This is Kelsey's draft with some formatting corrections.  I've run out of time today, but it would be nice to have someone go over it and change anything that needs it.  Thanks, Jaime

formal report final.doc YAY!!!

 

The report looks great! Thanks, you guys, for really puting a lot of work into it. I like how it isn't just boring black and white, and there are links to YouTube videos and images in it. It's really good.

-- Heather 5/7 

 

7 May: Newest draft of Formal Report with corrected TOC & Appendices

PDF formal report 5-7.pdf

.DOC formal report 5-7.doc

 

-Kelsey

 

This is the my most recent draft of the report:  formal report5-6(2).doc

Post any suggestions to the wiki.  The recommendations section still needs work, and the table of contents needs to be corrected.

-Jaime

 

Attention: We are merging all versions/sections of Formal Report so that we can send it to LLS by tomorrow (May 7) at 5PM. We need to "fold all the pieces" into one version ASAP! (Editing in a different color would be a good idea.)

 

This is the most recent edit, with headings removed in hopes of a more fluid and organic document. Please submit feedback on whether or not you prefer to have headings & we will make a decision from there.

 

Hi! Thanks for doing this. I think headings would be good; they would kind of make it seem less overwhelming to the reader. If you need sample meeting minutes, you could use a screenshot of the minutes from 3_24_10, I think (I don't think there's anything about the LLS committee in those notes) or my skeleton of the meeting minutes, found on this page: Appendices. -- Heather 5/6

  

The Student Philanthropy Initiative (USFSPB#9) examines the methods and outcomes of the student philanthropy process and provides recommendations for future philanthropy boards.  As we reflect on our collective experience as a student philanthropy initiative, our goal is to address a wide range of concerns and convey our unique perspectives to future student philanthropy endeavors, the LLSC Committee, students and facilitators of service learning, and other interested audiences.  We recount the real-life challenge of working for a client while completing the following objectives:

 

• Define “community” through research of non-profit organizations, assessment of critical needs, and recognition of our audience within that community
• Compose a Notice of Funding Opportunity, requesting proposals from local non-profits (NOFO/RFP)
• Understand the ethical concerns of technical writing and how to resolve these concerns within our documents
• Assist non-profit organizations in writing an effective grant proposal in response to the NOFO
• Evaluate the proposals we received with fairness and careful consideration
• Narrate our findings and experiences using the principles of advanced technical writing through service learning.

 

As students of advanced technical communication, we utilized critical thinking and rhetorical skills to openly investigate the interdependence of language, power, and knowledge, while composing a series of working technical documents.

 

A Student Philanthropy Board (SPB) is designed to be a student-led initiative that seeks to promote a culture of philanthropy within the community through service learning.   Service learning is a classroom philosophy that integrates community service into the traditional learning structure and student learning objectives of the classroom.  Through service learning, our class was not only able to obtain first hand experience with client-based technical writing, but also participate in meaningful philanthropic work that will impact our community.

 

Learn and Serve America defines service-learning on their website:

 

… a unique opportunity…to get involved with …communities in a tangible way by integrating service projects with classroom learning, [engaging] students in the educational process [in order to use] what they learn in the classroom to solve real-life problems…learn about democracy and citizenship,…become actively contributing citizens and community members through the service they perform.

 

"Service learning involves developing reciprocal relations between the college or university and the communites in which it is embedded."  The terminology "embedding" is similar to the familiar media tactic of embedding reporters into troops in order to report on movements in ground warfare; this is of course a far more benign situation, but the idea of the embedded student(s) as a tool to relay information accurately, and as a conduit to open channels of communication (here, between the university and the outside community) remains intact. 

 

As the embedded student continues to negotiate their role linking the two together, the community will hopefully learn more about what is possible in terms of gaining help and cooperation from the university, and the learning institution, in its turn, will gain a greater understanding of the needs of the various service organizations in the community.  In this way they can learn to fine tune their expectations as well as coax an agreement, a grant, a plan that will stand to extract the greatest amount of good from a limited set of resources.  Here the embedded student may extend beyond their role as communicator/conduit into an actual agent of change, as they hone their writing skills to benefit all parties, including themselves.

 

The variety of roles that students took on over the semester allowed our class to approach service learning in different ways. Advocates got the chance to work directly with the organizations that address our community issues through volunteering, interviewing, and assisting in writing the grant applications. They then reported to the wiki any information that they learned. 

 

This project also gave us the opportunity to continue our service learning on our own time. Many students have developed relationships with the organizations that they worked with over the course of the semester, and continue to volunteer and collaborate on projects and events. 

 

The Student Philanthropy Initiative had three layers of instruction:  Advanced Technical Writing as taught by Dr. Conner, LLSCC guidelines for a student philanthropy project, and the Stanford Model for Service Learning.  Subsequently, we were given three sets of objectives that were heavily reliant upon each other.  A structure like this calls for a free-form class.  Employing the idea of communitas, Dr. Conner encouraged a student-driven initiative and equality amongst a highly diverse group.  This particular class brought three levels of learning to one workspace: Advanced Technical Writing (ENC 4260), Studies in Rhetoric and Technology (ENC 6421), and Independent Study.  Several members of the class had prior experience in service-learning, and others brought experience from different areas of learning.  The stratified class structure made for lively class discussions and intense collaboration.

 

Our objectives as an Advanced Technical Writing class gave the task assigned by the LLSCC a much deeper rhetorical meaning.  In order to write compelling documents, we first needed to examine the situation in which we were writing.  In Bowden and Scott's book, Service Learning in Professional and Technical Communication, the Stanford Model gives students an opportunity to "[write] as their community service rather than about it,"  where writing is the community service.  The guidelines of the Stanford Model of Service Learning gave us a method in which we could approach the student philanthropy process.  By meeting the student learning outcomes of Advanced Technical Writing, we were able to effectively write as a service to the community.  We were the vessel that the LLSCC used to strengthen the community, while we gained real-world experience and strengthened our portfolios.

 

The Student Philanthropy Initiative was employed by the LLSCC to create a series of technical documents that would move us through the student philanthropic process.  The Lead, Learn and Serve Coordinating Committee is a unique and multi-faceted client to serve.  The committee operates under rules imposed by their grant, as well as educators taking advantage of teaching opportunities.  Like any committee, there are many agendas, thus giving us, the students, the real world experience of navigating through a bureaucracy that often times is unclear and misleading. As students, our expectations were to be given clear cut instructions on the process, but this did not always happen.Shifting our paradigm from class to philanthropy board allowed our confusion to become real world lessons.

 

The LLSCC creates an interesting dynamic or standard operating procedure for classes that integrate the student philanthropy process. In essence they request each of these classes to form student driven boards. These boards are to draft documents, such as a NOFO. The NOFO must contain a scoring rubric. It is even suggested that the boards use a previous template, created by the fall 2009 student philanthropy board for both the NOFO and the rubric. Our board was no exception, we followed the LLSCC instructions. The instruction from the committee was open to interpretation.  At that time it seemed like an opportunity to draft a unique and creative NOFO that would reflect our core values. As empowered student philanthropists, we chose to include mandatory requirements, as seen in their template. We clearly stated these mandatory requirements in our scoring rubric so that there would be no confusion about our expectations. Our first NOFO was returned to us with feedback from the LLSCC.  After amending the proposal and pushing the deadline, our final draft was accepted and set free into the non-profit scene.

 

We received nine proposals; four of these proposals failed to met our mandatory requirements. Our board disregarded these proposals. We disregarded those proposals because we, as a board, thought that if the mandatory requirements were not met than that meant that they did not follow what we were asking for in the NOFO and we voted not to put them into consideration. After disregarding the proposals the LLS committee informed us that we had to evaluate all of the proposals even if they did not meet the mandatory requirements stated in our NOFO and Rubric. This is another issue that was not clearly explained to us. If the template wanted mandatory requirements and we provided them, the board was confused as to why we had to evaluate something that did not meet our expectation. We think that the LLS committee needs to be very clear and concise as to what is expected of the board and have some sort of instruction for us. Also, the classes are "student driven" to a certain extent, if LLS does not like something that is being done it steps in and shuts it down.

 

 

The objectives of the student philanthropy project supported the student learning outcomes of the class.  As technical writing students, we explored the task of writing these documents as a rhetorical means for persuasion, inquiry, and the simplification of complexity.  The texts we created ranged from the most complex, formally and rhetorically, to the most mundane.  With each document, our rhetorical skills were put to the test.  We examined our work intently by focusing on audience, context, purpose, and message. 

 

The first formal writing assignment issued by the professor was for each student to write an ethnography detailing the local non-profit scene.  An ethnography is defined by the American Anthropological Society as "anthropological research in which one learns about the culture of a society through fieldwork, the data-gathering methods that are combined with and/or built upon first-hand participation and observation in that society."[1] Students could seek out organizations at the Martin Luther King Day Parade, interview an organization with whom they had prior contact, or utilize any other appropriate method for contacting an organization.  The ethnography was to be approximately 500 words in length and could grow or change over time as the student's knowledge and opinions of the organization's efforts matured.  The compositions were posted to the wiki so that they could be read and responded to by the entire class.  The result of this writing exercise was an increase in the students' knowledge and awareness of the non-profit organizations that exist locally and the problems that these organizations seek to address.

 

This exercise allowed students to assume the role of an anthropologist and to directly interact with the local non-profit community.  Correspondence was established, on-site interviews were conducted and recorded, and guest speakers were invited to the class. The ethnography assignment encouraged the students to explore and define the critical needs of our community.  The wiki provided the platform for all of this activity to be documented (through text, pictures, and video) and presented in multi-media projects. This allowed the entire class (and even future classes and interested observers) to access these ethnographic pieces to gain awareness, connection, and appreciation for the pressing issues of our community and the people and organizations that are already working to ameliorate them.

 

Advocacy started with these ethnographies.  Students who took on the role of advocate played a unique role in this process.  By engaging and making connections with representatives of local non-profit groups, advocates were able to form relationships between USFSP and the people who are already working to address the critical needs of our community.  Advocates attempted to influence voting board members to support their chosen non-profit organization(s) by educating and increasing awareness about the critical needs in our community through guest speaker invitations, video recorded interviews, and multi-media presentations.  Advocates brought awareness to the class not only about individual organizations, but also about the inner-workings of the non-profit sector in the area as a whole.  Advocates also work with non-profits to draft proposals in order to increase their chances of winning the grant.  By documenting their process, the advocates were able to provide insight to what happens after the NOFO is released to the public.

 

Guest speakers from local non-profit organizations were an integral part of the Student Philanthropy Initiative.  By inviting guest speakers into the class, advocates rallied support for their chosen cause(s) and gave the organizations an opportunity to answer questions that their submitted proposals could not.  The non-profit representatives who spoke to the class not only informed us of their organization and their impact on the critical needs of our community, but also offered valuable insights into the operations of local 501(c)(3)organizations.

 

The Philanthropy Initiative had ample, freeform time in the beginning of the semester.  We chose to use this time to pursue our personal ethnographies and investigate different areas of service learning.  In this way we began, in a circular fashion, to approach the roles that we would soon be divided into during the second half of the course (Board, Advocates, and Documenters). We had many guest speakers come and advocate for their cause. This aspect of the course helped us shape our NOFO, in terms of audience, purpose and understanding of community needs. As the course progressed the advocates began to immerse themselves into their nonprofit organizations; the board developed into a working entity; and the documenters recorded all information being discussed and unknowingly began the creation of this formal report.    

 

Date	Assignment/Objective	LLSCC Activities
13 January	Introduction
23 January	Ethnography Draft Due
30 January	Draft of Client Needs Assessment
3 February	Research Review Restructure into board members, documenters, and advocates
9 February		Community Partner Training
10 February	Role Proposals Review NOFO Examples
17 February	NOFO First Draft
18 February		NOFO first draft due to LLSCC
24 February	NOFO Revisions
25 February		Final NOFO draft due to LLSCC, NOFO released to the public
1 March		Finalize Award Procedure Criteria
3 March	Review 9 USFSPB NOFOs
10 March	Spring Break
17 March	Rubric Review
19 March		Non-profits’ proposals due to Charlie Justice
22 March		Review applicants, evaluation and decision-making process
24 March	Proposal Evaluation
29 March		Narrow to finalists, site visit if necessary
31 March	Proposal Evaluation
5 April		Final questions/Interviews
7 April	Formal Report Update
14 April	Finalize Proposal Scores
19 April		Final selection of grant recipient
21 April	Formal Report Revision
26 April		Post check presentation, final reviews
28 April	Formal Report Revision
5 May	Award Ceremony 5 PM, DAV 130

 

 

There were eight classes preceding spring break, and seven classes following the holiday.  After each class member investigated and reported the results of their individual ethnographies, we took several weeks to highlight and discuss some of the areas of philanthropy onto which we were concentrating on the whole.  Some of these areas included issues of ecology and the environment, historical preservation, the plight of the homeless, children's issues, and socioeconomic disparities in the local communities.  From these discussions emerged the common ideals and goals which were then built into our request for proposals, our first assignment which was delivered to the LLS Coordinating Committee on February 25th.  A scoring rubric was attached to this request for proposals. 

 

The use of a rubric to score proposals is essential to the awarding process. Without this measuring stick it would be impossible to individually score proposals and have consistency with other board members as they independently score the same proposals. Following a rubric is easy; read the proposal and follow the instructions or criteria for each section. The board as a whole executed this task and ranked our proposals accordingly. However, we believe our scoring process to be flawed. It occurred to the board and the class as a collective whole that without careful consideration in the development of our rubric, we hindered the human element and valued the mechanics of the proposals rather than the effectiveness and potential impact the organization/program might have on the community. Our recommendation to future boards is to give ample time and focus in the development of their scoring rubric. We feel that future boards must clearly state the objective for the proposals; both mechanically and more importantly the proposed measurable outcome.

 

The proposal evaluation criteria were originally set forth in the “Evaluation of Applications” section of the notice of funding opportunity. There are five mandatory requirements for the executive summary:

 

• The proposal must indicate the organization’s 501(c)(3) status.
• The proposal must indicate that the organization’s offices are located in Pinellas and/or Hillsborough Counties. 
• The program outlined in the proposal must address two or more issues of community development.
• How the program addresses two or more areas of community development, facilitates economic or environmental progress, and empowers underserved community.
• The proposal must have a sustainability plan, which is an explanation of the longevity of the program beyond enhancements.

 

If these requirements were not met, the proposal was put up for review.  This provided an opportunity for advocates to revisit the organizations they were working with in order to find the necessary information and documentation. 

 

Once the mandatory requirements are met, the proposal is scored by a rubric with the following criteria:

 

• Executive summary of the program: The executive summary of the program should include the recent grant history of the specific organization. 
• One-year plan: The one-year plan should address the program’s implementation after 120 days and mention the plan to spend all monies by 365 days after receipt of the grant. 
• Program goals linked to critical needs: This requirement meant that the program should show how it would meet critical needs. 
• Program activities: The program activities section incorporated all of the following criteria: 
• Development and/or enhancement of a program: The proposal should state how the program’s development addresses two or more issues of community development, facilitates environmental or economic progress, and empowers the underserved communities. 
• Implementation of program: The proposal should describe how the program will be implemented.  
• Mission and impact: The proposal should explain how its mission and impact address two or more areas of community development.
• Empowering underserved communities: The proposal should explain how it empowers underserved communities, while still addressing two or more areas of community development.
• Innovative and unique: The proposal should highlight its innovative and unique aspects; or what sets it apart from other programs.
• Sustainability plan: The proposal should include a sustainability plan.
• Budget: The budget should address training, equipment, supplies, consultants, and independent contractors.
• Connection between budget narrative expenditures, critical needs, and program activities: The proposal should address how the money and program activities will serve critical needs 
• Assessment plan and performance measures: The proposal should include how their organization plans to measure success and the criteria they will use, along with an assessment timeline.

 

Inherent in the process of finding an appropriate non-profit organization to consider, the rule of not considering an agency with any religious affiliations was very limiting.  It is usually these members of the religious community who promote charities and non-profits to alleviate suffering and need in the culture.  Ironically it is the very nature of their belief that impels them to act benevolently toward their fellow human and it is this that disqualifies them from consideration.

 

Even with these filters in place we were as a group able to identify several very crucial agencies whose services are vital to the function of the community as a whole and individual citizens specifically.  The example of the Free Clinic and its role in the community has been proven overtime to be a vital source to the underserved individual who with those services would have no access to medical treatment or medications needed to sustain life itself.   Yet as vital as this is the impression made by another medically oriented agency was not as strong.  It is all about the priorities of the agency and how they fit with the sentiments of the board and other members of the class making the decisions. As an advocate it is imperative that we understand the role of each agency and present this information to the group making the decisions.  By finding an agency and researching the role and presenting this information to the group we are serving the role of advocate…and as a group we are serving as advocates for all of the agencies identified as appropriate for consideration.  This process of learning the community and working with the members of the non-profits is the exciting part of advocacy

 

The role of the advocate inside (and outside) the classroom is to challenge short-sightedness and avoidance of the truth. Advocacy that elevates the social import of "philanthropy" is based on genuine solidarity; solidarity emerges from a solid ground of loyalty and trust.  

There is another side to advocacy which we did not identify until late in the proceedings, the role of coach, editor, liaison and bridge between the organization and the board during the application process.  Only after the fact did we realize that we should have been on board through out the entire application process, assisting the grant applicant with the complex and sometimes unclear process of writing their applications.  As advocates, this is a vital role.  If each of the advocates had been there for the actual application process it is possible not so many of the applications would have had to be eliminated for consideration.   This is what experience teaches us…however in this case the experience came to late in the game.  We are students and we are doing this process for knowledge and a grade…the applicant is doing the process for their very survival as an agency and meeting the vital needs of their designated population…it is therefore to the applicant we should look for the knowledge and experience we need to gain.

 

For communication purposes, the Student Philanthropy Initiative utilized a wiki.  This transparent medium centrally stores data online and each student has access to everyone else's work.  The only guidelines used for the wiki was that everyone involved had to have their own page, as a form of home base. On that page, they would post information that they felt was relevant. However, everyone was allowed to edit every page on the site. Thus, if there were ideas on another page that were interesting, anyone coud edit that page and post their comments and ideas. In addition to individual home pages, separate pages were formed for the board members, documenters, and advocates.  These three pages centrally stored and organized documents and projects related to that particular group's roles and functions.  These pages linked to the pages to each individual member that fit that title, and also to the pages to the other titles. There were many pages that were duplicated throughout the wiki and reiterated on every necessary page, ensuring maximum readership and that everyone had the relevant information.

 

The dialogue and the depth of writing is immeasurable. The knowledge base on this wiki alone is infinite. Everyone has their own character and values that when combined with others' values and character create something so vivid and detail that it is almost sometimes hard to process. Being able to track the changes on the wiki and seeing who is doing what and when is an amazing feature.

 

 

As a tool, it allowed us to upload documents, write up ideas, collaborate, and use technology from outside sources in order to build the NOFO for this semester. It is a very free form of technology that grew and transformed with the ideas of a group as a whole. The wiki offers a space for high frequency interactions with peers and provides opportunity to critically evaluate our own writing, as well the the writing of our classmates.  Many times, conversation on the wiki contributed to conversation during the meeting, and it made it easy to update everyone on the relevant information.  By creating new pages, linking, and constantly editing, students were able to demonstrate a knowledge of the composing process (prewriting, drafting, revising, etc), and easily channel revisions and criticism into their final products.  During the document process through the use of the wiki we experienced an instant communication process that was also timeless.  In other words, anytime that was proper for the writer or any time that the muse whispered in somebody’s ear, all we had to do is log in express and digitally deliver our thoughts.  It was handy to share ideas and exchange information both inside and outside of class; if there was a topic that someone wanted to talk about during the meeting but didn't get a chance, they could bring it up on the wiki and people could read it and respond.

Additionally, all of the necessary links were kept on a sidebar ("Now Playing") within the page, to that it could be seen anywhere on the site. They were easy to find, easy to get to, and intended for ease of communication.

 

Because we were all able to edit each page and quickly see the changes that others had made, we were all able to stay organized throughout the process.  Without the wiki, it would have been extremely difficult to share collected information. The wiki was used for scheduling assignments and creating time-boxes for class discussion. 

 

In order to use class time as effectively as possible, daily agendas were established before each class.  The agenda allotted specific amounts of time for weekly procedures, which included guest speakers, a question and answer session for guest speakers, open forum, and board meetings.

 

6:00-6:10 PM	Professor Speaks
6:10-6:40 PM	Guest Speaker/Advocacy .
6:40-6:55 PM	Guest Speaker Q & A/Advocacy
6:55-7:25 PM	Open Forum
7:25-7:40 PM	Break
7:40-8:40 PM	Board Meeting
8:40-8:50 PM	Professor Closes

 

 

Within the time box, Board meeting agendas were scheduled in detail.  These agendas were written by the leadership team and posted to the wiki so that other board members could be prepared coming in to the meeting.  Board meeting agendas served to provide a structure for meetings by detailing the topics for discussion and specific action items to focus on.  The goal was to allow ample time for discussion items and vote on any action items; if the items on the agenda were not accomplished in the time allotted for each board meeting, those items were tabled and prioritized during the following class meeting.  

 

For the purposes of USFSPB#9, we attempted to adopt an amended version of Robert’s Rules of Order.  The rules we adapted to fit the needs of our board were very basic.  

 

A board meeting beings when the chairperson calls the board to order.  Previous minutes and the current agenda is read.  In short, our board meetings were run by having an already democratically established board with an established leadership team serving functions of chairman, vice-chair, sergeant of arms, and secretary.  Leadership positions served a strictly organizational function.  All members of the board had an equally valued opinion.  During board meetings, board members should be strongly encouraged to voice their opinions and objections, as the board is designed to be a democratic forum.  Motions should be thoughtful, concise, and carefully pondered upon. 

 

 

One word that continually came up during class discussion was "real". This is a "real" grant offering "real" money to a "real" 501(c)3 organization giving the students "real" world experience. What is also very "real" is the fact that applicants could possibly become displeased with the process leading to "real" investigations and possible lawsuits. Where does that leave the student? A student's work is generally thought to be protected from public inspection as a part of his/her student record. However, work on a student philanthropy board complicates the issue as the end result of the board's effort is to grant federal dollars via a public institution.

 

As in many other states, the work of any arm of the government in Florida falls under the guideline of what is commonly referred to as sunshine laws. These are "state and federal laws requiring most regulatory meetings and decisions to be made available to the public."[2] The University of South Florida St. Petersburg is a public institution and, therefore, subject to these laws. This begs the question, "Does the work of student philanthropy board operating as a part of educational instruction fall under the category of student record or is it subject to sunshine law regulations?" Where a class such as this one falls is certainly a grayer area.

 

According to the Florida Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual, sunshine laws must be applied liberally while exemptions must be explicitly spelled out. The judiciary has repeatedly ruled for a strict interpretation of exemptions. City of Miami Beach v. Berns, 245 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 1971); Blackford v. School Board of Orange County, 375 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1979); Wolfson v. State, 344 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The manual clearly warns against self-creation of exemptions. "Various boards and agencies have obviously attempted to read exceptions into the Government in the Sunshine Law which do not exist. Even though their intentions may be sincere, such boards and agencies should not be allowed to circumvent the plain provisions of the statute."[3] Student philanthropy boards are not discussed in the statutes and have no exemption expressly written concerning them.

 

There are many compelling reasons why the precise application of sunshine laws to the board's work is important. First, a student should be able to explore, create, write and learn without fear of having his/her privacy violated. Some students are comfortable having work published while some are not. Each student's comfort level should be respected. Anything less creates an environment where a student may feel stifled by the fear of publication.  Students should be aware of the privacy of their efforts before agreeing to participate on a student board through the medium of their class work.

 

Second, while a student may or may not be shielded from being the target of a lawsuit from an unhappy client, repercussions from simply being associated with a lawsuit can be injurious. Most students are either employed or will seek employment subsequent to graduation. It has become common practice for employers to "Google" potential employees or promotees where this information will be readily available to anyone who takes a look.  Association with a lawsuit as a direct result of a student's work would certainly be seen as negative and will most likely hinder his/her employment success.  Even if a student's career is not affected by the association with a lawsuit, the embarrassment of a public inquiry can be devastating to an individual.

 

The last reason to be mentioned, but by no means the last plausible, is the possibility of University discipline.  Since there are no written guidelines on this issue, student's are left with the uncertainty of how the University will address them if their work leads to a lawsuit against the institution. While the students work under the guidance of the Lead, Learn and Serve Committee, the lack of an expressed impunity to discipline leaves an uncomfortable feeling.

 

In order to clarify the gray area in which a student philanthropy board resides, these questions need to be answered:

 

1.     How are the Sunshine laws applied to a student board functioning as part of a class? 

2.     Is this affected by the fact that federal grant dollars are being offered as an integral part of class work? 

3.     If any applicants are displeased with the process of award, are the students shielded from any potential lawsuits? Having their name and work released to the media? 

4.     If the University were affected by a lawsuit resulting from the work of a student board, are the students subject to discipline from the University? 

5.     Is the board legally obligated to adhere to the requirements set forth in the NOFO when choosing an awardee? Ethically? 

6.     If certain requirements are designated as mandatory and then the grant is awarded to an applicant who does not meet the mandatory requirements, is the board in violation of any state or federal laws?     

7.     If certain requirements are designated as mandatory and then the is awarded grant to an applicant who does not meet the mandatory requirements, is the board in violation of any ethical standards governing the awarding of federal grant dollars or the business of grants in general?  

8.     Is there a written code of ethics guiding the work of a student board such as this one?

---

 

 

[1] "RACE - Resources -Glossary." RACE - Are We So Different? :: A Project of the American Anthropological Association. Web. 20 Apr. 2010. <http://www.understandingrace.org/resources/glossary.html>

 

[2]  "Sunshine Laws Definition." InvestorWords.com - Investing Glossary. Web. 27 Apr. 2010. <http://www.investorwords.com/4816/sunshine_laws.html>.

[3] "My Florida Sunshine - What Are the Statutory Exceptions to the Law?" My Florida Sunshine - Home Page. Web. 27 Apr. 2010. <http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/manual/E0E4BAB3DC07F363852566F30058FA9F>.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Versioning Service Learning: reports, case studies, reflections, and more

N8 persective

Let Me say This

 

Hey -- is there any work that still needs to be done on the final report? I'm really, really busy, so I can't do much, but if there's anything that I should be helping with, I'd like to help. I looked at the newest report draft below, but it looks like it's from last class and not complete (?). If there's a job I should do, let me know! :) -- Heather 5/4 

 

NEWEST REPORT DRAFT formal report4-29.doc

formal report428-2.doc

 formal report428.doc

formal reportwednesday1.doc

Kelsey's Formal Report Draft.docx

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advocacy in the community Contributions go here.  Feel free to alter the format or paste text or upload via document link, but just not to mess up the rubric laid out on the other page:

 

This is the TOC that Jaime & I came up with last class, the outline she posted goes hand in hand with this, as well as the sign up sheet for ownership of sections. Please link your sections to these:  

Abstract............................................................................................. 

Table of Contents................................................................................ 

Student Driven Initiative.......................................................................

     Service Learning...............................................................................

     History of Learn and Serve at USFSP..................................................

     Lead, Learn and Serve as a Client.....................................................

     Defining a Critical Need....................................................................

     Roles and Responsibilities.................................................................

Procedures.............................................................................................

     Timeline............................................................................................

     Objectives.........................................................................................

     Notice of Funding Opportunity..........................................................

     Proposal Evaluation............................................................................

     Results..............................................................................................

Technical Writing in Service Learning......................................................

     Student Learning Outcomes..............................................................

     Role of Technology............................................................................

Recommendations.................................................................................

Appendices..........................................................................................

Glossary...............................................................................................

 

-Kelsey 

 

 

Ideas for Posters

Florida Sunshine

A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. 

— James Madison

http://www.myflsunshine.com/

119.01 General state policy on public records -

(1) It is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person. Providing access to public records is a duty of each agency. 

— Florida Statute, Chapter 119.01

CHAPTER 286 PUBLIC BUSINESS: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0286/titl0286.htm&StatuteYear=2008&Title=%2D%3E2008%2D%3EChapter%20286

 

http://piratepad.net/vZxVzpvQv3 - Etherpad for working on the formal report, if anyone finds it useful.

 

link to last semester's formal report for easy access, if anyone wants to see it: http://enc42606421spring10.pbworks.com/f/LLS+formal+report.pdf

 

[Title Page]

[Table of Contents]

 

 

I.  Executive Summary

 

II.  Introduction

    A. Purpose of report

    B. SPB Background

    C. What is a SPB?

 

III.  Procedures

    A. How a student Board functions

Maybe somewhere here the connections between service-learning and advocacy (a connections brought to our attention during the meeting, 3/24) can be mentioned. -- Heather 3/25

 

Just a thought, wondering if the three positions should be a category of themselves rather then three subcategories? --Kori 3/25 P.S. i think I might be unclear here, so, I am talking about the Board, the docs., and the advocates. -- Thanks for the comment; we will look at that. -- Heather 3/31

    B. Roles and Responsibilities

    C. Communication via the Wiki 

    D. Running a Board meeting

    E. Guest Speakers

    F. Daily Agenda

    G. Minutes

    H. NOFO/RFP

          1. Legalities

    I. Evaluating proposals

    J. Proposal Evaluation Criteria

          Reflections

    K. Our Timeline

 

IV.  Results

 

V.   Recommendations

      A.  Researching Non-profits

      B. Advocates that work in teams to build community relationships

      C.Building Board early on to vote on special topics

      D. Volunteering

      F. Rubric  

 

VI.  Appendices

      A.  Evaluation Criteria Rubric (the rubric the board is using; not sure which one is the correct one, but a board member would know)

      B.  Scoring Guidelines

      C.  Meeting Agenda Format (the basic format we use for our time boxes)

      D.  Minutes Format (the basic format we use for minutes; the example is found in Team Writing)    --Heather 4/6

 

VII.  Glossary

 

Ethnography  Don't know where this should go if you want to include it - April

 

Setbacks encountered  - Mention setbacks encountered through the process and how they could be fixed, avoided, etc, as well as how you learned from them.  - HIM