Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grant Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council proposes focused work groups, refines grant rubric and stresses open-meeting compliance
Summary
Council for Human Services members agreed to form small work groups to review grant applications and suggested revisions to the grant-evaluation rubric; staff will circulate assignments and compliance guidance on open meeting and conflict-of-interest rules.
At the July 31 meeting the Council for Human Services proposed creating three small work groups to give subject-area review and community outreach support to the Contract Review Committee’s grant-evaluation process. Council members said the groups will supplement CRC’s review by providing sector expertise and by helping develop interview questions and follow-up items for applicants.
Council members described two possible sector breakdowns: a Maslow-like grouping used in earlier needs assessments (basic needs → other fundamental needs → emergency preparedness) and a more granular sector list the council used in its recent report (housing; health care; substance misuse; elder care; child and youth services; emergency services; behavioral health). Jericho, the staff lead, said the finer sector breakdown better aligns with common funder taxonomies and will help compare local funding with other grantmakers.
Veronica Bolchick said staff will e-mail council members next week with the sector options and a short deadline for members to state their preferred focus areas. The council intends to keep most work groups small to avoid triggering open public meeting requirements; Jericho and Bolchick emphasized that more than two members discussing the same topic in a private forum could be subject to open-meeting rules.
Members asked for written guidance; Bolchick said the council will include a “cheat sheet” from the compliance office and contact information for Maureen Coleman, the town compliance officer. Council staff also reminded members that written communications can be subject to public-record rules and advised against “reply all” when coordinating informally by e-mail.
The council asked members to review the existing grant-evaluation rubric before the next full meeting and to bring suggested changes. The plan calls for the CRC to incorporate the council’s revisions, finalize the rubric and then use it during the fall grant season when applications are expected to arrive and be evaluated.
