Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
11 14 07Collaborative Mtg Notes

11 14 07Collaborative Mtg Notes

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3|Likes:
Published by andersmag

More info:

Published by: andersmag on Aug 12, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/29/2013

pdf

text

original

 
11/14/07 Col. Part. Mtg.Present:Karen SnyderPHSKCErin MacDougallPHSKCSylvia KantorWSU KC extensionPatrick GreenSolid GroundCaren AdamsPH-SKCJim KriegerPHSKCTyra SorendsenMITHUNMartha AitkenWSU KC extensionVal AllanCity of SeaTac/Highline School Dist.Denise SharifyNHAngelina Allen-MpyisiCity of Federal WayCascade BicycleMichelle Bates BenetuaLaura StreichertAllen CheadelKassandra VerburnghenAustin FoundationJuliePatricia Lichiello(facilitator)Maggie AndersonWSU KC Extension
Goals:
1.Discuss and decide on the co-conveners' recommendation to uncouple theestablishment of the Leadership Council with the Site Selection process.2.Review options for voting on Leadership Council members and decide which to use.3.Establish a volunteer committee that will assist with the application and voting process(committee members would not be applying to serve on the Leadership Council).
AgendaTimeTopic
1:30Ice breaker activity (Sylvia)1:45Introductions (Erin)1:55Review Agenda and Meeting Goals (Patricia)Review decision making process for the Collaborative (Patricia)2:05Presentation, discussion, and decision regarding uncoupling the site selection process fromthe Leadership Council (Patricia, Erin, and Allen)
 Possible outcomes: Decision to uncouple or decision to stay with LC making site selectiondecision.
 
2:55Brea3:10Presentation, discussion, and decision regarding how Collaborative Partners will vote for Leadership Council members (Erin)
 Possible outcomes: one of the presented voting options will be selected.
3:50Discussion of what to do if we do not receive enough Leadership Council applications(Patricia)4:10Review of decisions made (Patricia)4:20Information on TAP team visit and next steps in light of the above (Sylvia)4:30EndPatricia Lichiello is the deputy director of the Health Marketing Research Center in the University of Washington School of Public Health & Community Medicineand is auxiliary faculty in the Department of Health Services. She has lots of experience facilitating forums, task forces, committees, advisory boards, and thelike—and actually enjoys it!Patricia Lichiello (PL):1)Brainstorming and discussion (all ideas welcome, expected, encouraged)2)Everyone who wants to talk should get the opportunity3)(pertaining to agenda goals) What we want to achieve are making our twodecisions; uncoupling site selection from leadership, voting on voting procedures.Burning thoughts? Questions? Agenda additions? None at this time…PL:Decision making processes re-cap:Discussion, Vote (majority rules and minority opinions recorded)*One organization, one vote*Offering the opportunity to sit with other members of your organization.EM:--Leadership council uncoupling— Until recently, we proposed that the next step for our Collaborative would be to establishthe Leadership Council (LC) and that the LC would make the site selections. After our initial conversations about populating the Leadership Council, it is evident thatuncoupling the Leadership Council from the site selection decision would address twochief concerns:
 
1.Almost all Collaborative Partner members have some degree of perceived or actual conflicts of interest (e.g., they work in specific geographic communitiesand/or have interest in certain types of implementation strategies).2.It is difficult to follow the current plan of creating a Leadership Council becausewillingness to participate on the LC is tempered by whether one or another community is selected.Therefore, we are suggesting a different approach. We are proposing to form a separatesite selection committee that will review applications from each site (eight potential focuscommunities) and make the site selection. This committee will also work with all eightcommunities to help ensure that they successfully prepare their application and form acommunity group to participate in the Collaborative. This process to oversee andfacilitate selecting the two focus communities would start in November 2007. The work would likely include two to three meetings to establish site selection criteria, develop theRequest for Applications (RFA), review applications, make a decision, and present thefindings and final decision to the Collaborative Partners. Selection will be based oncriteria such as demonstrated commitment of the communities, ability to do the work effectively, and alignment of the work with KCFFI objectives (e.g. policy and systemschange; capacity to have an impact; serving diverse populations; and focus on systems vs. programs).Advantages of uncoupling the Site Selection process from establishing the LeadershipCouncil include:
The Site Selection Committee would be temporary with the sole function of selecting two focus communities, and would not make any longer-term decisionsabout change actions, membership, or resources
Participation on the Site Selection Committee by Collaborative Partners from theeight geographic areas, community based organizations, and members of theAssessment Team would provide a holistic assessment of applications based onagreed upon criteria.
The Leadership Council can form sooner and begin planning for the regional andcounty wide policy assessment and youth engagement, without waiting for thetwo sites to be selected. Seats on the LC for members from the two focuscommunities will be reserved.
Forming the Site Selection Committee
The Site Selection Committee will comprise up to 16 volunteer members including thefollowing:
Eight members: One member from each of the eight potential focus communities:1) Beacon Hill/SE Seattle, 2) Central/Downtown Seattle, 3) Delridge (WestSeattle), 4) White Center, 5) Federal Way, 6) Kent, 7) Seatac, and 8) Tukwila.These members may be municipal staff from the local government,representatives from community based organizations, or residents.
Two members: Youth perspective.
Three members: Sector representation – members from other sectors/areas of expertise (e.g. farming, food, nutrition, built environment, etc.) not from a specificgeographic area.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->