SFN STEERING MINUTES

Present:

Jan Busch Koehnen, Human Services

Jeff Theis*, CSEC

Jennifer Deschaine*, Human Services

Jerry Hennen, Commissioner

Jim Hinck, CSEC

Jon McBroom*, Shakopee Schools

Judi Brumfield*, Human Services

Judi Moonen*, CAP Agency

Ken Jaus, Scott County Resource Council

Larry Kauzlarich*, Jordan Schools

Sharon Diedrich, CAC, Advisor

Terry Raddatz, Mental Health Center

Therese McCoy*, Court Services

Wanda Houska, SFN Executive Assistant

Absent:

Bill Jaffa*, Scott County HRA

Frankie Poplau*, New Prague Schools

Kelly Smith*, Belle Plaine Schools

Lezlie Prettyman Olson*, MRVSEC

Tim Walsh*, Human Services

Tom Lisec*, Burns/Sav/Eagan Schools

Tom Westerhaus*, Prior Lake/Savage Schls

* denotes voting member

Tom Westerhaus was not able to attend the meeting due to the need to address issues related to a teen suicide over the weekend. Tim Walsh, vice-chair, was also unable to attend. Therese agreed to facilitate the meeting.

Approval of Meeting Minutes

Motion by Judi B., seconded by Jennifer, to approve the February 2005 Steering Committee meeting minutes* as distributed. Motion carried.

Advisor Update

Advisor representatives updated the Team on changes happening within their organization.

The next Resource Coordinator meeting will be held on April 5^th from 2-4 pm at the Prior Lake Library. A panelist forum will be used to discuss the Russian-speaking immigrant community. All partner staff are welcome to attend.

Student Survey Workshop

A flyer* for a workshop to discuss and evaluate student survey results was distributed. Therese, Jennifer and Jeff expressed interest in attending and will work out details amongst themselves.

MORE Proposed Changes to the LCTS

Judi B. shared information on five possible changes the Feds are considering that will affect LCTS VI-E earnings. The one change that would have the most profound impact on SFN is the method used to determine VI-E candidacy It would need to be determined by county human services and done every six months. Schools are currently able to make this determination, and therefore are able to use random moment coding that reflects this status. This change could take place as early as October 2005.

Discussion of Proposal Process to Use for 2005-2006

Terry and Wanda utilized the 05-06 draft proposal form and developed a mock proposal* to review in order to determine necessary changes in the form or in the review process. Discussion items included:

A score (point) value could be set for each area of the proposal. This could be weighed to reflect a prioritization of the individual criteria.
Outcomes for each criteria item need to be addressed and include an explanation of how they will be measured.
Criteria items need more description.
There is a need to determine the cost effectiveness of the time allocated to the proposal and evaluation process.
Instead of each partner submitting a proposal, we could further define the criteria then ask partners if they would be willing to design/implement programming to meet these specific outcomes. This would eliminate the need for potentially all partners investing time in proposal development.
The proposal process is beneficial in and of itself. It brings awareness to needs across organizations and fosters collaboration between partners.

It was determined that all partners were welcome to submit proposals using a revised proposal form that will be sent out this week. Wanda needs to receive completed proposals (preferably via email) by Wednesday April 6^th so that they can in turn be forwarded to all Steering representatives to review prior to the April 11^th meeting. Proposals will then be discussed and the evaluation process further defined. The funding of proposals will be decided at the May 9^th Steering meeting, at which time more detailed budget information should be available.

Collaborative Administration Discussion

(Wanda was not present for the remainder of the meeting. The following notes were submitted by Therese.)

Judy Moonen walked us through the Executive Assistant job description and the % of time each area took up to make the 1.00 FTE. There was discussion and consensus that we needed central coordination for administering the revenues, (Including coordination of the local time study) expenditures and reporting requirements. Judy M agreed to meet with Wanda to get a better idea on the time these tasks and responsibilities would take.

We had a brief discussion on the expenditure for salary and benefits. Given the revenue projections (from $120,000 to $200,000, depending on cuts) there was consensus that the approximately $50,000 was too great of a cost to support the remaining program dollars.

Motion by Judi B., seconded by Larry that we not budget to fund a full time Executive Assistant. Discussion: Could we look to the partner agencies to see if we could “buy” hours on an existing position to handle the essential duties? We will need to have a follow up discussion on options next month.

Motioned carried.

Motion to adjourn: Jennifer/Judy B.

*Contact Wanda to receive a copy of these documents