UW-Extension, Arts & Culture Grant Evaluation Panel - Humanities & Historic Preservation

History & Humanites Panel Minutes (116 KB)

Arts, Humanities & Historic Preservation Grant Evaluation Panel

HUMANITIES & HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Minutes of the Special Meeting

February 8, 2016

Panel Members Present:  Verlyn Mueller, Liz Nevers, Theresa Wimann, Orie Eilertson, and Rauel LeBreche

UWEX Staff Present:   Lerna Mae Wiese, Recorder
Others Present: Judy Ashford and Donna Stehling

Call to Order

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

Adopt Agenda

Motion by Verlyn Mueller, second by Rauel LeBreche to adopt the agenda. Motion carried.

Introductions

Election of Chairperson

Motion made by Liz Nevers, second by Verlyn Mueller to have Teresa Wimann serve as chair of the panel for the meeting.  Motion by Orie Eilertson seconded by Rauel LeBreche to have Verlyn Mueller serve as chair of the panel. Theresa Wimann was elected (3-2)

Review of Process Procedure

Wiese gave panel basic decision-making guidelines:

1. If there are any members of the public, including grant applicants present, remind them that, “they are welcome to observe but not to speak or ask questions.”
1. The Review Panel will be making recommendations on each application which will be forwarded to the Sauk County UWEX, Arts and Culture Committee for action at their February 17, 2016 meeting.
2. The panel will review each application based only on what is included in the application.
3. A panelist who is associated with a grant application will recuse him or herself from the room during that applicant’s review.

Consideration of grant awards and development of recommendations

            The panel reviewed the three grants and discussed the pros and cons of each application.

            The following are the funding recommendations and comments for each application:

A.)  Aldo Leopold Foundation requested $2,725 and the panel recommended partial funding (4) with no funding (1) for this project. 

PROS:

• Has fairly wide audience appeal.
• Historic significance of area’s unique relationship to the origins of Land Ethics and Aldo Leopold.
• Recognizes importance of Aldo Leopold and others who have addressed Land Ethics
• Has both historic preservation and humanities aspects in project.
• Realistic and sustainable.

CONS:

• No partnerships with other groups, agencies or individuals; external support would make this project more impressive.
• Did not meet matching funds guidelines for the grant application as a result of no partnerships.
• Alternate funding sources not specifically identified.
• Lack of diversity in people involved in designing and implementing project – such as Ho-Chunk, local youth, and African American.
• Audience limited to ALF visitors who walk the trail – would like to see additional outreach especially to folks who don’t know about Land Ethics and Aldo Leopold.
• End product seems passive…i.e. reading quotes; think of ways to make the quotes more interactive and personal to the reader; to cause reader to reflect on the statements.
• Concer over cost of the stones – would like to see local rocks used; might even get rocks donated by local quarries
• Not clear why they wanted to use a Dane County business to inscribe quotes on stones; what about Sauk County monument businesses; better opportunity to get in-kind services from the locals.
• All decisions on quotes done internally by staff and board- here were other missed opportunities for partnerships.

B.) Sauk County Instrumental Music Honors Project requested $1,750 and the panel recommended full funding for this project.

PROS:

• Liked the humanities aspect of this project.
• Used local resources, with possible exception of conductors.
• Involved most of local school districts.
• Project shows financial feasibility and community support
• Has a good return on investment and covers the county.
• Project is all partnerships.
• Appreciate brief application narratives.
• Music has built in appeal and is a great resource for understanding.
• Has good future, if strong in-kind support continues

CONS:

• Grant not well written; don’t make assumptions that reviewers know about your past projects. A few new reviewers come onboard each year.
• Need more information on past events – can still be succinct.
• Would like to see more than one concert in one location so as to reach an even wider audience.
• Since their grant request is relatively small, might want to consider doing a Good Ideas grant instead. Less work for grant writer.

C.) Reedsburg Historic Preservation Commission requested $916 and the panel recommended full funding for this project.

PROS:

• Good new effort with good visibility.
• Good timing and use of partnership with Reedsburg Historic Society and their BBQ event
• Good use of funds.
• Liked that the bus tour will be handicap accessible and will have sign language interpreter.
• Working with Reedsburg Historic Society was a plus.
• Although centered in Reedsburg, has potential to bring in audience from other parts of the county.
• Described project well.

CONS:

• Potential for more partnerships – such as working with Ho-Chunk at train station.
• Would like to see plans for more revenue than “passing the hat;” – possibility for local business sponsors.
• More use of volunteers.
• Reedsburg centered – would like to see outreach to rest of county.
• No time line provided.

Final Recommendations:  (Projects were not prioritized given there were only three.)

• Sauk County Instrumental Music Honors Project:  recommend  full funding (5)
• Reedsburg Historic Preservation Commission: recommend full funding (5)
• Aldo Leopold Foundation:  recommend partial funding (4)  no funding (1)

Adjourn

Motion by ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Mueller, second by Nevers to adjourn.  Meeting adjourned at 11:35 AM.

Submitted by,

Lerna Mae Wiese

Lerna Mae Wiese, HCE member

Recorder