Present: Alex Michalos, Karen Rempel, Ken Friesen, Brenda Firman, Rob Subedar, Al Gardiner, Bill Ashton, Jerry Storie, Arnie Novak, Marion Terry, Amjad Malik, Lisa Maxwell Regrets
Download 15.89 Kb.
|
| VOICE for Children and Youth SSHRC-CURA Proposal
Meeting Notes and Conference Call May 11, 2010 1-2pm Present: Alex Michalos, Karen Rempel, Ken Friesen, Brenda Firman, Rob Subedar, Al Gardiner, Bill Ashton, Jerry Storie, Arnie Novak, Marion Terry, Amjad Malik, Lisa Maxwell Regrets: Kathryn McNaughton, Alexa Okrainec, K. P. Binda, Mel Lall, Diane Novak, Randy Patrick, Hugh Fraser, Lynn Whidden, Derrek Eberts, Sheila Giesbrecht, Helen Robinson-Settee, Lorne Keeper, Gwen Merrick, Myrna Laramee, Don McCaskill Meeting Notes The purpose of the meeting was to 1.) clarify the people participating and travel arrangements, and 2.) introduce the agenda and clarify what will be taking place for each meeting. 1.0 Clarify people participating and travel arrangements Bill Ashton gave a brief report of the visit that he and Karen made along with Brenda to Thompson. He said that they met a lot of people who are potential partners, including having met with people from industry. They also met with students. He said that it was a worthwhile visit, and that, in general, there was a good response to the project and that people want these success indicators. They also met with MKO and they are very supportive. He commented that it was good to be able to touch base with the youth at this visit. Karen said that Thompson seems to be organized. She asked Al to report on what UCN was doing and who might be going to the meeting in The Pas. He said that Putkatawagan would be attending the meeting in The Pas, and that it looked like Cross Lake would be sending representatives to the meetings in The Pas and Thompson. Al said that UCN was utilizing their regional centre coordinators to make contacts. He said that the regional coordinators would be coming to the meetings and bringing people from the communities, but not sure of exact number count or names of the people who will be attending at this time. Brenda and Ken will be talking with Norway House. Al and Kathryn will be meeting with the education authority and the chief and council, and are still waiting to hear from representatives of the town. There was some brief discussion about Ilford and Gilliam regarding who might be contacting them. It was clarified that they are members of Frontier School Division. Jerry said that he would work on this. Karen said that she needs an e-mail with the names of people attending and the communities today, if possible, so that she can get a letter sent to them ASAP inviting them to the meetings. There was some discussion around this because communities have said they will send representatives to the meetings, but are not sure of exactly who at this time. Comments were made about the need to get the letters sent out in this tight time frame to help ensure to the communities the legitimacy of the project and the importance of their presence at the meetings. Other comments were made about the need to be flexible and work without knowing all the exact details of who was coming and their specific travel arrangements. It was suggested that a letter of invitation be sent to the UCN Regional Centre Coordinators inviting them and guests from the communities to the meetings. It was agreed that this would be the best way to proceed. It was clarified that most people in the communities had heard about the project or had seen the power point presentation. Comments were made regarding the need to be flexible and that there will likely be some “flying by the seat of your pants” working with people and meetings, yet still the needed concern regarding meeting certain SSHRC-CURA deadlines and requirements. A comment was made about if we should identify communities by their First Nations name. It was agreed that this would be the most appropriate way to proceed. There was some discussion regarding a potential number count for the hotel rooms reserved and how they would be paid for. No real consensus was made at this time regarding the number of hotel rooms that would be needed for guests from the communities attending the presentations. A comment was brought up about the need to be flexible and not linear in thinking about the project.
Karen clarified that the meeting on May 19 at 5:30pm in Thompson with the Town Council and the School Board Members was established because they would not be able to participate in the scheduled May 20th meeting. The purpose for the youth meeting with Francine McIvor is to find information on how we can engage youth in the community. Francine will be leading the meeting with the youth and that we will be observers. Karen thanked Brenda for helping to arrange this meeting. It was clarified that the meeting time start for both days will be 10am. Karen will begin the meetings by introducing the purpose for them and what will be taking place during the day meetings. She will also lead the SSHRC-CURA description presentation. Alex will lead the second presentation on indicators. Comments were made regarding how to best facilitate this discussion with the communities. A suggestion was made that it might be helpful to make this section experiential in nature. It was agreed that ideally this would be good, but time constraints may limit pursuing this idea. The next discussion will be on community participation and the meaning of partnership. A brief discussion took place clarifying the communities’ familiarity of the idea of partnership. A comment was made that they are used to the idea of trading so that they should understand the ideas of partnership and in-kind contribution commitments. It was also mentioned that it is important to clarify the parameters of partnerships now, rather than later. The third discussion will take place on the six steps that we would like to see happen, including capacity building, etc. A list of these six steps is found in the governance structure outline that was e-mailed several weeks ago. Karen said that she would try to re-send a copy of the governance structure for ease of access to locating these steps. Alex said that he would like to see what we are doing in those six steps strengthened. He said that the second step seems to be fleshed out, but the others are not. It was mentioned that throughout we need to constantly have in mind the concept of co-creating knowledge with the communities and how that will happen. Alex said this seems to be very important to SSHRC-CURA. The last discussion will take place around the community letters of support. The purpose is for communities to get a general sense of what would be needed in the letter. Follow-up can happen at a later to date to help communities in writing the letters and clarify the specifics needed. It was mentioned that most communities’ contributions will be in-kind, and not monetary. They may need some help figuring out how to quantify these in-kind contributions. It was stressed that the two biggest goals of these meetings are that the communities feel comfortable with the proposal and that they feel heard. Closing Comments A closing comment was made about the importance of clarifying to the communities that the grant is over five years, and it would be important to give them some idea of how their participation may evolve during that time. SSHRC-CURA is really concerned with the co-creation of knowledge, and how that is produced with the communities and universities. In other words, it is important to think about the ways in which knowledge can come together to impact lives. It is important to remember that the communities are the primary knowledge makers. The meeting adjourned at 2:10pm. Prepared by Lisa Maxwell, MA, Research Assistant Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2012 2012 -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? 2012 -> Aa and na members Dying from Tobacco 2012 -> [Baby Crying] 01: 04 [Ching 2012 -> Unit Name / Nom de l’unité uic / ciu dates 2012 -> What We Owe Jehovah’s Witnesses 2012 -> Oceans Challenge Badge 2012 -> Canadian cycling olympians 2012 -> Greg landry, june olkowski and tom lysiak 2012 -> William goldman 2012 -> Does translocation and restocking confer any benefit to the European eel population? A review Download 15.89 Kb. Share with your friends:
|