UW-Extension Arts & Culture Humanities and Historic Preservation Evaluation Panels

Arts, Humanities & Historic Preservation Grant Evaluation Panel – Humanities & Historic Preservation

Minutes of the Special Meeting

March 1, 2018

 

Panel Members Present:  Bill Campbell, Verlyn Mueller, Matthew Honer, Ralph Pierce

Panel Members Not Present: Barb Steinhorst

UWEX Staff Present:  Haley Weisert  
UWEX Arts and Culture Members Present: Judy Ashford, Donna Stehling, John Dietz

 

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 10:00 AM by Weisert and the requirements of the Open Meeting Law were met.

 

Approval of Agenda

Motion made to approve agenda.  Motion carried.

 

Introductions

           

Review of Process Procedure

Weisert presented an overview of the roles and responsibilities of the staff, panel members and UW-Extension, Arts and Culture Committee members.

 

Election of Chairperson

Motion made to elect Verlyn Mueller to serve as chair of the panel for the meeting with Matt Honer acting as chair when Mueller recuses himself.  Motion carried.

 

General Comments

 

Consideration of grant awards and development of recommendations

            The panel reviewed and ranked eight (8) grants and discussed the pros and cons of each application.            

            Points from the panelist scoring sheets were summed and divided by the number of panelists evaluating

each application. One panelists was recused from two applications. The following are the funding recommendations and comments for each application:

 

 

 

1.) Al. Ringling Theatre Friends, Inc.  requested $5,000 and the panel recommended full funding of $5,000 for this project.   The panel awarded this project an average of 90.8 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.
 

PROS:

Enlargement of series encourages promotion of theatre
Theatre environment important for experience
Innovation through outreach with outside organizations
More events added to schedule
Promotion with WPT and WPR invites participation beyond local support

CONS:

Would like to see specifics of film explained in more detail
Limit audience by movie selections
More thought out plan (specifics)
Would like to see more project sustainability.  Possible purchase of equipment versus renting.
Financially rely heavily on ticket sales
Expand and utilize social media promotion
Would like to see more fiscal accountability moving towards future projects and organization sustainability

 

2.) Sauk County Historical Society requested $5,000 and the panel recommended full funding of $5,000 for this project. The panel awarded this project an average of 93.4 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.
 

PROS:

Clear, concise, well-written application
Great educational opportunity
Good project that needs to be done
CONS:

Worried about accessibility with site selection due to current school events and climate
Seasonal accessibility.  Summer time hours
Question if the 21 from Baraboo are highlighted on memorial
Will the group meet financial goals?  Cash income not confirmed.
Baraboo based audience

 

3.) Sauk County Instrumental Music Honors Project requested $1,750 and the panel recommended full funding for this project.  The panel awarded this project an average of 74.2 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.

 

PROS: 

Music education is important
Good opportunity for youth both socially and educationally
Life-long skill development
Great personnel
County-wide participation with a large variety of participants
Chance for county to give back to education

CONS:

Move the event throughout county including Spring Green, etc.
Not innovative and grant dependent
Not trying to grow audience base
Would like to see more outside partners and financial supporters
Panelist felt application was better fit for arts grant, not humanities grant
Grant dollars go to one area (personnel).  Would like to see dollars spread out among program needs
Encourage to find local support through donations
Question sustainability of program

 

 

4.) Sauk Prairie Area Chamber of Commerce requested $1,625 and the panel recommended full funding for this project. The panel awarded this project an average of 84.2 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.

 

PROS:

New audience to be introduced to agriculture
Great agrotourism

CONS:

Lack of explanation of interpretation/ use
More marketing needed
No learning endeavor
Lacks how project is connected to historic preservation or humanities

 

5.) Sauk Prairie Area Historical Society requested $5,000 and the panel recommended full funding for this project.  The panel awarded this project an average of 84.75 points based on the grant evaluation criteria. Verlyn Mueller recused himself.

 

PROS:

Great project with great educational components
Will enhance trail

CONS:

Questioning the cost of sign/unit
Looking at the big picture this is only Phase 1.  Will have financial support for rest of phases?
Lack of diversity of panel designers
Majority of income not confirmed
No income contributed from organization.  Not financially committed.

 

 

6.) Sauk Prairie Conservation Alliance requested $5,000 and the panel recommended full funding for this project.  The panel awarded this project an average of 83.5 points based on the grant evaluation criteria. Verlyn Mueller recused himself.

 

PROS:

Highlights grassroots environmental conservation plan to recreation program transformation
Good project
Rich in Sauk County history

CONS:

Questioning the cost of sign/unit
Total 130-year span not covered in proposal.  Would like to see before powder plant included
Lack of outreach plan once video is completed
Limited stakeholder involved.  What about DNR and other non-profits?
Included staff time as in-kind which conflicts with grant guidelines in the amount of $2080
Cash income not confirmed

7.) Sauk Prairie River Projects Association, Ltd. (PALS) requested $500 and the panel recommended funding for this project.  The panel awarded this project an average of 70 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.

 

PROS:

Worthy endeavor
Benefits families and children in area
Good content- bee topic is a current issue to cover

CONS:

Financial income comes from limited sources
Location selection questionable and not explained well
Organization association with event is confusing
No draw to what grant is about
Narrative did not connect needs with humanities
Unclear writing overall
Grant dependent
Lack to marketing/promotional plan

 

8.) Village of North Freedom & North Freedom Library requested $5,000 and the panel recommended full funding for this project.  The panel awarded this project an average of 86.6 points based on the grant evaluation criteria.

 

PROS:

History needs to be recorded, especially in small towns
Good plan and timeline in place
Local participation
Proceeds go towards historical preservation
Affordable product

CONS:

Would like to see an increase in book price
Lack of private donor support
50% match of book sales
Donations/fundraising goes against grant guidelines.  They plan to donate income to library.

 

 

Panel Members’ Questions and General Comments

Comments on the Panelist Process Evaluation:

Paper copies lacked all documents that electronic versions included
Liked fillable form for scoring
Addition of question to ask “how does your project fit within the arts/humanities/historic preservation?”  Better define how the project is connected to the cause.
Inform that applicants need to sell the application.
Possible examples of well-written grants available online as a sample.

 

Adjourn

Motion adjourn the meeting.  Meeting adjourned.

 

 

Submitted by,

 

Haley Weisert

Sauk County UW Extension Program Specialist       

 

 

 

The Panel ranked the grant applications in the following order:

1.Sauk County Historical Society

2.Al. Ringling Theatre Friends, Inc.

3.Village of North Freedom and North Freedom Library

4.Sauk Prairie Area Historical Society (SPAHS)

5.Sauk Prairie Area Chamber of Commerce (SPACC)

6.Sauk Prairie Conservation Alliance, Inc.

7.Sauk County Instrumental Music Honors Project

8.Sauk Prairie River Projects Association, Ltd. (PALS)