- Thank you all for being here. Welcome to the inaugural for 2026, Jack Hopkins Social Service Funding
- Committee. I'm Courtney Daly, Council Member Courtney Daly. I am the chairperson for our committee.
- I think to start things off, should we just go around and do roll? Have everybody on the committee announce
- their name and we'll do that first.
- First, I want to welcome our newest member. We have one new member this year, Catherine and Tia Moa.
- Hi, welcome. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. Everybody else's old hat at this. So we'll
- introduce ourselves as we do roll call. So Courtney Daly. Hello. I'm Eddie, I'm an assessor in the Action Program.
- And I work at them. It's something to go over there. So obviously, we do. Yeah, we can go right over
- to say, you know, any incentive and information technology services partner. You're near us each other
- application areas. I'm worried that I'm a researcher for campus. I'm sorry. Lisa Lainer, council attorney.
- Thank you all very much. So
- To give a little bit of background on the Jack Hopkins committee, or anybody who's not terribly familiar
- with it, this agency committee was created by former council member Jack Hopkins in collaboration with
- the council and community colleagues back in 1993. So this marks the committee's 34th year. And the
- purpose of today's meeting is to begin planning the 2026 funding program.
- So a little bit about 2026 funding. This year we have $500,000 in budgeted funds for our distribution.
- That's the same amount that we had last year, which was doubled from the previous year. So it has gone
- up as we've also noticed need has gone up. But this, this amount is subject to confirmation from the
- office of the controller regarding the available funds, which will explain
- in just a minute. As I said, this is the same budget that we've worked with in 2025. Unused funds from
- previous years might be available at the end upon request for additional appropriations, but the final
- amount for that won't be known until the 2025 final claims are received, because we're still closing
- those out from last year. And then we need to receive confirmation from the Office of the Controller
- regarding how much we have
- So for example, I know last year, which actually I'll talk about in a minute, we did go over by about
- 10,000. Correct. Yeah. So to review the 2025 program and a little bit of a preview for 2026. To review
- 2025, the committee received 38 applications last year. Six of those were collaborative projects with
- requests for funds
- totaling $965,372.77. So we basically had twice as much in requests as we did per copy, which makes
- this a hard job sometimes. So the committee allocated $510,377.27 in funds to 35 social agencies, including
- all six collaborative projects. So there were
- 38 requests, we found 35. So some agencies have already completed their projects from 2025. Others are
- wrapping up during this first quarter of 2026. So Lisa is going to provide some brief context on some
- of the program challenges experienced in 2025. Some of the big takeaways from last year in my communications
- with applicants at different meetings and phone calls, and then with committee members. And then my
- own experience just in administering the program, it seemed like there were a lot of different documents
- involved. There was an application. There was an application summary. There was a solicitation, a criteria
- of eligibility, any number of different documents.
- And I heard feedback that it seemed duplicative. Sometimes it was confusing to compare different statements
- and the different documents. On top of that, it seemed like there were a high number of pages. We had
- one packet that was about 1,000 pages in length. And by the time you compiled all of the different
- applications and each application,
- was multiple pages and all of the attachments that went with it. It was really bulky and I could understand
- if it was really time consuming and difficult for committee members to sift through all of those pages.
- On top of that, there were a high number of emails going back and forth between applicants and council's
- office staff. I think we estimated that we sent out about a thousand
- emails, we received hundreds of emails and then would go back and respond to those. So a large chunk
- of those emails arose simply by distributing the application itself. So it seemed like there would be
- an easier way to manage all of this. And the vehicle for doing that or kind of the impetus
- for doing that and one reason why ITS is here is accessibility. In April of this year, local governments
- must make all web material and digital content compliant with new heightened standards. All of those
- standards is to make
- websites and documents more accessible to people with disabilities. That triggers any number of different
- effects, but I think we've tried to view it as an opportunity to make the program leaner, smarter, and
- more efficient. As a result of that, over the last several months, we've completely reworked the application
- so that it's online,
- We've reduced the number of pages. Cameron sat down with us several months ago and gave us some feedback
- on what she thought would make sense from the perspective of a committee member. And you'll see portions
- of the application tonight as a result of that. We've reworked the documents. There are very few. There
- are no attachments.
- to the application for accessibility reasons, we had to go in that direction. And actually, it seems
- to make more sense. I think it'll be easier for applicants to complete. I think it'll be easier for
- you to read, but we'll see. We'll be anxious to hear feedback from you after you use these.
- And then finally, we're working to reduce the number of emails and electronic exchanges
- with applicants. So we will be kind of kicking off the program and making the application available
- without reach through coordinating with the Office of the Mayor, using different volunteer organizations,
- and really cutting down on the emails going out to applicants. So please let us know as you're going
- through this.
- what you think about it, and if you have any ideas on how to improve it going forward. Thank you. And
- there'll be different points tonight with Kari. Kari's put a lot of time into these materials, as well
- as has ITS. Greg and Jeremy have been indispensable for us. We really thank you guys for all of your
- work over the last several months. This has been in process for quite some time. Wonderful.
- Thank you so much. Okay, so a little bit about our 2026 program eligibility guidelines and application
- instructions. So there is a bit of a change from last year. Capital improvements funding will be limited
- for 2026 only to projects located directly in Wilmington city limits. So that change was made on January
- 7th of this year.
- the common council adopted a resolution to update the Jack Hopkins program funding. So the resolution
- states, the committee shall prioritize funding for programs and projects that serve city of Bloomington
- residents and are delivered within the city limits. Programs or services delivered outside the city
- limits may also be considered when the committee finds that they provide a direct measurable and substantial
- benefit to city residents.
- Capital improvements, however, may only be funded when the real property to be improved is located within
- the city limits of Bloomington. So I remember, I think it was last year, we did fund the Electoral Boys
- and Girls Club. We gave them some funding and we had a discussion about, did we feel that that served
- the population of Bloomington, did we feel that it served our mission?
- decided that at that time, but it did. So they'll be looking at things maybe a little bit differently
- through slightly different terms this year. Those were given lower priority. You know, if they were
- capital improvements, I don't think the LSW was the most focused capital improvement. Do you remember
- what we funded for that one? Was it the doors project or was that really cool?
- I think that was the Lincoln, yeah. Well, anyway, so that's a change for this year. So we have a new
- application process this year, as was alluded to, using CiviForm. So I know Kari has been working there
- with all of that. And the ITS department are going to provide us an overview of the application submission
- and review process.
- and they're here to answer our questions. So, shall I turn the floor over to you? All right, so the
- platform we're using is called Civiform, C-I-V-I-F-O-R-M. They started out a project with Google in
- the city of Seattle, where the city was like, we have all these application programs for assistance,
- and it's a mess trying to coordinate it, so they went, they, so Google has an arm called google.org,
- and they do philanthropy projects where Google employees can take six month fellowships, leave their
- current jobs, still get paid, but work on these kinds of projects that aren't for common good. And so
- it's a great opportunity for us. We're the second city to adopt civil reform. So we got to meet with
- Google. They gave us 15 highly skilled engineers, project managers, communications people. It was just
- astounding.
- and they built our first set of forms in one day, actually on-site here meeting with us to build them
- dynamically as we talk to them. And so we started with three programs and now we've expanded out to
- about 20 or so programs. The 5.1 is really great that Google's for open source, so we get to share it
- with other cities and we coordinate with all these other entities, the state of Arkansas, Seattle, city
- of Charlotte,
- Miami-Dade County, and we all share experiences and practice skills and keep continuing with the pilot.
- It's also very easy to see the federal application center, and so that's a large benefit. It's also
- very secure and meets all of the federal accessibility requirements on the interface, and it costs us
- nothing to use, except for our staff time that we devote to maintaining the data. And so that's the
- basis of it.
- This is the first time we've done an application with size. This is, I think, the largest one that we've
- done in terms of information gathered. And we're really excited to see how it works out. Jeremy, do
- you have anything you want to add? Yeah. So the platform really began for, like, taking in
- benefit information, like getting people with watering benefits to pool water their parks. And then
- we expanded it with the ESD department to take in more grants.
- and different kind of business law, not wellness, just race. And the platform school, we have it linked
- up in Access Indiana. If you don't know what Access Indiana is, it is what you use if you're registering
- your vote or doing any other kind of state service, except it would be in the, some reason they haven't
- evaluated it. But we, so folks don't need to have them log in just for civil bondage when you use Access
- Indiana for them.
- So while CIVA form would be new for the Jack Hopkins application process, the great thing is we as a
- city have a lot of experience using it and all of these other cities plus all of these smart Google
- people have been working on this for a while too. So we feel like it's a safe
- transition for us to make. And so I want to do maybe just a little bit of show and tell. The way that
- we started this was Jeremy and I sat down and looked at the existing application form and started to
- translate it into what would it look like for an online form instead. And once Jeremy had put all of
- that together,
- He put it into a test environment so that we can see what would this experience be like for an applicant?
- How are they going to go through the process of reading the instructions and navigating through the
- process? Then at the end of that, when you hit submit, I could put on a different hat and pretend that
- I was a committee member and see what I was going to be reviewing at that point.
- I'm going to, hopefully, share my screen. We'll just do this, but I'm going to try to do it different.
- My Zoom is not playing around with me. Yes, there we go. Maybe that'll work. Or maybe not.
- There we go. So this is the test environment. The link is provided in the agenda. If anybody wants to
- go in and navigate around, I'm not going to fill out an application in front of you because that would
- not be much fun for anybody to take a look at. But when people go in to apply, it will look very similar.
- It will start out with
- you know, start your application through some background information. You can create an account. People
- don't have to. And if they already have an Access Indiana account, they don't need to do that. I would
- imagine that some of these organizations may have an Access Indiana account already, which should make
- it easy. If they create an account, they can save work along the way, come back to it.
- which you can't do if you don't create an account. So we think that people probably do that. But what
- was previously provided as instructions on the form will now just be in this form and people will start
- their application and work their way through the process. So
- I'm gonna switch now and show you, actually I'm gonna say just a couple of things about the application
- itself. So the application questions are really largely the same as last year. We didn't see the need
- to change those completely. It seemed to work to get the right information out. So an example of some
- things that we did change,
- Rather than asking for documents for people to submit, for example, the other IRS determination letter
- for 501c3 status, we are instead, this year, going to ask them two pieces of information. One, what
- is their tax ID number? Two,
- What is the date of their determination letter from the IRS? Those are both pieces of information that
- then we can use to verify that they're in good standing, that they have an active status with the IRS.
- And we think that that will be a more streamlined way of doing it and avoid having to receive information
- that is inherently not accessible because some of these organizations have been around for a while.
- and they have old typed letters from the IRS. So we're hoping that that makes it a little bit easier
- for all of us. Similarly, for financial statements, rather than asking them to submit however many number
- of years of financial statements, we are instead going to have them do a project budget that is going
- to give us
- the key financial information that we really need for the organizations to know how they're planning
- on making this project work overall. So just quickly what the output will look like for committee members.
- If the committee were to accept
- attachments like old exemption letters, et cetera, we would have to remediate those and make them accessible
- in order to like make them part of the website or needing materials, et cetera. So it kind of removes
- that aspect of the work to this.
- My dogs decided to use the test environment to apply for a grant. And then it came to me to take a look
- at. The nice thing about Subiform is once the application comes in, it can actually be downloaded in
- a variety of ways. The easiest way to look at it at a glance is to just turn it into a PDF. And so you
- can see here just an example of it gives the
- You know, the questions or the information that is to be filled in the, and then it will provide the
- applicants responses all the way through and, you know,
- If somebody were to instead say, boy, I'd love to have this, you know, downloaded into a spreadsheet
- or something else like that, we can do that as well. But we think this is probably the easiest way to
- show, you know, for most people to be able to view it.
- The one thing that we were also able to do is rather than having, you know, separate attachments with
- financial information, we built into this a Google Sheet, which is that's their form of an Excel
- spreadsheet, and it will allow them to download it and get all of their financial information. So this
- will be where they tell us what their program budget is going to be, how much they think that this project
- is going to cost, and then also what are their sources of funding, including what they would be using
- besides Jack Hopkins funds.
- It will also allow them to prioritize their projects. That was something that was a separate form last
- year. And this year will just be pulled in to the application process. And then lastly, providing
- any estimates that they got for any of the particular items that they're requesting funding for.
- In the past, we had asked for quotes, once again, not wanting to necessarily cause people to submit
- materials that won't be accessible. This is a way for them to provide that information and then it at
- last comes back in that way. All right, that's a high level overview. And I think this is a great time for
- questions, comments, reactions. Yes, that's number seven. Maybe a question to ideas. What type of outputs
- can we export from the form? Should be CSV and JSON. Any other questions? I have one. So we talked about
- putting this all on a PDF form, and that was how we would get
- the results last year, all of the applications that we would look through in one really large PDF, which
- is great because it's all in one spot, but would it be all one big PDF or one individual PDFs for each
- application? Are you thinking? Yet to be determined, and I think that that's something that if there
- was committee preference, we would love to hear that because I think it's possible to do it in either way.
- One thing I completely forgot to say earlier is the application output for this, it's going to have
- all the same information as committee members received last year. But I figured out that the maximum
- length of application this year would be nine pages. And that's compared to, I think it was an average
- of 25 pages per applicant last year.
- It's cutting it by, I think, about 60% and a lot of it is just compressed in a better way. I don't know
- that that necessarily means that there will be less reading. I just think it will be more efficient
- reading. Is there any way we could do a shared folder with folders of each applicant so that way we
- can easily jump from one folder to another rather than one big document? Yes.
- Or is there, like, what's the interface like on the, like the review side? So do we have to export it
- to review it? Or can we view it within Civilform? Yes. We can do it within Civilform? That's even better.
- You're not going to download it at all. We can go, and is it all sort of, is it all rolled together?
- Can you do like a control F on the whole purpose or? Yeah. That's cool. Oh, sweet. Yeah. My only request
- was going to be if we did one large PDF, which I don't mind if we would just get it bookmarked for each.
- I would say.
- Again, I'm not, I'm just here to be advisor. Try to avoid PDF export. We can talk about this later.
- It could be because what you see in the back end is going to be the same as we export them all as CSV.
- It might be for the public better to provide me a CSV instead of a thousand page gigantic version of
- PDF. That's awesome. That's a possibility. How can you provide
- Feedback or review on the document as you're, you have to like leave comments, if there's a separate
- document or even leave comments or questions. I think that would have to be done on an individual. Is
- there a way we can send a form to create like a project that we can talk about potential like in either
- the current application.
- Maybe also could be per application per person. So each of us would have our own experience there. No.
- So if you change the score for one application, all the other reviewers would see that change. But could
- we have multiple scores? Like could you have, it would just be one score? Yeah, correct. So we could
- use that for reporting generally, but we could have used that ourselves for marking on the document.
- Yeah, right. Every vendor probably has like a spreadsheet with all
- then have columns for each reviewer to store. Great. That's what the arts commission was done. So when
- their committee members have gone in, they have a rubric, a Google Sheet, that's provided by ESXSET.
- And that doesn't break any accessibility or open-vote months? You may. I already have an accessible
- rubric, yes. Thank you. Sounds good.
- Any other questions about the SIDF applications? All right. Should we take a vote on this part right
- now? Ready for that part? Yes. At some point, you'll need to vote on the application. We haven't talked
- about the program eligibility guidelines yet, right? Right. But you could vote on the application. OK.
- Well, do I have a motion to approve this new application be a citizen? I'll make a motion. Second.
- Thank you. All right. So I guess we'll do, well, we have to do a roll call vote. Yep. Oh, I do. Oh,
- the power. Thank you. Isa. Yes.
- Should I have someone by my side? Yes. Yes, if I vote. Andy? Yes. Eddie? Yes. Cameron? Yes. Catherine?
- Yes. Dave? Yes. And I vote yes. It is passed unanimously. Thank you. So did we want to do the rubric
- or the eligibility guidelines?
- I think the eligibility guidelines. Did I skip over that? Or was there something that you guys had to share?
- Program eligibility requirements were in the packet materials for the meeting and those are sort of
- similar to the application. There aren't a lot of changes to them with the exception of the new restriction
- on funding, the location for funding per capital project, improvement projects that Courtney just talked about.
- Those are largely the same, but to address that issue that Lisa talked about, there's a lot of documents
- and sometimes it's hard to decide. One document says it one way, another document says it a slightly
- different way and how are we supposed to understand what it is. We instead consolidated everything into
- one document
- Um, that what we would propose to do is post that as a web page, um, you know, from, uh, the Jack Hawkins
- committee landing page, posted as a webpage that then would have the link to some form for people to,
- um, start to work on their applications. Um, so, um, you know, we can.
- certainly walk through those guidelines now if everyone would like to do that. If there are particular
- items that people would like to talk about, we can focus in on those as well. Or if it looks good to
- everybody, that's the case too. But that's really an overview of what we did with the eligibility guidelines
- this year. Did anybody have any questions about any of that or any concerns?
- Would anybody not have a discussion on those or? Yeah. Any funding, less than $1,000. I think there
- were just a couple last year. Yeah. I think we should raise the minimum because last year was a feedback
- we gave to a bunch of folks that why didn't you apply for more? And I think that we inherently
- set expectations lower. So I do think in terms of our sort of what the tool means, if we set it higher,
- maybe we encourage people to
- ask for things that are actually going to get the needs, like the transformative needs. And then I guess
- we did have a handful of, like, the Special Olympics, I think, it won't be ever asked for. Yeah, and
- I was in his army, and she was, like, started running from so... Right, yeah, good point. But she didn't
- need that crazy money, she was just a kid. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know that we want to set, raise the minimum.
- Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks.
- But I think maybe we can just try to be explicit, like, make it clear that, you know, in the past, when
- people have asked for larger sums than were prepared to grant them, that doesn't mean they'll lose out
- totally. That's why we asked them to break it down because we have in the past then looked at what they
- prioritize and said, well, we can fund this part of their project, but not this one. So I think maybe
- if we're just maybe clear on messaging,
- that that's how we can do it. That might encourage people to shoot for the moon and stuff. And we're
- not looking at putting a ceiling, right? We're just kind of leaving that open. We did talk last year,
- Kam, remind me if we could, I think this was your idea, like the idea of having like a targeted
- um, uh, expected, uh, awards and type of type of language, you know, like when you apply for stuff from
- anywhere else, it says, you know, the pot is this, we expect to give this sort of give some sense to
- people of, of where you're hoping that they apply. And then you, then that balances the limit, the lower
- limit language, right? You're like, yeah, like we could give somebody a thousand dollars, but like,
- we expect to give, you know,
- 20 awards at 500,000 because people could sense it roughly where we're thinking. We're transparency
- in our typical average award amount or number. I think that was true. I think last year the issue was
- with the spectrum of awards or the requests we got in terms of low to high, which is really hard to
- manage in our conversations. So I think if we're able to
- transparent would be like, we want you to shoot for the moon. In all reality, our average award is typically
- $32,000. And that might be a way to balance it. Yeah. And there was one request that was almost 50%
- of what our budget was. And so that was really hard to wrap our brains around. Because, yeah, we wanted
- them to shoot big. It's hard to then say in the other breath, but not that big.
- Not too bad. Yeah, yeah. We did also talk about splitting the fund, right? So that you have a sort of
- moonshot part of it. So then we were like, we want to give two big awards and then a bunch of average
- awards or something like that. I mean, I think to your point, like how we ended up then evaluating,
- I'm sorry, how we ended up evaluating, it's almost like
- it does benefit you to apply for like $3,000 because if somebody applies for a hundred thousand, you're
- out of pounds, $3,000. We'll deal with that one first, right? And so even though we might've ranked
- some higher, we ended up fully funding some lowly, low ranked ones just because they didn't ask for
- that much. And then, and it didn't fully fund some of our higher ranked ones. Like, so, I mean, that
- does create a little bit of like attention to our rubric and our, you know,
- Yeah, I mean, that's, that's tricky because we really use the rubric as more of a bad line, right? It's
- to help us get things started and then we shift things from there. But partially that was because,
- I mean, that, that happened in part because we had two people not able to fill it out and those were
- very, you know, things outside of their hands, right? I mean, things happened, right? But, and so that
- forced us to not take the rubric because of the way it threw everything off, right? Because it was like,
- we got all these zeros.
- You know, and so then people are doing, I would have given that a, right. So, so, so I just, I don't
- know if I mean, I don't know if we have to adopt a rubric again or not, but. Well, in part
- of the conversation, I wanted to have to, this is, this is, we're getting off track. No, no, no, no,
- no. Cause I'm going down that path too. But I wanted to talk about making sure that we're all on the
- same page when we get to the rubric conversation or what exactly we mean with certain.
- because we all had different interpretations last year. We ramped this scene really poorly. We're all
- just in a row. Okay. So as far as the eligibility guidelines goes, and I think, are we all saying we're
- all doing pretty, why don't we, do I have a motion? So the motion that you got in your mind. What about
- the eligibility guidelines as outlined in the map? I'm sorry.
- to adopt the eligibility guidelines as outlined. I heard half of that, to adopt the eligibility guidelines
- as outlined in our packet. Okay, thank you. Yeah, sorry. No, no problem. Okay, so we have a motion,
- do I have a second? Second. Thank you. All right, let's take a vote. We're gonna start online. Dave?
- Yes. Esau? Yes. Catherine? Yes.
- Eddie? Andy? Yes. And I vote yes. Love has passed unanimously. Thank you. All right. So I believe now
- actually is the portion. This is the part of the show where we talk about the rubric. So the scoring
- rubric. So I think we all agreed because the first year we were all on this together. We did not have
- our rubric. And that was really kind of like we were all flying by the seat of our pants. Just we had our own
- We did really well, like all kind of coming together and figuring out what we wanted to do. We all were
- ultimately on the same page, but when we adopted the rubric last year, that got us mentioned on the
- same page. And I feel like it was, we all agreed by the end we had a bit better guidance. So if I remember
- correctly, we all agreed that we wanted to continue doing a rubric for this year. Did anybody feel otherwise
- or have problems with the rubric?
- I haven't pulled up the rubric. I forgot. Would this be, for our next meeting, would we discuss more
- in depth about the rubric? Okay, so we don't need to. This is just a general overview. Okay. Super.
- Okay. So then I guess we're all on the same page. We want to do a rubric again and we can discuss what
- exactly that looks like. But I think this gave us a really good foundation over the last years. You
- did the rubric.
- That was awesome. I have a question about the re-break. Is that section the same as the re-breakbook
- separate? So there's a separate file for the re-break that we should send you. It incorporates the priorities
- and the unlinkable requirements in the re-breakbook, but it's in the form of a spreadsheet. One of the
- things that we did talk to ITS about was
- making sure that we could both as it concerns use of the rubric in real time in the meeting, but then
- also posting after the meeting for the public to see having that in a format that would be accessible.
- And while I can't remember all of the details, I know that there were different things that
- that Jeremy and Greg said that we could do that would make accessibility work with that. So I took that
- as good news and something that they would have to help us with. Fantastic. All right. So any last questions
- about incorporating the rubric or concerns? I have one question. I wanted to ask you. Is the goal for
- getting these grants, is it for people to be weaned off or for people to apply as much as they want?
- that they're serving. With that particular item that they're applying for. So there's a question on
- there about, I forget exactly how it's phrased, but it does ask, moving forward in future years, especially
- sometimes they're applying for a position, they're creating a new position that they don't have funded.
- So the question becomes then, are you going to rely on
- this grant funding year after year to keep funding this, which is not what we want. We want to help
- get them started, but we don't want somebody relying 100% on funding from us to keep somebody's job
- growing, for example. I have one thought about, can we have breaks between the homework of everyone
- making comments on the rubric that we bring to the next meeting? That's a good idea. Yeah, so maybe
- it'll make the year
- So we're, we're ready. We're not thinking of things. Yeah. Cause I wanted to go back and look through
- the rubric to, to jog my memory. You're like, Oh, what was the part that I questioned? The scoring was
- constricted. The scoring was hard because like the way that we were scoring things made it difficult
- to make decisions on some of the parts of the rubric.
- I think a lot of that was actually just the point system that we used because it didn't actually give
- you any variability, right? It was like, get it or don't get it. So then we all started trying to do
- like 0.5 things, right? Where I think a lot of the issues would just be solved by us turning it to a
- 10-pointer scale, because then you can, everything, you just say, yeah, yes, I like this, but I don't
- like it as much as the other thing or something like that.
- Yeah, and some of the scoring blocks were just very straightforward, where it was like, well,
- they automatically get these points. It automatically raises them. Exactly. Even if we personally disagree
- with that score. Right. So there was that conversation of, well, the river gave them this, but I disagree.
- Right. So. Hey, Courtney, can I ask a question? Yes. Yes. I guess I got to shut out. Just in terms of
- clarification for eligibility,
- I mean, clearly we're interested in proposals that are, um, filling a need for in the community and
- also, um, you know, obviously have a high potential for success and also, um, it might take a couple
- of years to take off. So it doesn't necessarily disqualify them if they come back. In other words,
- you know, if they're trying something new and it's,
- you know, there's a chance of a very, you know, high output. Um, maybe they need to help in successive
- years, but maybe not as much. I mean, is that, I mean, that's my consideration, at least, that I'd like
- to give people a bit of slack in terms of they may reapply in successive years. It's just that we don't
- want, what you were saying, I believe, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but you, you were,
- sort of pointing to that we don't want a dependency of a program necessarily year after year, because
- we've got a lot of applicants. We want to make sure that they reach out elsewhere. Yeah, I think they
- want to see their expectation of dependency. We want to set that expectation that they are going to
- ultimately be able to fund this some other way.
- But yeah, I think that can be a case-by-case basis for each of us as we're grading, too, to evaluate.
- Maybe they're coming back to fund the same thing, but look at the strides they've made. And they're
- asking for less, because this is how they're also getting funding to supply this. So I don't think it's,
- for some people, it might be an automatic no. For others, it might be, well, no, no, no, let's have
- a conversation about this. I think that's fair. OK, we're on the same page. Thank you. Yep.
- Yes. I think, I think to that point it's, uh, like I was, uh, I are, I are, uh, Indiana. They're a really
- great example. They've come, they've shown that we give them funding and then they're able to incorporate
- whatever it is that we funded into their stream. And then they come and ask for something else like
- to Dave's point. Yeah, absolutely. I think that's what we want to see. All right.
- Should we think about on the rubric, approving using the rubric? Well, I don't know. I can't remember
- what Isak was suggesting more about, just an overall temp on skin. I feel like I remember that year
- with the rubric. Maybe I'm misremembering it, but having trouble. Because some rubric categories or
- some rubric scoring points were just
- the category or that aspect was much more significant or important in my view than another score that
- each gained points. Yeah, equally weighted. Yeah, I felt like that was a problem for me. Yeah, that's
- a great point. Well, I think that's what we ran into last year when we were building it, is like we
- didn't have a lot of free work time. We kind of collaborated and put the rubric together, so it was
- kind of like room spaghetti at the wall. And I feel like now that we have this cycle in there, I felt
- it would be easier to really refine it to make
- the things we care about, like the values of each of us here, very much here. And it was color coded,
- because as you entered your answers for certain things, it automatically colored coded, so you get a
- pretty good overview just by going by colors, reading red or yellow.
- Is the vote to adopt the rubric or to use a rubric? To use a rubric. Okay, then so moved. Second.
- Thank you. All right. Andy? Yes. Eddie? Yes. Cameron? Yes. Catherine? Yes. Esau? Absolutely. Dave? Yes.
- And I vote yes. Past unanimously again. Look at us go. All right. I think that's everything for that.
- Now we're gonna talk about the process and the schedule. Okay, so do you want me to talk about the grant
- marketing and promotion? Sure. Sure. Okay. Or we can, I mean we can buy. Well, you guys probably know
- a little more than I do. Yeah, do you want me to jump in on this?
- Lisa mentioned that last year we sent out a whole bunch of emails to a list that I think had been compiled
- over a period of time and I call it a Frankenstein list. You're probably all familiar with those that,
- you know, half of them bounce back because that person is no longer in the organization.
- And what we really found also was in the surveys that we're getting back from applicants, that email
- wasn't the primary way that they were actually hearing about the program anyway. So rather than doing
- that big old email, what we talked about this year is
- doing some of the other things that we've always done, which is issue a press release, put it on the
- page, do, you know, a little bit of outreach but we're going to enhance that. First of all, the mayor's
- office has agreed to
- Send out from their distribution list for press releases our press release and then also posted on the
- website for the city, they would do some social media for us, which is fantastic because they're much
- better at that than.
- than we are and that we would also do some coordinated outreach with the Bloomington Volunteer Network
- that is, that lives with NCFRD and some of the other local organizations that are really linked in with
- the not-for-profit communities. So, you know, we'll especially once we know here shortly what the application
- window is going to be, we would kick all of that into here.
- And if anybody has suggestions for additional things, bring them up now, or feel free to send us an
- email. The reality, most of these organizations have this on their radar already. And in fact, I'm getting
- some telephone messages, hey, when is Jack Hoffman's going to start? When will be the technical assistance
- meeting, that type of thing. So people are looking for this too. Yeah. We mostly, we want, we want,
- Newer organizations sure. Yeah. And that's, and that's why we're incorporating some of these volunteer
- organizations to help spread the word about this too, so that there could be new applicants as well.
- I'd be excited. Okay. So, speaking of when the applications are going to be available. So,
- the recommendation for opening that application window is next Tuesday, so a week from today,
- February 17th, and then closing it on March 10th. So giving a full solid three weeks for the agencies
- to get their applications in. And at some point during that time, staff is going to host the technical
- assistance meeting for applicants. So anybody who needs some help can come and get that.
- Any questions about any of that? How do you guys feel about that window? Three weeks, those dates, that
- sounds good. That was going to be one of the things I want to make sure that we have a conversation
- about ahead of time because that happened the past two years and we always kind of struggle with it
- afterwards. Even though it says no late applications, we then had a discussion about it.
- after it happens. So I think we should set right now. And also in the messaging that we send out, whatever
- we're going to do. I know in the messaging in the past years, it has said we will not accept
- late applications. And I think I went over that in the technical assistance meeting last year as well.
- This new application process can be set.
- If you do not want to accept applications after a date, we can set it up so that you can't
- submit applications. I remember one year somebody submitted maybe like eight minutes. That was last
- year. Was it last year? Yeah. And then I think the year before, I don't remember, was it maybe just
- like a few hours? Wasn't someone able to prove some kind of technical difficulty at one time for their
- late submission? I don't know. Last year was my only year working with Jack Hopkins.
- That wasn't the case last year, but I wasn't involved in a prior year, so it may happen. Why don't we
- say something like Monday, like the actual deadline is Monday at 8 a.m., but obviously we're not going
- to be available to check things between Friday and Monday, so we recommend that you get it done by Friday,
- like as an example, right? So if there are technical issues, people can fly again, et cetera. Right,
- so we're looking at,
- the deadline of on a Tuesday. So do you think we should do it from a Monday to a Monday? Are you saying?
- I was just thinking, I was just thinking that intellectually for, I mean, psychologically give people
- Tuesday, they might start it on Friday. So if you tell them that it's Monday, then they do it over the
- weekend. And I'm just thinking like, you don't get, yeah, I don't know. It just seems like a more natural
- time than a Friday or a Monday. Yeah. Well, that's true.
- or that just natural rhythm of the deadlines. But how do we feel about late application? Do we want
- to consider them? Do we want to have a race period? Does anybody have any? I don't see any purpose in
- like, like our purpose here is to get money into the hands of organizations. Number one, that should
- be like our main goal. I get the like, it's like fair and stuff. I get all that, right? But like,
- If those are in contrast, then which one do you choose? I just don't see the reason for us being bureaucrats
- about at the end of the day, the goal here is not to make it difficult for people to get funding. It's
- actually quite the opposite. We want to give people money, and they need to give us the opportunity
- to do so. I just feel like it makes more sense.
- But I mean, I also take the argument that it's like, if we leave it up to us and then we have one who
- is 20 hours late and we accept and another who's 20 hours and 10 minutes, we go, ah, that was just a
- little too long. You know, I would. If we do that, then it might give some people an unfair, maybe an
- unfair advantage if they had no time to do that. Yeah, it's true. We have a three week window and it's not like,
- he don't get enough application. Yeah, that's true. So, I mean, I sympathize, but at the same time,
- other folks have deadlines. Yeah, that's true. And we have, you know, our time to review stuff, too.
- Things keep getting added, things like that. That's our time, too. What's the turnover between when
- you get the application and when you all, or us, start reviewing them? So, can you just push it, I mean,
- like, make it the compromise, or just push it up a little very last?
- of minute before we actually read it or we already did that. Easier would be easier, right? Could you
- give an example of what you mean? I'm not sure. Yeah, like sometimes there'll be deadlines, okay, or
- if we ask for something on a Monday, but we're not actually moving that into the next Wednesday or something
- like that. I don't know what it looks like for you all internally, but it's like, can we just push it versus
- getting like a bigger window of time between when they submit it and when we actually need it and just
- like push it up to the last minute. So basically you're saying that we started doing applications today.
- Yeah. Yeah. I mean, like essentially there could be some flexibility there because then it's
- less bureaucratic and more like we're doing it. We're doing the work right now. So we need, you know,
- so we can't accept anymore. So that's, I don't know.
- And there may be more opportunity to do that now with this type of application and the responses in
- the prior years. We think of them that the application closes out on this date. I mean, that means something
- to people, like, you know, when you go into your taxes and then you have to get them done by the night.
- Well, and if the application actually is inaccessible after
- as a very specific date and time, and we can make that clear ahead of time that this link will not be
- active after. Sarah, wait, like if someone's working on an application and we close it out and there's
- an open application, that person has time to finish that application. I don't know. We can ask ideas
- about that.
- Just my two cents, I want to say I agree with Eddie. I think that three weeks is adequate. I think a
- lot of these agencies or these groups are anticipating applying anyway, so they have an idea of how
- to package it and what to do. I think it gives an unfair advantage to those that drop it in late. Well,
- I think the fact that we're not asking for
- you know, two or three years of financial records helps. I think that's probably, oftentimes they'll
- hold up. So that will make it easier for them to get in on time. Let's look at the advantage of submitting
- an application late. And then if someone submits an application on time and there's errors, is there
- time for them to correct or amend? And you know, you can bring an equal sign to do that in the past.
- Or is it just if it's wrong, it's incomplete, and then it's out? I mean, the forms need to be settled
- in. Yeah. That's going to be a big problem. We have to ask them to submit documents they didn't submit.
- That's something that I'm pretty much. I'm giving an extra hour to submit an application. I'm pretty
- much. There's not a thing. Look, they were there scribbling. Yeah. Like, so I'm really going to get
- it at 1 AM. Which happens. Yeah. All right.
- Am I understanding then that we're all in agreement that we do now? Does anybody hear me? What I'm hearing
- is a majority saying we do not want to accept late applications. Is there any disagreement? I know you
- feel, but do you have any strong feelings or any disagreement across the board that you want to fight
- for? No, no, no, no. It's fine. So we're going to be strict about the deadline is the deadline.
- It just hit a natural deadline because like, you know, Tuesday at 12 or something, it's like a really
- random deadline. Yeah. Would it work then instead of doing that Tuesday to Tuesday to make it Monday
- the 16th to Monday the 9th? Is that going to be a burden on? I don't think so. I think it would be Tuesday
- to Tuesday because if it's Monday, if you're someone who's filling out something from an application,
- on during the weekend, then there's an issue on Monday. Good point. Good point. Good point. Good point.
- Good point. Good point. Good point. Good point. Good point. Good point. Good point. Good point.
- Good point. Good point.
- The Tuesday to Tuesday. Yeah. Could you wrote on that topic of no late applications? And then we'll
- use that as a basis for working with ITS to set that up. Awesome. Yeah. So who's going to, so then we
- want to make a motion on the no late application rules. Oh, we'll make a motion. Thank you. Can I get
- a second? Thank you. All right. I'll do roll call starting with Cameron.
- Catherine. Yes. Isaac. No, just to be fun. I mean, so can't have everything be, you know. Our little
- contrarian. Dave. Yes. I'll vote yes. Andy. Yes. Eddie. Yes. And I vote yes. If this happens and you're
- all like all softies, I'm going to be like, remember I fucked up.
- We will not allow late applications, so we will set the application to close at the specified time.
- Yeah. If there's something on the city side, things go down. Do you want to amend your motion? I don't.
- Some plus one, at less. Should we take that into consideration if something goes down?
- Yes. I would like to amend the motion and offer if there's technical issues on the city of Wilmington
- side, then we will. Yeah. So we don't accept late things unless it's our fault. Yes. Yes. We'll offer
- a grace period for ourselves. We're thinking demonstrate.
- something on their side. I suspect we'd be able to tell that from from SIPA form that ITS to help us
- identify that and then we want to add an addendum to that motion or it's already been voted on. Right. I mean,
- It has to be a new motion, right? It has to be a new motion. Yeah. That's what I meant. Okay. Do we
- want to make a new motion to allow late applications only when it's a city error? Is that the motion
- I'm looking for? Or it can be for them, that it's not an issue on their own. Do you still move? I do.
- I move. If someone could restate that, please.
- The reason to allow the applications if there is a city and then if there's a city error or the applicant
- can prove there was a technical error on their end. Or if somebody can prove that their cat would get
- off their lap. That's happened to me.
- Their dog was talking to their people to put up their grant. Okay, so we have the motion. Can I get
- a second? I'll second. Thank you. Uh, Dave? Yes. Andy? Yes. Eddie? Yes. Catherine? Yes. Sorry, I skipped
- you, Cameron. He saw you. And I vote yes. We have another unanimous vote. Thank you.
- And one other question, in the previous book, there was a name. That's correct. I mean, I'm almost,
- I was almost offended when she was like, let me know how did that say? Did I say it was unanimous? Yeah,
- it didn't feel seen. I totally apologize. I will not do that to you again. Oh, thanks. Okay, super.
- So now we need to talk about our schedules moving forward. Now that we have all that settled, do we,
- I'm so sorry, do we need to take,
- Make a motion about the dates for the application window, or is that just something we can set? We did
- that already. We did not. We talked about and debated it, but we decided to keep it that Tuesday. Tuesday
- to Tuesday, right? Yeah, the 17th through the 10th. I think let's go with that. That doesn't have to
- be in a more timely manner. I mean, you can. Oh, that's why I was asking, did we need to?
- I don't know that you have to, but we don't have to. We love voting. All right. So for the application
- review, we're going to then, after they're due on March 10, there's a lot of magic that happens behind
- the scenes. A lot of really hard work before we then touch them. So then the committee meets to review
- and discuss all of those applications, to talk about our questions that we have.
- And then that's where we figure out which agencies we want to invite into question. So in most years
- past, we had a night where every agency who applied came in for a small presentation. I think they had
- like five minutes and then we could ask them questions. And it was a very long night. So last year we
- changed it up and we only brought in
- Agencies that we had questions specific questions for that. We wanted a little more information about
- their applications Still turned out to be a majority of yeah But there was some there was a healthy
- handful that we didn't it was a much shorter time. There's a lot that we brought in Or do we still want
- to do it that way this year just the agencies that
- I like that. They leave us questioning. We saved like three hours doing that. And more importantly,
- the agency saved that time. So it's like, we shouldn't bring them through for a horse and buggy thing
- if their time is so limited. I've received positive feedback from applicants about that. True. We make
- a policy that if they give them the option, in other words, we're satisfied with what we've received from you.
- is one possibility. Another possibility is, we are reserving some time. If you want to come in and talk
- for five minutes, we're happy, but we don't need that. I think it's only fair to open it up to the other
- agencies to give equal time. Here's a comment that I heard from somebody because I asked that question
- and a couple of the applicants said,
- If you offer that, then everybody will accept it out of fear that they'll be punished for not correct.
- Exactly. That's a good point. Did we have any good faith that it did not influence our decision? Yes.
- I actually think that we had, that we ended up ranking the people who we didn't, basically the people
- we didn't ask.
- Sorry. I'm going to say no. I'm going to say that I actually have the opposite effect, though, than
- I would have theorized, right? That the people we didn't ask, we sort of already ranked high is sort
- of the way I think we ended up choosing who we were voting for. I don't think we invited anybody that
- we were like, oh my gosh, yeah, this is the home run. It's clarifications on projects and some other
- things. Yeah. So it's more like technical stuff when Joe and Frank pitched up.
- Which is like, is there a way we can do whatever email or have them explain something in a recording
- if we have a question. I honestly don't like
- Yeah. The optics even of them approaching our decision-making table and it feels like they're making
- a case and it feels like that's how they're approaching it and the questions that were like it creates
- this power dynamic that makes me feel more uncomfortable even though we did it last year. Yeah. Am I
- remembering correctly, did we last year just send a couple of email questions to a couple of the agencies?
- Yes. It was more than that. Yeah. Sam and I took notes during the meeting and then afterwards,
- contacted multiple agencies with a list of questions. And in some cases, there were only two questions.
- In other cases, there were more in-depth questions. And so it varied. And some of our questions because
- the nature of the packet last year was so long. And so some of the questions I also noticed was we had
- some snarky responses of, if you would have seen this in my answer on page X, Y, or Z,
- which we didn't because there were so many pages. So maybe this system would, you know, maybe the system
- that we have now would make things clearer, but I also think we could easily not ask them to come in
- when they want to speak to us. So essentially to email questions out and request email responses. That's
- how I feel about it. Can I add something? Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Go ahead. Just to say,
- You know, I brought this up last year and that is, and I'm perfectly fine with what the proposal is,
- which as I understand it, that we only invite in if we have questions. But there was a time when we
- would invite everybody to do a presentation. And the utility of that was that it would be broadcast
- to the community and people would learn about what these social service agencies were doing.
- And even if we couldn't fund them or fund them fully, you know, the word got out and people would contribute.
- So it was sort of their chance to sort of, you know, be on cats and make a case for what they're doing
- and why they needed funding. I realized things have changed. I realized there are far more applicants
- now. It would just be ungainly probably to open. This is when we had maybe 20 applicants in the past
- or something.
- But it did have that utility. And I just wanted to say that for the record, that it was, I thought it
- was a good system while it lasted. So that's all. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. And I understand a lot of
- this is about, we're trying to get to the heart of equity for all of these groups. So that's tragic.
- Yes. Something we might think about, I probably have not enough time to do now, but with the new way
- that we're using our forums, that you actually could have them
- basically give a little video type of thing of themselves that you could then post on a, like we should
- think a little bit more about how we, not again, not for this year, but just something for us all to
- think about is like, how do we make a loop of like stuff coming in and that actually results in data
- going out, right? Like where we're like, here are all the applicants this year and here are the projects.
- And, you know, like, you know, instead of it just being this very dry, like,
- They do it. We review it. We put it out that there is just a sort of like community of Jack Hopkins,
- you know, that, that we're promoting things that are happening in the city. Um, but I don't, again,
- like, you know, the time that we did the full interviews here, I don't know if it was all the terrible
- thing was most of the people came and sat through all of them. And I would, and I just felt so bad for,
- you know, for the folks who came at eight and they didn't get to talk until 1130 or whatever. It was
- just like, it was, it was really painful.
- Yeah, I'll chime in on what Dave said, because I was around for all through all that, not even before.
- So what we found, as I recall, was that that benefit that Dave was talking about mainly was something
- that was articulated by the city, by us as an opportunity. And when
- the agencies actually had a chance to respond or weigh in on that. They're like, no, it's not,
- that's not, we're not looking for that. That's not our, we don't really see it as an opportunity to
- market ourselves, right? And we are sitting through this and getting ungodly wrong. We have these two.
- To get rejected by funding, you know, make a little bit. That's what I recall. So Dave is right that
- we did want to provide that, right? But as I recall,
- When they got a chance to get feedback, you don't need to do that for us. I have a slightly different
- view on why we do interviews for the people that we have questions for, which is not wanting to disadvantage
- somebody because they're a bad bread writer.
- Right, because some of the organizations are well skilled. And I mean, a lot of people who brought in
- were first time people, their application was like, yeah, you think you said that, that's not what you
- said on page 17, right? Like the question, you know, I agree there are some times, some of the interviews,
- like where we did the interview on that they had applied twice and were like, which of these do you
- want funded? Because you can't do both. I mean, that could have been an email, but I think with some
- of them, it was just, you know, it was like, whatever you described here,
- we really didn't, I didn't get until you explained it. And I'm like, oh, okay, I see, I see what you're
- doing. That's, yeah. And then I was thinking of there was one applicant last year that very specifically,
- I remember being like, I don't get who you are and what you're looking for. And I had to hear her. The
- Hendricks County person or whatever. Yes, yes. They had a funny name and we were all like, why,
- why is this? Any point of the application made it clear that this was like things happening in Bloomington and, and,
- you know, we're like, you say you're in Hendricks County and you're like, oh, that's just how our name
- is. It never came out until we talked or, oh, okay, no more questions. Yeah. So I'm torn. I'm torn because
- I certainly, you know, feel very strongly that getting just a handful of our applicants in front of
- us to make the case might feel fairly unweighted or unfairly weighted. Um,
- Most of it can be done via email, but I also hear you that some of it just can't be sussed out unless
- it's verbal. Now, before we even get to that point, we do weed out some of the applications that's out,
- where we say, we know right away we're not going to fund wheeze at all. That's what we figure out in
- that meeting, too, where we're debating, who are we going to ask further questions of? Did we,
- Last year, was there anybody that we invited? Does anybody remember? Anybody that we invited to present
- that we didn't fund at all? Yes, of course. As I was asking the question, that's what I thought. OK.
- The problem that I have is that we don't stick with the question that we identified. And we end up on
- this other level of interrogation that I feel we're really uncomfortable about.
- scrutinizing them in ways we don't scrutinize the ones we don't call in. And I noticed that specifically
- with the Latino education project from last year, there were lots of questions about the value of that
- project that came up, but I was like, they're requesting $3,000. We had this one technical question
- and it felt like it evolved into like a much bigger thing. And so that's my issue was like,
- if we do it, that would be great if we could identify our questions, stick with it and not keep poking at
- things as they come up, it doesn't feel right. I'm leaning toward, just my personal opinion, and I'd
- love to hear anybody else's input on this, I'm leaning toward doing the email questions web, but having
- a really thorough discussion about how we're framing the questions, what questions we're asking them,
- who we're asking them. So I like the email, but I think you, Safiya, had mentioned something about maybe
- some, instead of people coming in person,
- do a three minute video describing the project and then offer to everyone to submit a video. And then
- we can watch them if we need to. Like the project's very straightforward. It's like, I want to buy books
- for kids. That's easy to explain, but there's something that is too complex and you just can't get it
- by reading it. But allowing people the opportunity and best to not necessarily go to town and get something
- else and get a video.
- Another thought is that don't we allow public comment during our deliberation part of the conversation?
- At the application review part? Yeah, isn't there a public comment part? I don't remember there being
- a public comment period. I'm already confusing it, but I feel like we have one. I don't know. For which
- meeting is this?
- I'm just wondering if, I'm wondering if there's a, if you can lean into, I mean, I'm just thinking like,
- is there some way where while we're deliberating at the end, you have, we raised all these questions
- and then they've chosen to watch they at public comment or like, Oh, I can answer that question. Like
- is that like, is that a mechanism that we could use?
- I mean, it gets back to you. It doesn't address your concern. Do they get that question beforehand?
- Yeah, that's what we did last year. We said this is what we want to know. Could it be that females are
- just reserved for verification and process questions and the in-person is reserved for high-risk or
- really, really large grants that need further examination?
- And maybe your first time applicants, which we did last year our conversation first time applicants
- them having visibility with with community visibility as well. The first thing that we said, the technical
- for me, they did the opportunity to do that. So this is a grant meeting that they get to the technical
- assistance. Yeah, we're not part of that. Okay.
- I think you're onto something maybe. I like that idea of the clarification emails, because there's always
- clarification that we want, but we don't need to necessarily invite them in. And then we'll set, and
- maybe we don't even need to do this tonight, right? Figure out our parameters for who we would want
- to invite in. Like they have to meet specific standards, really big grant requests of X amount or more.
- or first time applicants that we just don't know who they are. And maybe just even just the only those
- two. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
- Because I think our biggest questions with that too, or what can you do with less, you know? Yeah, but
- they wrote up their big question for chat last year was, hey, if we didn't get any letters from you,
- whatever. Yeah, because I know there's, one of the questions on the survey, on the application is, can
- partial funding, can you still do something with partial funding? Which is important.
- Yeah. Well, yeah, I mean, it's already even on my application. So if they said yes, then I think it's
- safe to go ahead. And I don't think anybody's ever said no. You know, I love that motion to do that.
- To do what? You know, a set of thresholds that we can discuss when we talk about rubric for for interviews
- and yeah, and then do all the other paper.
- And first time out. And first time African shirt. I will add that to my motion. Well worded, well worded
- motions. Do I have a second? Isak. Oh, yes. I was like, what, what, what, what, yes.
- Yes. And I vote yes. That one is unanimous. It passes. Thank you. All right. So that wasn't even planning
- on getting that deep into the weeks there with that. But I'm glad we did. So with the applications being due,
- March 10th, then we need to have our next meeting to start the review process about a month later. So
- Lisa and Kari have recommended the week of April 6th through the 10th as meeting. So I think from this
- point on, we're just kind of looking at our calendars and trying to get the rest scheduled so that we
- can move forward. I'm gonna pull up my calendar too.
- Are there any days of the week? Okay. So we're going to try to keep these evenings. Are there any nights
- typically throughout the week that are a no-go? So I know, for example, ESOC is a hard no on Mondays
- because you teach. Tuesdays are actually a hard no for me. I'm just sitting in. Okay. So Mondays and
- Wednesdays are no good. I mean Mondays and Tuesdays.
- This was a decaf, that's the problem. So a lot of these, Lisa and Kari were very smart to look at, weeks
- we don't have city capsules. So Wednesdays should be good for those weeks. Is there anybody that is
- a hard no on Wednesdays?
- Or about what? I have a preference not to, but that's, I mean, don't worry about my preferences. Well,
- next Thursdays and Fridays, do you talk about anybody have a hard conflict with Thursdays or Fridays?
- Thursdays don't work for me, so I might as well do the class. Okay. So I'm going to be tough. Got it.
- Unless you want me to.
- We really need a city councilor or city health child care. Yeah. We should write that into law. Done.
- All right. So that leaves Wednesdays are rather not. And Fridays are OK. Friday needs are difficult
- for them to focus on this. OK. Wednesday it is. Sorry. It looks like a chilly Wednesday. Does it have
- to be evenings? I mean, OK. I mean, happy mornings.
- I could really only do mornings with early Tuesdays or Thursdays. I can do Thursday mornings. Well,
- it depends on the day. You said the week of? The week of April 6th through the 10th. I'm going to say
- April 8th. I am honored if I should throw it out now. I'll be in New York. OK. So I won't be on the
- red screen.
- I'll be driving back. No, I'll be back on the night. So Thursday. So are you available that Tuesday
- morning? Who did an early one Tuesday morning? I would be available. I can make myself available. Okay.
- So I'm looking at Tuesday, the seventh early morning, maybe. Well, a nine is just one. I can't really.
- But Tuesdays and Thursdays, I work from home. So I sleep out. I've learned to go to public museums.
- You can't. You can't do more than this. OK. Oh, I will say that's really difficult for me. OK. No, I'm
- glad you're speaking up. Thank you. I mean, they're hard for me too. So when you say Friday, or multiple
- days, are you saying one Friday evening, or are you saying multiple
- Just for this week. Right now we're just looking at this week. What? This week? What are we talking
- about? No, no, no, no. The week of April 6th. Oh, sorry. I was just asking in general, like, before
- we go through each day of the week when people are like, so maybe for this, like, a one-off, we could,
- the Quick Stop could probably be better. How many meetings do we have to do? I always forget. I actually
- can't do that Friday night, because I have to be in New Jersey the next day. So I just realized I probably
- should not book myself for that Friday night. So at least like Wednesdays are not preferred, but that
- one Wednesday is okay. Yeah, I mean, like I said, don't worry about my preferences. I was just stating
- them. I like to have every Wednesday kept free too, because there's no prayer and precious. It's nice
- to see my family. I think Wednesday equals eight. It's one night for that.
- I should join a little bit. You can join remotely as well. Yeah, but I'll be back for him.
- So he'll be back. If it's in the morning, I can't do it. So I'll be getting my divorce done. Right,
- no. So if we did like a 6 p.m. on Wednesday, April 8th, does that not work for anybody? Oh, no, Catherine
- says it doesn't. Oh, no, no, no, it works for me. Are you sure? Yes. Okay. Okay.
- You can do that. Dave, is that good for you? April 8 at 6 p.m. Yes. Sophia? Sophia? I'm sorry, is Wednesday
- okay? Yes, Wednesday the 8th. Is that okay for you guys?
- We can't. We can't come on April 8th. I'm sorry. We didn't realize. We have a big event. We work together
- for Context. But on April 9th, it'll be very hard for us to do April 8th, I would imagine,
- at least for me. Catherine has a bigger ability to be like, I'm not doing that. Why don't we look at the lead?
- before then. But then we had a council meeting on Wednesday. I know. I'm saying maybe, oh, and then
- that Tuesday state of the city. So we'd be looking at like April 2nd. Is this our review meeting? This
- is the application review. Yes. This is our long meeting. It's a big meeting. Yeah. I can't, I mean,
- okay. So, so I can,
- Because I can make a Monday work, like a once-one-Monday work. Monday the 6th is? It's Easter.
- Is that a... Oh, that's Easter? April 6th is Easter, yeah. It's not a city holiday, but it is. Yeah,
- yeah, yeah. I would be okay with the 6th, unless it's totally everything's to Japan. So just, again,
- We're free on the 6th. Council staff would be there on the 6th. Same for correct staff. Do you want
- to do 6th? I can do the 6th. Is there anybody who cannot do the 6th? What time? 6th again? 6 p.m.? Does
- that work for everybody? Yeah. Okay. This will be the long one, right? Auburn cookies. Okay, so April 6th.
- This is harder than I thought. Sorry, I'm sorry to throw wrenches. Don't ever apologize. I'm always
- the one with the hard schedule to fit in when people get mad at me all the time and I hate it. So I'm
- not mad at anybody for their schedule. All right. Do we want to set a date for the... Well, yes, because
- we did say we might have some agency presentations. So council staff has recommended the week of April
- 27th through May 1st.
- But that one, because again, there's no city council that week. That week, why does my calendar look
- so empty? Because my kids' music books look better. Okay. Is there any, so looking at the calendars,
- the week of April 27th through May 1st, are there any hard, hard no's?
- Tuesday's partner. Okay. And we are still talking. Please. We are. Yes. I'm wide open that week. I could
- do almost any time. Nobody wants to meet with me that week. That's nice. Best thing that ever happened.
- Well, does the Wednesday work for everybody?
- Is there anybody the Wednesday does not work for? It works. Yeah. Wednesday, April 29th at six. Yes.
- Got a black belt. OK. I may have to be remote. I'm sorry? I may have to be remote. I'm not sure.
- I could join, but I may be out of town. Oh, OK. For that whole week? Yeah. OK.
- on the Wednesday. Okay. So then there's more, the pre-allocation meetings. So that's where we come in
- with our rubrics having been done and the recommendations that we individually are making. And then
- that's where we put all of our numbers together and do a really great big algebraic equation. It's great fun.
- So that's not long after. So that is, we're looking at the week of May 11th. Am I remembering that?
- Did I remember that correctly? Yeah, the week of May 11th. So that gives us a little more time than
- we had last year. I think we only have one week in between the presentations and our rubrics being due
- last year. This gives us two weeks, which is much better because I didn't have enough breathing room
- last time, I know.
- And I think the extra time will be helpless. So. We have a council meeting on the 13th? We do have a
- council meeting on the 13th. Deliberation. It's a little pretty huge. Oh, let's just turn the deliberation
- into. That's what I was going to say. Let's do that. Can we really? Why not? Is that legal? It disabuses
- me. That is not legal? Well, I don't know that it wouldn't be legal. We could cancel the deliberation
- session and set up Jack Hopkins. Set up general, all types of.
- other committees. Council President, do we have permission to cancel the deliberation session? That's
- not the thing we would do in this meeting. I'm asking for your commitment. No. Monday, is anybody? Yeah,
- that's after a semester, right? Yeah, sure. I could do that Monday. Monday's good.
- Isn't that an important day? Yes, it's my father-in-law's birthday. Well, that's the Monday after graduation.
- I'm going to be a little tired. So Monday, May 11th at 6 PM. Does that work for everybody? Right. I
- don't want to be there like 5.30. We can do 5.30.
- Monday, May 11th at 6 p.m. Good. This is pre-allocation. That's pre-allocation. So that's another long
- one. And then we have the actual allocation here and that one is usually pretty quick. So we're looking
- at the week of May 26th.
- I've always wondered though, what is the difference between those two meetings? Because nothing changes.
- It's just that we have to get the documents ready and then come in and vote for them. Is that the reason
- why we have two different meetings? That's the allocation meeting. Last year, there was still a lot
- of discussion in the allocation meeting. Yeah, I remember that. So there was really a need for it. OK.
- OK. So things can change between them. Right. The first year, we just came and they were like,
- you like this? Yeah.
- Oh my gosh. Okay. So there was no council meeting that week, but that Monday is Memorial Day. Um,
- I see. That's why it says the 26 on the, yes. Okay. So, uh, you guys want to do that one on the Friday
- so that we can go on vacation. Sorry. Theoretically North's graduation is Saturday. Okay. So you got
- to do a party.
- Well, I mean, I have a kid graduating. Hopefully, my parents are going to be in town. So Friday night
- is bad, but I can do probably Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. It's probably fine. Tuesday.
- Anybody else? What's the date? The 26th. I think we'll be in town. OK. Are you in town? Any of the other two?
- Thanks. So right now we're looking at the 27th or 28th. March, spring, break? March or May. Well, hey
- everybody. But thank you for picking the breaks. That is available, but that has a better statement.
- Thank you.
- Um, does, is there anybody that has a really strong preference for Wednesday or Thursday? I'd rather
- it be Thursday. Okay. Thursday it is. If everybody's okay with that. So Thursday, May 28th. Oh,
- May 28th? Yeah. Oh, okay. At 6 PM. You guys don't mind if my parents come and I'll show you. Um, okay.
- So that is good.
- And we're almost done, guys. We're so close. And then we have our debriefing meeting. That's the following
- week, week of June 1st. We do have council on the third, that Wednesday. So that leaves Monday, Tuesday,
- Thursday, or Friday of that week. All of those are equal to me. I'm sorry, you said the first week of
- June? Yes.
- I may have accidentally said- When was our last council meeting? Was it the 10th? Is that the one that
- works today? Yes. So we have two in a row that week so that then we don't- then we have- and does that
- give us enough time to get the report? So could we also do the report on the- was that right?
- Or the 10th? So the recommendation is for June 10th to be the 4th. The recommendation and then we also-
- and then you'll give the report that day? On the 10th, yes. So just thinking like is there-
- more time, it's more time useful. Should we do this earlier in the week than later for that?
- I don't know. I'm asking you all. I don't understand. For the debriefing meeting, I don't know that
- that matters that much. Yeah, I think the week of June 1st. I mean, earlier could be better, but. Cool.
- On your preferences. Okay. I pretend to come together at these times.
- Oh. All right. How does anybody feel about Tuesday, June 2nd for the debrief? Great. Yeah. So for everybody
- at 6 PM. 1, 2, 3. Yes. OK. All right.
- Okay, so those are all the ones that we need to schedule. I think that's everything. So just to reiterate,
- we're looking at meetings on, these are all at 6 p.m., Monday, April 6th, Wednesday, April 29th, Monday,
- May 5th, Thursday, May 28th, and Tuesday, June 7th.
- and I get a motion to approve this. Wait, I had one is May 11th. Yes, Monday, May 11th. Okay. Reallocation
- meeting. Okay. Yeah. And then I think that we need to... No? Did we make... What is this now? I think
- it's fine with that. Well, there's all three to those days. Okay. Well, that was easy. And then we will
- present our final numbers
- City Council on June 10th. Hopefully get there before recess. All right. That was everything on my agenda.
- Does anybody have any new business? Well, yes.
- Just a plug for conflict of interest for the norms. Okay. What is a conflict of interest? It's a financial
- interest in a contract, such as a grant award in this case, or driving a financial benefit of some form
- from an award of a grant. So if you think that you may have some type of conflict of interest, contact
- me and we can talk about it.
- Disclosures would need to be made during one of our meetings here, and then a financial disclosure statement
- would need to be completed and filed with the state. I can help, or our office can help complete those.
- Thank you. Thank you. All right. And if there's no other testing matters, meeting adjourned. Hooray!