University Transportation Center
|
|
|
Present:
Absent: John Carney, Joe Coughlin, David Driscoll, Robert Durand, Dick Foley, David Forsberg, Joyce Gleason, Orville Harrold, Tom Hoover, John Kania, Mary Kielbasa, Tom Narrigan, Roberta Schaefer, Anthony Schwaller
Guests: Dr. and Mrs. Thomas Plough, The Honorable Mel Greenberg, Paul Delida, Al Myrick |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion of the report shifted to various attempts to involve teachers and non school partners in responding to our programming and the grants announcements. Dr. Estus reported that he had proposed exploration of establishing a Transportation Academy much like the Health Sciences Academy and Worcester Pipeline projects in which area health-care providers are partnered with middle and high school teachers in an exploration of careers and the skill development needed for them. Board members were enthusiastic in their support of such exploration and encouraged Drs. Estus and Livingstone to pursue it. Ms. Scott observed that the New York City Transit Authority and its educational program might be a resource for such a development. |
 Buffet Lunch on the train |
|
|
|
|
Once discussion of the directors' report closed, the board members turned to the project proposals. After some discussion of their general merits, of the lack of any specific guidance for the applicants and of the absence of clear criteria for board members' evaluation of them, Ms. Cary made a motion to fund all of the projects. The motion was seconded. Mr. Jones observed that funding them all might send the message that our decisions have no realistic boundaries. Ms. Scott observed that even though criteria were unspecified, some proposals were clearly more meritorious than others. Mr. Jones opined that with this first year's experience we can develop a clearer set of criteria. Ms. Daniel agreed stating that next year applicants would know they are applying for more tightly defined grants. Ms. Cary said a lot of people were not sure about how to develop their proposals; it is clear that they are earnest but they need re-direction. She suggested that we can award the grants and request modifications that were necessary. Dr. Estus asked, then, if the board members would accept a friendly amendment to the original motion so that Ms. Cary's suggestion might be incorporated in it. |
 Members and guests are greeted on the train. |
|
|
|
|
Discussion of criteria continued and Ms. Daniel asked for elaboration of a request for computer hardware and the appropriateness of funding an after-school program, two items that were criticized in one set of board member evaluations. These were taken as an indication of lack of clarity in the application process and after a more complete description of the context for the projects, the legitimacy of the requests were recognized. Dr. Denault expressed her feeling that we could not penalize the applicants for our lack of publicity surrounding the grants announcement. She asked if all had to be funded with the amount requested? All agreed that for most applicants these sums represented only "seed" money for program start-ups. |
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Estus asked that the board members return to a discussion of Ms. Cary's implicitly friendly amendment that all proposals be funded with some form of needed re-direction given to each. Ms. Cary asked how do you decide the conditions? Mr. Jones said we could establish the criteria this year, but how do you backtrack next year? Dr. Slavkovsky observed that the criteria could change through the experiences the grantees encounter and it was noted that we would receive reports on these projects. The discussion continued, and the board members decided that all grant applications should be funded with the provision that Drs. Estus and Livingstone assume responsibility for requesting the appropriate modifications suggested by board members. |
|
Last updated:
March 5, 2004
Web site designed by SFI
Multimedia