MSBA Task Force on Diversity in the Profession
Steering Committee
Meeting Summary 2-13-06
Members present: Mike Tracy, Bernice Fields, Leslie
Altman, Kathleen Sanberg, Wood Foster
MSBA Staff: Nancy Mischel, Sharon Elmore
Mike Tracy requested agenda items for the full Task
Force meeting this Wednesday, February 15th. Items suggested included
(1) updates from each subcommittee; (2) depending on logistics and
staff schedule, possibly a short demonstration of the employer survey
electronic format; (3) a call for help from task force members in
recruiting participants for the focus groups; and (4) a call for help
getting court reporters to volunteer to report a group.
Kathleen Sanberg reported on progress in getting the
employer survey into electronic format, including success in working
out some potential glitches mentioned in the last meeting. They can
now make the online survey work to allow people to begin completing
it, close it, and come back to it, without loosing data already entered.
The subcommittee expects to give the survey a test run soon, to make
sure it works smoothly.
Sharon Elmore answered some questions about the status
of the focus group subcommittee. There is a need for help recruiting
volunteer court reporters, although we are also currently negotiating
with Paradigm Reporting. It appears they will likely report 8 sessions
for free, with no requirement for advertisement in the group. Instead
some exposure will likely be exchanged, such as an ad in Bench &
Bar, or something else. Elmore will discuss with Tim Groshens and
then with Paradigm again. Also there is a need to get the word out
to recruit participants. We had a notice in MSBA's Legal News Digest,
and we will continue to post it there. We will also have a notice
in Minnesota Lawyer, but not until February 20th. We hope to get task
force members to send an email to their organizations encouraging
people to participate. The contact person for interested people is
Tram Thai at the MSBA, tthai@mnbar.org or 612-278-6316. The concern
was also raised that we may not get enough female participants for
some of the groups occurring in the evening and on Saturdays, and
we will have to monitor that, and adjust timing, if necessary. (The
"MWLplus" groups will occur during the day at St. Thomas.)
Elmore also described the discussion of the subcommittee
about their concerns related to trying to conduct a focus group covering
the issues of religion/creed and diversity in the workplace. The discussion
included concerns that it would be problematic putting together small
numbers of people from numerous religions, and asking them to talk
about their issues with discrimination based on their religion, instead
of having groups comprised of people with the same religion, which
is just not practical to do. Some felt that there were many people
who would indicate that there are no issues of discrimination based
on religion, at least not for lawyers from the mainstream religions
(Jewish and Christian lawyers), but others pointed out how, indeed,
there are issues, such as concerns about taking off work for religious
holidays. It was agreed, however, that issues of religious tolerance
and diversity around religion were critical issues of our time, locally,
regionally and internationally. Hence the subcommittee decided instead
of conducting a focus group focused on religion, that a question about
religion should be added to every focus group, included in the script.
The Steering Committee respectfully disagreed with the
Subcommittee's conclusion. They all agreed that the task of the focus
group subcommittee was overwhelming, and they were very appreciative
of the wonderful hard work and time commitment of the focus group
Co-Chairs and all the members. But they felt that adding a question
to each group discussion would needlessly distract from the subject
of each group, and that religion was such an important issue that
there should be a group devoted to it. They also felt that the participants
could discuss whether they had experienced any discrimination in the
workplace based on their religion, and rise above differences based
on the different religions present. It was felt that such a discussion
could provide meaningful information from that perspective. It was
felt that we could recruit Jewish and Christian participants fairly
easily, perhaps Muslim as well. There was some discussion about whether
we could recruit any others, such as Hindu or Buddhist attorneys,
and then the question of sensitivity to the fact that some issues
may be seen as issues related to religion and/or to ethnicity.
There was a brief question about the Individual Survey
Subcommittee, but no-one on the call could provide an update, so that
update was tabled.
The meeting was adjourned. The next meeting of the Steering
Committee is listed on the web site as March 8th at noon at the MSBA.
This date and time is subject to change.
Notes provided by Sharon Elmore, Interim Diversity Task
Force Project Manager.
MSBA Task Force on Diversity in the Profession
Steering Committee
Meeting Summary 02-03-06
Members present: Mike Tracy, Leslie Altman, Kathleen
Sanberg, Wood Foster.
MSBA Staff: Nancy Mischel, Sharon Elmore
Tracy provided an update from the Focus Group Subcommittee
meeting he had attended the day before. He brought a few questions
the Subcommittee had posed for the Steering Committee.
The Focus Group Subcommittee is working very hard to
pull together and conduct numerous focus groups addressing the various
categories of diversity: gender, sexual orientation, race, disabilities
and religion/creed. The Subcommittee is relying heavily on the help
of the Minority Bar Associations to help recruit participants and
perhaps provide volunteer facilitators, given the fact that these
focus group sessions must occur within the next few weeks. There is
concern that there are insufficient resources to guarantee that the
Subcommittee can successfully manage the logistics to conduct a group
focused on disabilities and one on religion/creed, since there are
no groups, such as the Minority Bar Associations, to whom the Subcommittee
can turn to help substantially with the recruitment and logistics.
Members present indicated that they feel strongly that the Task Force
should include focus groups related to these categories, if at all
possible, and perhaps even if those groups' sessions had to be conducted
past the timeline for the others.
Tracy offered to talk with Joan Bibelhausen, and the
members present brainstormed some contacts for Elmore to explore regarding
the religion/creed issue. (Joyce Lahr at the U of MN Law School, Jewish
Lawyer Group: Josh Hasko, Christian Lawyers Group: Roger Magnuson
at Dorsey and Lisa Schiltz at St. Thomas.) There was some discussion
that we should at least make an effort to explore the possibilities
here, and look into other groups, if possible, including Muslim, Hindu,
Morman, New Age, etc.
Tracy also shared the Focus Group Subcommittee's request
for guidance as to how the focus group data should be reported. Does
the Steering Committee want the focus to be best practices? Should
it focus on comparing or lining up anecdotes with the statistical
data? How does the Steering Committee want the material presented
or compiled? The answer was that the Committee wants to see what are
the themes present today, in terms of complaints, concerns or issues
related to diversity, and on the flip side, what things are working
now, essentially best practices. There is also a need for stories
that may help flesh out the statistical data. The Focus Group Subcommittee
does not need to have the statistical data available, however. There
is no expectation that the Focus Group Subcommittee will compare the
qualitative with the quantitative results. Instead, the Focus Group
Subcommittee should consider the survey questions from the statistical
surveys, and look for qualitative data that may help further the understanding
of the answers to those questions. (In one of the previous reports,
the focus groups were held to help enlighten the analysts about what
the statistics meant.) Plus there should be some focus on what works.
The Steering Committee briefly discussed the questions
developed by the Focus Group Subcommittee. There was a concern that
the questions seemed designed to solicit negative feedback, and that
it would be best to try and take a more positive approach. It was
also agreed that it is vital for facilitators to keep the discussion
on track for information that is current, or very recent, and not
focused on stories of things that happened 5, 10 or 20 years ago,
and that the facilitators must not lead. Elmore explained the planning
for process, including the training scheduled for next week for volunteer
facilitators. Altman and Foster offered to help facilitate. (Foster
cannot make the training next week; Altman did not know yet. Elmore
agreed to follow-up with them.) Sanberg offered to be a note-taker.
The idea that there may be a need to offer childcare for some participants
came up. Sanberg offered to help with childcare during the sessions,
if it becomes necessary.
Tracy also explained the question faced by the Subcommittee
as to how best to capture and record the data at the focus groups.
There is an offer on the table from Paradigm Reporting, to report
the first eight groups for free, and any more at a discount, in return
for several things, including the opportunity to introduce themselves
at each group session for 20 seconds, hand out legal pads and pens
with their logo, and some other concessions related to publicity at
the MSBA, including an ad in Bench & Bar, etc. The Focus Groups
Subcommittee was not of one mind about this issue, and had not resolved
it since it came up towards the end of their meeting. The Steering
Committee discussed the pros and cons of having court reporters present
in the group sessions, including the difficulty of relying on tapes,
given that 8 to 10 people would be talking at once, and the need for
accuracy. It was decided that it would be preferable to have court
reporters in the rooms, but better for various Task Force members
to ask the reporters with whom they work on a regular basis, to volunteer
their time for a session. Altman agreed to send out an email to the
Task Force requesting members to look into this.
Tracy reported that the Bar Convention session on the
Task Force work would take place June 23, from 10:30am to noon. Tracy
and Altman are to introduce the session, which will cover the process
and some information about trends evident from the results. If the
report is done, then the report will be discussed.
Sanberg reported on the progress of the Employer (Statistical)
Survey Subcommittee. When the MSBA staff take the survey text and
put it into electronic form, they will have to tweak some of the questions
a little, as to format, not substance. For instance, if a question
includes a yes or no answer, but then "if yes, then
"
it will require the latter part be created as a separate question.
It will take approximately 2 full business days to complete the electronic
version, but they will allow for a full 10 business days to get the
survey ready, once it is provided to them by the Subcommittee.
Dick Ericson is looking into the issue related to the
Subcommittee's concern that people completing the survey may not be
able to complete it all in one sitting, given the length. Thus it
is preferable that the person can save their work and come back to
it. If this cannot be arranged, then the firms will have to be instructed
to print the survey, fill it out, and then load the answers all at
once. It may be possible to allow people to enter some, save their
work and come back later, perhaps by giving each employer their own
ID and password. The letter is ready to go to the employers, and will
have to be tweaked, depending on this issue. Sanberg expects to hear
by Tuesday, Feb. 7. It was also suggested that once the survey is
done, they could send it ahead, so the people at the firms could begin
to gather the information to enter once the electronic version is
available.
The return date planned is April 1. Reminders will go
out March 15, and perhaps a last call on March 30, offering 2 weeks
to finish.
Confidentiality was discussed briefly. The thought is
that it is more important to have the person's name to follow-up to
make sure the survey comes in, since there is no individual data requested,
as there was last time. Only specific staff at the MSBA will know
the contact information.
There is a question whether the results can be filtered
by small, medium and large employers for cross-tabulation. The MSBA
staff is looking into it.
The meeting was adjourned. The next meeting of the Steering
Committee will be Monday, February 13 at noon via conference call.
Mischel will send out conference call-in information.
MSBA Task Force on Diversity in the Profession
Steering Committee
Meeting Summary 12-06-2005
Members Present: Leslie M. Altman, Michael A. Tracy Co-chairs; Wood
R. Foster Jr., George W. Perez, Kathleen H. Sanberg, Alanna K. Moravetz,
Ann Marie Grocholski MSBA Staff
Following introductions, Alanna Moravetz introduced Ann Marie Grocholski
as the new Project Manager for the Diversity Task Force. Ann Marie will
be responsible for facilitating the completion of the diversity study
which the Task Force is about to embark upon. She will help to establish
the timeline, attend meetings and discussions and will work together
with committees in writing the final report.
Mike Tracy suggested that the goal for the meeting should be to define
the goals of three subcommittees and to create a calendar for carrying
out the research goals of the Task Force. This information is to be
presented to the Task Force at its next meeting on December 14, 2005.
The three sub-committees are as follows: The Sub-Committee for Quantitative
Analysis, The Sub-Committee for Qualitative Analysis in charge of Individual
Surveys, and The Sub-Committee for Qualitative Analysis in charge of
Focus Groups.
A great deal of discussion focused upon the responsibilities of the
Sub-Committee for Quantitative Analysis. This committee will be charged
with updating the SAGE study. This survey aggregates statistics from
employers. It was suggested that the study include minorities in addition
to gender. Kathleen Sanberg said that the Washington State Bar used
the SAGE model, but also included minorities. It was decided that the
sub-committee will be charged with determining how the study will define
the term “minority”. Firms with over 10 employees will be
identified to participate. Approximately 100-125 employers will receive
the survey. The advantages and disadvantages of disseminating the survey
via mail or having it be web-based was then discussed. It was suggested
that a web-based survey would be more cost effective making data collection
and analysis much easier. It was also decided that a letter from MSBA
President Sue Holden is to be sent to all managing partners after January
1 in order to inform them about, and encourage them to participate in
the study.
The sub-committee for Quantitative Analysis will be responsible for: a) Updating SAGE Employer Survey to include minorities in addition
to gender b) Identifying the firms and employers who will receive
the survey. In doing so, the sub-committee must identify the contact
person at each firm. If the original contact person from the SAGE study
is no longer present, employers will be asked to provide a new contact
person. The question whether or not to include corporate legal departments
in the study is to be determined by this sub-committee. The individual
who was contacted during the original SAGE study will be contacted.
Firms will be asked to provide a new contact if the original person
is no longer employed. c) Contacting Firms and Employers d)
Coordinating and monitoring survey distribution, data collection and
analysis with the University of Minnesota.
The Subcommittee for Qualitative Analysis in charge of Individual Surveys
will be responsible for a) Determining what questions will be
included in survey. How to best expand the scope of the study to include
race, religion, sexual orientation and disabilities. b) How to disseminate
the survey, whether via paper or web-based application. Ways to
guarantee the confidentiality of the survey should be addressed by the
sub-committee if using a web-based application. The committee may also
consider coordinating the distribution of the survey with other specialty
bar groups. c) Monitoring the collection and analysis of data collected.
The Sub-committee for Qualitative Analysis in charge of Focus Groups
will be responsible for a) Identifying participants in the focus
groups; b) Coordinating all details of Focus Groups c) Aggregating
information from focus group discussions applicable to the study.
The Steering Committee agreed to appoint co-chairs from the Task Force
to these committees. In addition, 2 liaisons from the Steering Committee
will participate on these sub-committees. George Perez volunteered to
be the liaison to the Focus Group Committee. Kathleen Sanberg volunteered
to be the liaison to the Quantitative Analysis Committee.
A draft of a project plan and timeline will be given to the Task Force
on December 14.
MSBA DIVERSITY TASK FORCE
STEERING COMMITTEE
MEETING SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 11, 2005
Members Present: L. Altman, M. Tracy, Cochairs; K. Sandberg, B. Fields,
G. Perez, A. Moravetz, MSBA Staff.
The Steering Committee welcomed Bernice Fields, a new member of the
Committee. After reviewing the charge of the Task Force, the committee
members discussed how it will move forward with gathering quantitative
and qualitative data that expands the data from gender to areas including
race, sexual preference, disabilities, and religion/creed.
The Steering Committee agreed that the Task Force must coordinate and
collaborate with the HCBA, The Twin Cities Alliance for Diversity in
the Law, and other specialty bar associations in the collection of data
for this study. The Chairs agreed to send a letter to the heads of the
specialty bars to invite them into collaboration with the Diversity
Task Force.
The cost proposal prepared by Rossana Armson, Minnesota Center for
Survey Research, addressing the survey needs as articulated at the last
Steering Committee meeting arrived as the meeting was adjourning. Steering
Committee members scheduled a conference call for Tuesday, Nov. 15,
10:00 a.m. to discuss the proposal. In addition, the agenda for the
first Diversity Task Force meeting scheduled for Nov. 16 will be determined.
MSBA DIVERSITY TASK FORCE STEERING
COMMITTEE
MEETING SUMMARY
OCTOBER 28, 2005
Members Present: L. Altman, M. Tracy, Cochairs; K. Sandberg, W. Foster,
A. Moravetz, MSBA Staff.
The Steering Committee met with Rossana Armson, Director, Minnesota
Center for Survey Research, to discuss how to design the work of the
Task Force to meet its charge which is to examine the HCBA Glass Ceiling
Task Force and SAGE reports and provide updates on both qualitative
and quantitative data on diversity in the profession. The Steering Committee
discussed expanding its work into the areas race, sexual orientation,
disability, and religion as well as gender. Ms. Armson provided information
regarding survey methods in those areas of inquiry.
Updating the statistics from the law firms with the SAGE survey will
cost approximately $11,000. In addition to the SAGE survey, the committee
is exploring surveying members of the profession in Minnesota not just
MSBA members. This might include working with the Hennepin and Ramsey
County Bar Associations as well as specialty bar associations to encourage
their members to respond to surveys and encourage others in the profession
to respond to surveys and provide qualitative information regarding
their experiences in the practice of law. Alanna will contact the Minnesota
Lavendar Bar Association to determine its interest in collaborating
with this Task Force.
Ms. Armson asked the committee how it wants to use the information
gathered by the Task Force. The Steering Committee agreed that it wants
to update the statistical information from the law firms and gather
other attitudinal information that might results in best practices that
make improvements in the practice of law. Ms. Armson will develop a
budget for the collection of attitudinal information and submit it to
the Committee in time for its next meeting which is scheduled for Nov.
11.
- Last Updated 12/20/05 -
|