Summary of August 10, 2000 Teleconference of SIC
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
firstname.lastname@example.org, KEVIN_DALSTED@SDSTATE.EDU, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: August 10 Teleconference of SIC
Thanks for a good teleconference this morning! Here's a summary.
The following members of the State Involvement Committee (SIC) were present: Bill Hiscock, Bill Byrd, Mary Sandy, Jim Taranik, Janice DeCosmo, and Tom Durkin. Julius Dasch was also present.
Tom went over the format of the draft white paper and briefly explained the various sections (Introduction, Previous Work, Recent State Involvement Committee Work, Partnership Strategy and Mechanisms, Questionnaire to Directors on State Gov't Involvement, Effective State Partnerships, and Establishing New and More Effective Partnerships).
It was decided that another section or subsection should be added that addresses impediments or roadblocks to establishing partnerships with state government and solutions/strategies to overcome them (i.e., a section dealing with "Impediments and Solutions"). In other words, what is keeping us from building relationships with state government? An important point was made in that Space Grant Directors are often prevented or highly discouraged from talking to legislators and state government about funding. In addition to identifying impediments such as this, we want to address solutions.
It was agreed that the questionnaire responses will be grouped into categories by the following people. That information is due back to Tom by August 31.
Question 1 responses - Janice DeCosmo
Question 2 responses - Jim Taranik
Question 3 responses - Bill Hiscock
Question 4 responses - Bill Byrd
Question 5 responses - Tom Durkin
Tom also asked the committee members to get him any changes, additions, new sections, etc. to the draft white paper via e-mail (PLEASE DON'T FORGET TO DO THIS).
The SIC decided to wait until after the questionnaire responses are categorized (i.e., after August 31) to determine if we need to send out another question to the Directors that addresses the "impediments" issue. Information on impediments may be able to be extracted from the current responses.
It was mentioned that the white paper should address engaging additional community members, rotary club, etc. in terms of establishing partnerships. While such relationships may not produce additional outside funding, there may be other non-monetary benefits realized from such linkages.
It was also pointed out that the white paper section on "Effective State Partnerships" should not necessarily solely describe specific case-histories in detail, but talk "in general" about "strategies" that have worked.
Four large (non-EPSCoR) states were chosen to review the next draft of the white paper in early September. Those states are CA, TX, NY, and FL. (Tom will send the draft to the SG Directors of those states in early September and ask for comments back by September 18th).
The next SIC teleconference will be Monday, September 25 from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. (MOUNTAIN TIME). At that time, we will discuss the final touches of the white paper and our strategy for its presentation at the October Council meeting.
It was decided that 30 minutes of the October Council Meeting is not long enough to present the white paper and have adequate discussion of the issue of state government involvement. Tom will call John Wefel this week and request 90 minutes of agenda time, realizing that the agenda is quite full and that we will take what we can get. The goal will be to present the white paper in 15-20 minutes and then have breakout groups for the remaining time to address impediments, solutions, etc. A note-taker will be assigned for each breakout group so that there is no need to report back at the Council meeting. The notes from each breakout session will be posted on the SIC website SGCStateInvolveComm.htm and made available to all Directors.
It was suggested to contact Larry Young in MA (MIT) to ask about his attempts to obtain matching funds through the state. Tom will do this to augment the current information supplied by Frank Tai at MASGC.
Julius stressed the importance of the State Involvement Committee work. He also stressed that we want the presentation of the white paper at the October Council meeting to be presented in a very positive manner. Although the identification of impediments must definitely be part of the discussion, we want the focus the "intent" of the discussion on building relationships with state government, not complaining about why we can't do it.
Julius expressed concern over the fact that only 35 of the 52 Consortia have responded to the questionnaire to date. Tom will draft a follow-up e-mail to the Directors (to be sent by Julius). The e-mail will give the Directors the website address for the white paper SGCStateInvolveCommWHITEPAPER.htm and an opportunity to refine their responses if they wish. It will also serve to spur the non-responders to respond.
If I missed anything, please let me know. Thanks again for your help and for your input!
Thomas V. Durkin
Deputy Director & Outreach Coordinator, SD Space Grant Consortium
South Dakota School of Mines & Technology
501 East Saint Joseph Street
Rapid City, SD 57701-3995
Phone: (605) 394-1975
Fax: (605) 394-5360
Back to Space Grant Consortia "State Involvement Committee" website