Minutes of the D2A Steering Committee 6/15/15

In attendance: Lisa (D2), Leslie (D5), Nicole (D4), Christine (D3), Jens (D8), Chia and Betsy (D1)

Agenda approved with one minor shift of topics.

Minutes approved; Ground Rules reviewed – Ouch rule was revisited with the suggestion that it be used to address issues as they occur.

Review and Discussion of the Partnership Baseline Inventory – The factor receiving the rating (4.9 out of 5) was that this project is occurring in a favorable political and social climate for it to be successful. The factor receiving the lowest rating (2.6 out of 5) was the partnership has an appropriate cross section of members. The next lowest was that there are sufficient funds, staff, materials and time for the group to accomplish what it intends to.

The group noted that all basic factors for beginning the project are ranked highly (between 4.0 and 4.9) – it is timely, important, we share overall goals. The other factor that rated highly is flexibility (although adaptability was rated lower – do we feel there is a difference between these two characteristics?). The comment about sufficiency of resources was “Are there ever enough resources?”

What does it mean that the factor of “appropriate cross section of members” ranked low? The discussion centered on the wildly different meanings we had applied to this – did it refer to the steering committee itself or to the project as a whole and the Community Action Team (CAT) in particular? Does it imply the gender and ethnicity of the steering committee or the range of district councils represented? This relates to the question of whether we are legitimate leaders in the community. (NOTE: and also relates to why we separated the substantive work on the dialogues themselves –responsibility of the CAT – from the logistics of the project – responsibility of the Steering Committee). Can having the district councils be seen as legitimate leaders in the community around issues of equity be a goal for us? How can we celebrate our accomplishments in social change? Does this issue have a relationship to the Ambassador Group? There was talk in that group about sun-setting as ambassadors and moving into a “marketing” aspect of getting the word out more broadly about what we are doing.

It seems that it is the middle range of factors (3.0 – 3.9 ratings) where we don’t actually know how they truly rate until we are further into the project. Evaluation of these factors may be most telling of our success as a team when we do the post-project survey.

One of the fundamental issues we have as Steering Committee members who are staff members of organizations is how we communicate what we are doing to our organizations. How do we cut through the fray at board meetings to give this the emphasis it needs. This seems to be another example of how immediate issues take precedence over long-term concerns. We need to help each other think of how we can relate this work back to our own work in the community. The SUGGESTION was made that we use our check-in at the start of these Steering Committee meetings to help with identifying how we relate back to our day-to-day work.

Additional question – how does the Steering Committee relate to recruiting efforts? There is concern that recruiting start soon. The project proposal assumed that the bulk of the recruiting would be done by the CAT with the Steering Committee providing organizational contacts to assist as recruiting partners. This point will need to be considered on an on-going basis.

Project Coordinator Report (Chia) – CAT meetings: the last meeting had a decline in participants (from 21 to 14) and this affected the review of the curriculum. Chia CONCLUDED that a single group of people should be drafting the modifications of the curriculum for review and acceptance by the larger group. The Steering Committee ASKED that there be some follow-up with non-returning participants to find out why. We also noted that although the last meeting was held in the Western District Police offices, no one from that part of town attended. The next meeting will be at Rondo Library so we will do more outreach since the facilitators will be chosen at that meeting.

There was some extensive discussion about how best to send out meeting invitations and reminders. JENS offered to meet with Chia to talk about setting up a google account for this project that can easily display a calendar. NICOLE offered to send out reminders or links that can help establish the relevance of the meeting, e.g., what we did last time, how it relates to current events, through D4’s Constant Contact account. To be included in a project account, accessible to all is a basic toolkit explaining what to expect at meetings, what the goal of the project is, how communication will happen, etc. A Reminder to members to send items for the calendar and other content for the google account to Jens.

Additional concerns were about setting the dates soon for the dialogues themselves. Chia noted that the CAT decided at the last meeting that the dialogues would take place on a weekday night (Monday being the preference) and that the police dialogues start in September. These need to be at an appropriate time for youth during the school year. And there needs to be an appropriate outreach to youth, as well.

Betsy and Chia noted that there was some pushback from the police attendees at the last meeting about clarity of our goals in the CAT. We will continue to work on this clarification so that everyone is on the same page. There was some discussion about the need to build trust within that group since few of the CAT members were initial dialogue participants.

Diane Wanner met with Chia to run through the Everyday Democracy training materials. Alicia (D3), Maychy (D5) and Thaoke (D2) have agreed to be trainers for the facilitators.

The group meeting to discuss the PED/District council dialogues had their first meeting. D2, D3, D5, D14, D8/16, along with Bill D from PED (and Chia) attended. Their next meeting will be June 25^th. They are looking at the intersection of the work that the district councils and PED do – so this will appear in the curriculum.

Parks and Rec conversation – We have had some difficulty scheduling a meeting with the Director. We had a discussion about how best to move that process along. (NOTE: since the meeting, Hahm’s office has gotten back to us and the initial meeting has been set between Director Hahm, Deputy Director Korum and our group for Tuesday, June 23 at 1p at the Parks offices – suite 400, 25 W. 4^th Street).

Review of SP Foundation Funding – With Diane’s pull-back from participation in the administration of this grant, D2 has had to take on administration as well as fiscal agency duties. Lisa proposed a modified budget to the committee that shifts funding so that the goals of the proposal are met, but there is some funding to help cover staffing costs that D2 is having to take on. Lisa, Nicole and Jens WILL MEET with Theresa to talk about the proposal as it relates to portions of the voting project. Once there is agreement there, Lisa will speak with Lori at SP Foundation to talk about necessary modifications.

Next Meeting – Next meeting was proposed to by July 20, however three members have conflicts. A SUBSTITUTE DATE needs to be set.