Bar Foundation and evolved into the AZFLSE. The budget is comprised of $200,000 from the Lawyers Trust Account and the remaining portion comes from grants. They have six full-time employees. Minimal evaluation of the program has been initiated concerning evaluations of the training programs, but not the educational effectiveness or impact on children. It seems AZ may have stronger social studies standards. They were also part of forming the AZ Civics Coalition and are one of 18 states that received initial funding for this work. They relied heavily on the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools' report, which can likely serve as a roadmap for potential MN civic education programs.

AZFLSE has numerous civic education programs. They include the high school Mock Trial program, We the People - the Citizen and the Constitution, We the People -- Project Citizen, and some unique programs. INVEST in Children and Families targets children in preschool through fifth grade for learning about their rights and responsibilities under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as conflict management skills and tolerance. AZFLSE has a resource library that houses the State's largest lending library of resources on democracy, including books, videos, and lesson plans that can be accessed by any educator, educational institution, or attorney in Arizona. AZFLSE provides a law-related education academy that provides instruction to school administrators and teachers that is research-based and proven effective. The AZFLSE hosts a Law for Kids web site dedicated to teaching children about the law. It receives about one million hits per month from children worldwide. Lastly, the AZFLSE formed a Community Works Expansion Center that combines education and action through a classroom curriculum and textbook, community service projects, and other interactive educational activities. AZFLSE has developed a partnership with Street Law, Inc. and the National Crime Prevention Council for full implementation of the Community Works program in Arizona schools.

V. General Discussion Raised: One of the interesting points learned from Arizona is AZFLSE's role in forming the Arizona Civics Coalition. Eldon sent an e-mail to the Campaign and is waiting to hear back. He mentioned that FL has a coalition, NY has a consortium, and IL may also be a research resource for forming a civic education coalition. Jennifer suggested looking into CA as an example of how to mobilize resources. She will give us the name of a resource there soon and also mentioned that the success was largely tied to the receipt of grant funds. The AZ Coalition successfully supported legislation that created a Civic Education and Engagement Commission. The Coalition is presently conducting a civic education survey of students and schools. Once the data from the survey is compiled it will be used to produce a Civic Index Report. Committee members raised questions about what types of questions are asked in the surveys. Copies of the questionnaires will be available at the next meeting. The Arizona Coalition also provides some grants and teaching awards for exemplary civic education programs and activities. Mike Foster, who heads social studies at the MN Dept. of Education, is not available for at least a couple of months. The Committee would like to explore the possibility of getting the Department to endorse or help sponsor civic education in our schools. This potential support is felt to be necessary to lend credibility to civic education efforts that may be adopted or promoted by the MSBA.

VI. Internal Survey Capabilities (led by Emily): The MSBA has the internal capacity to conduct surveys and the method used is similar to other online survey tools such as Boomerang or Survey Monkey. The Committee would simply need to get the questions together. The results would be automatically tallied.

VII. Review of Civic Ed Surveys (led by David M.): In 1998 the nation's only ongoing survey of student achievement, known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), was conducted regarding civics by the U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment Governing Board. It was administered by the National Center for Education Statistics; the report was issued in November 1999 entitled The NAEP 1998 Civics Report Card for the Nation. The survey is conducted every ten years. The 1998 survey was administered to 4th, 8th, and 12th graders who achieved scores of 69, 70, and 65 percent respectively on questions addressing the most basic understanding of civics. It was a serious concern that only 23, 24, and 25% respectively of the student were found to be "proficient," and an alarmingly small group was found to be "advanced," 2, 2, 4%, respectively.

The Civic Mission of Schools (2003) p. 12, issued by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement stated, "Confidence that government officials listen to "people like me" has eroded over the past half-century, especially among young people (ages 18 to 25), who used to be more confident in the government than their elders." Voting rates are poor. In only 12 of the last 28 state elections have the percentage of voters exceeded two-thirds. Yet, Minnesota is a national leader in voter turnout.

There are few empirical studies specifically addressing the need for civic education in schools and in the community. The recent Zogby International Poll referenced by Doug Grow in his August 15, 2006 column "shows that Americans know a lot more about Homer Simpson's household than about the House of Respresentatives." Mr. Grow observed, "Seventy-three percent of Americans named the [Three] Stooges; just 42 percent could name the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government." Patrick J. Kelly wrote in Bench & Bar of Minnesota that a July 2005 Harris Interactive opinion poll, commissioned by the ABA, revealed that 40 percent of the respondents could not correctly identify the three branches of government and 44 percent could not correctly identify the core functions of the judicial branch. Anecdotal evidence supports the trend; emphasis on civic education has declined in importance with the rise of No Child Left Behind.

David predicted that a survey will likely tell us what we already know informally. There are no Minnesota-specific survey results available currently. David emphasized that the work of civic education needs to be an ongoing project for the bar association.

Discussion followed. Eldon remarked that surveys are useful in garnering support from the bar as a whole and from other groups, such as the state legislature. David indicated that Indiana is designing a survey with Indiana University to measure the effectiveness of the IN Civic Education initiative (funded through the Indiana Bar). He added that the Indiana Bar hosts competitive and non-competitive programs in schools that include a three-day conference for students at the competitive level. Like TX, the Indiana program teaches elementary, middle, and high school students with local attorneys participating pro bono in four sessions per year over a two-year commitment. Another observed that an alliance of interested individuals and groups could help bring money and expertise to both the "top" and to the street levels.

Regarding the creation of a MN survey most people agreed that the data would be useful for legislative purposes. If we decide to go ahead two surveys would ideally be created: one to measure student knowledge and the other to gather school policies about civic education. There is no required civics test in MN and there would be hesitation to introduce one given the increased testing resulting from NCLB. Unfortunately even some teachers have misconceptions about civics, so teacher education also would need to be addressed.

VIII. Discussion of Committee's Progress to Date: This was the fourth meeting of the Committee. Melissa Roberts is the new staff liaison. We will need to report back with a proposal in time for the June MSBA convention. We are charged with making recommendations at this point, but can experiment and move forward as well. It was recognized that it may take two to three years to really get a program off the ground. Cindy identified that there seem to be three strands: schools, the general population, and policy. The other states discussed so far tend to be more focused on the first strand. David M. suggested starting small with schools and possibly lobbying. Eldon concurred, but feels that policy cannot be ignored. Jennifer also believes policy and schools should be the focus. She also mentioned that the ABA has a public piece that may be worth further investigating. Jim agreed with the others about priorities.

IX. Activities: Eldon has asked that all Committee members read the Civic Mission of Schools report prior to the next meeting, as well as to further consider the priority of those three strands. Eldon will follow up on the AZ and CA coalitions. Jim will look at OK. Cindy will look at IL. Jennifer will look at FL. One of the key themes is identifying whether the Bar could act as a leader and coordinator of other civic education organizations. Jennifer asked if we wanted to join a proposal she was working on through CRF Chicago and the Youth for Justice Initiative. Everyone agreed to this under the stipulation that we could withdraw if it was deemed to be outside our current scope of work. Melissa will work on compiling the information on the states that have been discussed so far and will also send Jennifer a list of the area agencies working on civic education issues. Once she makes some additions Melissa will update the list and send it out to all members.

X. Next Meeting: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 at 11:30 a.m. An agenda will be sent. Please RSVP.

Members present: Don Willeke, Bob Brown, Cindy Lavorato (via telephone), Eldon Kaul, Emily Reilly, Jim Gunn (via telephone)

Guests: Amy Bergquist, Heather Rastorfer Vlieger, Eileen Gerrish (NYSBA, via telephone)

I. Minutes from the Sept. 5 meeting will be presented and approved at the committee's next meeting on October 5, 2006.

II. Comments on the new MSBA volunteer reimbursement policy are due on Sept. 30 to Emily.

III. Mr. Kaul has been invited to participate in the Fourth Annual Congressional Conference on Civic Education to be held November 18-20 in Washington, D.C. This conference is intended to spark proactive movements to restore the civic mission of schools in each state. It is the fourth of five planned annual conferences designed to focus public attention on the state of civic education in America.

IV. Eileen Gerrish from the New York State Bar Association joined the meeting via teleconference to share with the committee information about the NYSBA civic education programs. Committee members asked questions about the program throughout the dialogue. Historical information: The program is 30 years old and the NYSBA has a very close relationship with the New York State Department of Education and the Law, Youth and Citizenship Program actually has their office in the department of education building. The NYSBA acts as a stand alone organization and serves as a leader in the civic education community in NY. The program is run on funding from grants and also from direct funding from the NYSBA. One grant that is received is from the Center for Civic Education (this is federal funding); this grant is received and then they dispense it through the form of grants to other organizations. The program budget is $600,000 (including salaries for three staff people). Some programs: "We the People: Project Citizen and We the People: the Citizen & the Constitution, mock trial, and summer institutes that provide professional development for teachers and others. NYSBA members are involved as volunteers, committee members and sub-committee members for the different programs. NYSBA has partnerships with several groups some are: Civic Mission of Schools, PATCH, Youth for Justice and Street Law. What does the NYSBA (and other civic ed orgs in NY) do to synergize the civic education efforts? Try to streamline programs and not compete with each other, however this does not always happen. The State Ed. Dept. does bring some organizations together through the state testing standards. Standardized testing plays a large role in what civic education organizations do in NY. NYSBA focuses on getting resources to teachers and getting them into the classroom. Their connection with the State Dept. of Ed. gives them a foot in the door to the schools. Interestingly, they have no liaison from the Dept. of Education on the NYSBA committee. The NYSBA helps provide the teachers with resources by sending them [Is it by sending materials or teachers?] to seminars across the country. The NYSBA does not really lobby the state education department with regard to the civic education curriculum. NY has had state standards ("Civics, Citizenship & Gov't") regarding civic education in place for a long time. School textbook publications regarding civic education are geared toward state standards. Some schools provide a ½ year course about how to be a citizen. Research has been conducted and has shown that the ½ year course produces active citizens. Currently, the Center for Civic Education is doing a study on NY to determine the effect of their civic education programs in schools. The NYSBA conducts a lot of follow-up evaluations. Even though they have been successful, civic education is taking a back seat to other subjects. The NYSBA has had good cooperation with academic institutions around the state. Most of the NYSBA efforts focus on grades K-12. The NYSBA has a good collaborative relationship with the New York School Board Association and a good relationship with the Principals Association. The NYSBA Law, Youth and Citizenship committee provides awards for the community: leading attorney in civic education, leading teacher in civic education and also gives mini-grants to organizations around NY to do some civic education work. The NY state standards dictate what "civic education" means to groups doing civic education work. There is no central organizing group but there is a large network of groups all working on civic education. NYSBA website provides links of other organizations that are doing civic education.
V. Heather Rastorfer Vlieger, MN Justice Foundation, Street Law Program: The Street Law program administered by the MN Justice Foundation is a program designed to be a practical legal program for high school students. The curriculum is taught by volunteer law students. 60-80 law student volunteers are trained each year and 20-30 sites/year are served. MN Justice Foundation receives its funding from participating law schools, LSAC, LTAB and private bar donations. The program targets Twin Cities schools and some suburban schools. The program is particularly successful when the material being taught is related to the curriculum. The trained students are paired with a class and have semester long commitments. Debates, mock trials and other interactive strategies are employed to teach the curriculum. Volunteers are evaluated by: the student director, site visits are conducted, lesson plans are reviewed and communications with teachers. Participation in the program has increased and the program has expanded into main stream public schools instead of just the magnet/charter schools. The program serves about 500 youths per year. Because of Street Law's limited resources, they are not always able to teach where they are requested, their resources limit them to 60-80 trainees. Student progress is evaluated weekly by volunteer teachers in tests and feedback. The Street Law program doesn't necessarily reflect the state standards for civic education. Lesson plans for the program are available online to law student teachers. Benefits that the law students receive include client relation skills, working with youths and teaching the things that law students are learning gives them an opportunity to summarize what they are learning. Law schools don't have volunteer requirements, but they've adopted the suggested legal ethics 50 hours of pro bono work. MJF & MSBA members: practicing attorneys train the student volunteers and are needed to look at the substantive outlines to ensure that laws are up-to-date. Attorneys could also serve as guest speakers in classrooms, serve as a resource for law student volunteers, act as judges for mini-mock trials which are sometimes held at the law schools. The Georgetown chapter is the original Street Law program and its chapter has a formal relationship with attorneys, each volunteer is paired up with an attorney.
VI. Iowa State Bar programs: IA Council for the Social Studies co-sponsors with the ISB workshops for teachers about civic education. ISB works in conjunction with the IA Secretary of State to hold a mock caucus and mock elections. IA law schools are utilized for their constitutional law program to teach high school students about constitutional law. The IA judicial system uses a fiber-optic link which connects them to all schools in IA for programs that teach students about the judiciary. "Know your Constitution" is a program in which students learn about the constitution and it culminates with a competition and trip to Washington, DC for the winning team. This is a program that the ISB partners with the governor and secretary of state's office, those two offices provide job shadowing opportunities for a small number of students. Law day programs are usually sponsored by district bar associations. The ISB gets its funding to administer civic education programs through the bar association, bar foundation, National Youth for Justice Programs and the Department of Justice. Another program administered by the ISB is the "Iowa American Citizenship Program": faculty in schools nominate students for civic involvement and have winners on a plaque in their school. Half of the ISB civic education program budget goes to "Know your Constitution", which holds a luncheon for teachers and students and a trip to D.C. Ideas that the MSBA might adopt: "American Citizenship" program, a partnership could be formed with governor and secretary of state's office. The MSBA might serve as a resource for district bar associations for law day programs.
VII. Next meeting: October 5, 2006 at 11:30 a.m.

Members present: Bob Brown, Cindy Lavorato, Eldon Kaul, David Schultz, David Moody (via telephone), Donald Willeke, Jim Gunn (via telephone), Emily Reilly

I. Approval of August 10, 2006 minutes.
II. MSBA Volunteer reimbursement policy, Committee Chair called for any comments on the new policy. Committee feedback: a good policy for those in greater Minnesota to assist in attending metropolitan located bar-related functions. Committee members are asked to provide any further feedback to Emily by September 30, 2006; she will then pass along feedback to Lisa Montpetit Brabbbit.
III. Constitution Day activities: committee members suggest that President Kelly write a letter to the editor to remind the public of Constitution Day on Sept. 17 and its importance.
IV. President's Column in Bench & Bar: this column really puts forth the committee's charge and gives it good exposure to the MSBA membership
V. Jennifer Bloom, MN Center for Community Legal Education, Learning Law & Democracy Foundation: Ms. Bloom gave the committee a historical perspective on law-related education and how it has developed in Minnesota. Several centers for law-related education have developed around the country and mostly, the funding for law-related education does not come from the government. The "Youth for Justice" program is one federally-funded initiative, which is a collaboration between: the ABA Division for Public Education; the Center for Civic Education; Constitutional Right Foundation; Phi Alpha Delta Public Service Center and Street Law, Inc. Attention to civic education in our country is on the decline and increasing in other countries around the world. There is an increase in K-6 civic ed, but then not in the higher grades. The test standards are increasingly dictated what the curriculum is in schools. Students can't talk about civics, which affects how they have conversations/debates in schools…civic education fosters an appreciation of differing opinions. There is a strong push on "character education", which aims to teach respect for others. Ms. Bloom lobbied the legislature when the educational standards were being established in MN. There are some civics education standards here in MN. Ms. Bloom's organization, Learning Democracy and Law Foundation, works to train teachers how to teach civics because there is not good teacher education for civics. The Minnesota legislature could alter the educational standards; teacher certification standards determine what they know. Currently, there are a whole array of bar programming options around the contry and various levels of bar-related support. State governments are mostly focused on testing standards and not really on program development. Ms. Bloom suggests the MSBA is in a good position to exercise leadership in promoting civic education by calling for something to happen and urging school administrators to focus on the lack of civic ed. She points out that no one is really focusing on civic education policy development and everyone is focusing on programming. Two popular programs are: "We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution" and "We the People: Project Citizen". The program regarding the constitution has a textbook directly correlated with Federal standards and culminates with a competition between high schools that allows students to demonstrate their knowledge of the constitutional issues. The Project Citizen also includes a competition through which participants identify an issue they are concerned with and prepare an activism plan for that issue for presentation before a local governmental body or legislature. It is co-sponsored by the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Center for Civic Education. See http://www.civiced.org/ for more information. Street Law, Inc. was started by Georgetown Law School students and is a national program. The MN Justice Foundation also has a Street Law program is a volunteer program in which the volunteers teach a specific area of law in schools in MN.

VI. Committee Reaction/Discussion: Recognition should be given to teachers doing a good job teaching civics. The MSBA could start an ad campaign to pressure leaders to change their focus to civic education and urge the MN City and County Administrators to do education about civics. The lack of successful civic education seems, in part, to be a result of teachers already having overflowing plates and not actually being prepared to teach civics. Can the MSBA push the policy and be non-partisan? (and be viewed as being non-partisan) What is our definition of civics education? What kind of criteria do we have? What does citizen involvement really mean? What version of stories do we tell when we teach civics education? From what perspective are we speaking? How have other bar associations handled civic education and the challenge to be non-partisan in their activities?

VII. Iowa Programs: The law-related education department at the Iowa State Bar Association has several programs they include: "Know your constitution"; "Trial by Jury"; Law Day activities; "On Your Own" (a booklet describing a citizens rights/laws affecting young people); "We the Jury"; "Rights at the Schoolhouse gate" (students rights with in schools); Presentations to schools about kids rights which are broadcast statewide on closed circuit television; the State Judiciary broadcasts select arguments on closed circuit television; workshops for teachers and providing lesson plans for teachers. The committee thought that some of these programs need further review for possible adoption by the MSBA.

VIII. Committee Reaction/Discussion: The committee discussed advancing civic education policy advocacy instead of developing another program. It seems that there is a need for civic education organizations to have leadership and a centralized coordination of efforts; could the MSBA fill that role? Nationally, there is the Congressional Conference on Civics, which serves as a coalition of organizations.

IX. Next meeting: September 20, 2006 12:00-1:30, will be held at MSBA offices. An attempt will be made to have the NYSBA Director for Law, Youth and Citizenship hooked into the meeting by conference call. The chair plans to invite a Minnesota Street Law representative to attend. There will additional discussion of Iowa's programs.

Members Present at meeting: Eldon Kaul (Chair), Bob Brown, Jim Gunn, David Schultz, David Moody (via telephone), Emily Reilly (MSBA Staff)

III. Current programming: Bob Brown and Rich Rosivach gave a snapshot of civic education in MN and touched briefly on what the committee and MSBA members might do to help in those efforts. Bob: would support a coordination of all civic education efforts, sees problems with inconsistent social studies instruction from district to district and with teacher qualification and supports involving the media in civic education efforts, gain support from MN Social Studies Council. Rich: “Kids Voting” initiative has been successful in his school, teacher quality and Elementary teacher qualifications are of great concern to him, and he has seen the effects of the narrowing of the curriculum (i.e. where curriculum’s are dictated by what is measured on standardized tests), school board focus dictates a school’s curriculum, MN state standards now include some civic education in the social studies standards. School curriculums are dictated by test scores. Rich suggests doing some training for school boards and administrators would allow civic education to get into the curriculum under the direction of the school administrators.

IV. Program ideas: How can the MSBA actually be involved in the civic education effort? Develop a speaker’s bureau of MSBA members; gain program support from school principals and administrators; provide training for lawyers to speak in schools; present workshops to schools during the first week of school; present workshop to administrators at their annual meetings;

V. What focus would committee members like to see: working with the media to provide informational sources about a lawyer’s perspective, gather survey results about what students/citizens know, be active in Constitution Day, look at other state bar programming (e.g.. Iowa, New York), provide speakers for schools, raise the profile of civic education, writing op-ed pieces about separation of powers/civic education and focus on two selected schools for first project(s).

VI. Committee’s next meeting will be on: September 5, 2006 11:30-1:00, MSBA Offices.

MSBA Civic Education Committee Meeting Summary February 21, 2008 - 11:45 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. Dorsey and Whitney

MSBA Civic Education Committee
Meeting Summary
February 21, 2008 - 11:45 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Dorsey and Whitney