Planning Committee

Hismen Hinnu
June 9, 2004 12:00-2:00 p.m.
Meeting Notes

NEXT MEETING – July 15, 12-2pm

DECISIONS:

• Bart Lubow is no longer serving as the Oakland MC Site Team Leader, but will be focused more on his juvenile justice work. Fred will be responsible for leadership, reporting to Frank and Beth, but his title will need to be considered by the local site. We can also access expert consultation from other Casey staff ( Garland, etc).
• The transition team will meet again to continue working on the transition and aligning what was learned from the self-evaluation with the plan.
• Elena and Fred will go forward and shape the resident network proposal even though there are many unanswered questions in terms of how it gets operationalized.

NEXT STEPS:

• Fred will send the feedback on the April report and the diarist report to Planning Committee

Transition Plan:

• USC will make edits based on feedback from PC members
• Hold another meeting of the transition team
• Have an honest conversation about the cost of funding the infrastructure of the transition plan and a conversation about resource development
• Figure out how the transition plan will get ratified
• Set out a plan for how we will get from where we are today to the structure of the documents
• Line up the self-evaluation with the transition plan
• Fred and Sandra will plan an orientation/recruitment dinner (and Fred will plan the presentation with another PC member. Elena will plan the history of the LSAC.

Resident Network:

• Elena will incorporate the feedback from this meeting into their planning.

Small Grants:

• Sandra will be submitting the proposal to the foundation.

Attendees:

Fred Blackwell, Making Connections Site Coordinator
Sandra Chapin, Making Connections Oakland Site Team Member
Frank Farrow, Annie E. Casey Foundation
Mara Guccione, Urban Strategies Council
Beth Leeson, Annie E. Casey Foundation
Deb Montesinos, Montesinos and Associates
Carl Pascual, EBALDC
Elena Serrano, East Side Arts Alliance
Karen Stevenson, Core Communications
Bill Wong, Consultant for Annie E. Casey Foundation

I. Announcements:

• KQED film – “Farmingville;” a film about day laborers
• EBALDC groundbreaking on Coliseum Gardens Hope 6 development on Saturday at 11:30am; located at 66tth and International (near Acts Full Gospel Church); includes 80-90 units of affordable housing

II. Updates

Casey Site Team Update

• Diarist role across sites;
• Feedback has come back to us about the April site report; the next report is due on July 15th and will include updates to the April report. It should also include our early thinking about how we evaluate our work. Fred will send out the report
• Self-Evaluation: we should get a group together to think about what our self-evaluation should look like and what we learned from the pilot and incorporate it into this next round. Fred will send out a message about this.
• Site team leader transition: there should be a local decision made about the (Fred’s) title. This is an initiative-wide conversation that should take place over the next 5 years. Bart Lubow will continue to be involved.
• Chief Operating Officer from UPS and AECF Trustee will be our liaison and will visit Oakland soon.

Discussion:

• Elena – It is good that Casey is looking at past Foundation-Community relationships; it will bring more information to Oakland on how what is happening at Casey connects with our work and it is a good opportunity to bring Oakland’s work to the foundation and peers in the foundation world (especially in terms of our work in arts and culture (resource guide).
• Frank – made a note that we should revitalize the resource guide.
• Bill – have copies of his interview with Bart on his juvenile justice work and STL work.

Transition Planning

[Jenny was not at the meeting, but she gave this feedback] Is it realistic to expect MOUs of every partner in every work group, since "partners" seem to come and go unless there is a specific project they take on. Also, How are the administrative partners compensated? We should talk more about this. And, in section I3, can the mid-year and annual meetings of hte planning committee and site team also allow for some input on the site team's recommendations for funding allocations?

• There a need for an extension to the June 30th deadline; Let’s build this into the contract to achieve the plan.
• Next steps: take the recommendations from the self-evaluation and pull these out; see if we have addressed them in the transition plan document. If not, see how we’ll fit them in.
• Figure out what the next steps are in ratifying the document with the LSAC. There was initial thinking about a rep from each work group to come to a planning committee meeting to ratify.
• There is confusion with the LSA boundaries. They should stay the same as other maps. E22nd (north boundary); E26 (eastern); Estuary (southern); and 1 st, 3rd and Park (western).
• Why did we limit it to 16 years and older for membership? Can we open this up to younger?
• We should insert language about responsibilities that each member has in terms of resident engagement and leadership development. Could every member be expected to bring a certain number of new members per year?
• Change “Rights” of membership to “Opportunities.”
• Add values statements in addition to the mission of the LSAC. USC will draft these, lifting them from past documents such as the Theory of Change.
• We need more clarity about work group chair elections. Are site team members eligible to fill chair position or do we want to diversify the roles?
• Capture resource development in the document
• Chart out the specific organizations (in the org structure diagram) and exactly who are in each work group.
• Orientation materials and workshops need to be developed. There should be different materials for organization members and residents. These pieces are part of the ESAA resident network pieces. The process has been held up by the name and logo work, but they need to move forward regardless. There is a need to figure it out as we do it; hold a dinner and invite people to come to hear about us and receive preliminary materials. We should have a conversation with EBAYC organizers about how to do this (and in a couple of languages).
• Fred and Sandra will plan the dinner and a presentation with a PC member. Elena will plan the history of the LSAC.

Next Steps

• We need a couple more meetings of the transition team;
• Have an honest conversation about the cost of funding the infrastructure of the transition plan and a conversation about resource development;
• Figure out how the plan will get ratified;
• Set out a plan for how we will get from where we are today to the structure of the documents;
• Line up the self-evaluation with the transition plan

III. Resident Network (both residents and organizations)

• Elena gave a report about their efforts to build the network. Network may not be the best name for it but it is a place holder. In her chart (handout), Fred thought that there needed to be one more column to speak to what happens as a result of the work. This is something that needs to happen with all of the LSAC work.
• We should gather other models of this type of resident organizing/networking – Deb will help Elena with this.
• Frank suggested starting from operating strategies to see who connects to this work it the MCI. Frank also thought that we should make sure we highlight what this approach is not, such as it may not necessarily be an organizing piece; is it more of an inventory?
• There is still a need for the PC to quantify the goals around resident engagement within a certain time frame. Including, what kind of resident representation is needed on the PC and work groups? Who is accountable for this? Each work group?
• Question: are the work groups outreach efforts getting filtered into a centralized database?
• Some work groups will have capacity to do organizing and others will not. There needs to be an organizing entity associated with each work group.

Next Steps

• Elena and Fred will go forward and shape a proposal even though there are many unanswered questions in terms of how it gets operationalized.

Small Grants Proposal

• The county cannot provide training, but we have their training materials
• We’ll connect this project with the resident network

*There was no time for updates from the work groups

VI. Next Steps

Meeting: July 15, 2004; 12-2pm