Selected engagement
Public History · State Historic SiteCulture, Trust & AlignmentStakeholder Engagement + Strategy Lead
A 23-acre site at the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers carried military, Dakota, African American, Japanese American, and immigrant histories. This engagement follows a naming decision through broad public engagement to a board vote, and shows the kind of stakeholder process I lead when a decision has cultural and community implications.
The turning point
In 2017, temporary signs reading "Historic Fort Snelling at Bdote" used the Dakota word for the place where two waters meet. The response revealed how much a name can carry.
Some visitors felt seen. Some felt the change went too far. Some legislators threatened the organization's state funding.
The fort itself would keep its name. But the historic site, the 23 acres around it, might need a name that signaled the fuller history being shared there. The question was not linguistic. It was about identity, trust, and public ownership of a place.
What was at stake
My role
I led a stakeholder engagement process of this kind to help leadership make a decision with significant cultural and community implications.
The work in a moment like this is not to produce a preferred answer. It is to make sure the decision is legitimate, the question is precisely defined, and every constituency can see how their input was used.
How I approached the work
The review covered the revitalized visitor center, expanded programming, and the growing expectation that public history institutions reflect the full communities they serve, alongside an honest assessment of political and financial risk.
Six public input meetings across the state and an online survey drawing more than 6,400 responses. A task force chaired by board past president Phyllis Goff included board members, community voices, and staff. The purpose was not to poll for a winner but to listen for what Minnesotans believed the site should represent.
The name of the restored 1820s fort would remain Fort Snelling. The open question was the historic site name. Stating that distinction explicitly shaped every conversation that followed and kept the debate from expanding into everything.
The engagement fed a governing board decision rather than a staff announcement, so the outcome carried the authority of the body responsible for it.
The work
Situation and risk assessment
Reviewed the site's evolving programming alongside political and funding exposure.
Statewide public engagement
Six public input meetings and an online survey with more than 6,400 responses.
Task force deliberation
A task force of board members, community voices, and staff worked through what was heard.
Board decision
In June 2022 the board voted to keep the name Historic Fort Snelling, and the temporary signage was removed.
What changed
Tangible outputs
Organizational shifts
The takeaway
A decision does not have to change anything to change an institution. What people remember is whether they could see how it was made.
Cecilia Stanton Adams
Sources
Mergers & Integration
Two arts organizations with distinct histories, loyal stakeholders, and decades of separate culture had been brought together under one roof and one n…
Read the EngagementLeadership & New Direction
A community college that had served its region for generations welcomed a new president. The instinct in that moment is to plan fast and announce bold…
Read the EngagementStrategy & Organizational Evolution
A national association serving government communicators sensed the landscape shifting beneath it. There was no crisis, which made the turning point ha…
Read the EngagementYour turning point
If your organization is navigating a transition, integration, strategic shift, or alignment challenge, let's talk about what this moment requires.