November 1, 2017
Commissioners Present: Elizabeth Hite, Nicole Pellenz, Joe Young
Other members: Lisa Laflin,
Absent: Janice Daku, Nichole Ernest, Sean Ingram, Melik Khoury, Coleman Lapointe, Robert Liscord
Staff: Michael Ashmore
Guests:
Minutes
Note: Lisa Laflin was incorrectly identified as a Commission member in the October minutes
Blaine House Conference, final thoughts
MA shared some additional information gathered at the networking sessions at the Conference. Participants were asked to provide feedback on the type of training they would like to see at future conferences. It was noted these are individual responses, not agency responses. Top three requests were those related to Recruitment (20% of total responses), Networking with other professionals (20%), and Volunteer Management related skills like orientation, training, retention, recognition (16%). A variety of other responses made up the remaining half, spread across many topics, some in groups of 3 to 4 similar ideas.
NP suggested convening a pre-planning group to begin discussions now concerning the conference that could overlap with the Conference planning committee or simply provide input as they begin work. These planners could be invited to participate with E&E.
Also discussed was the need for an expert VM course to supplement the Novice Course and perhaps to create a track for more experienced managers who attend Blaine House.
Identifying trainers was raised. It was noted that the out of state trainers were very popular, which raises the challenge of how we advertise the opportunity to Trainers outside of Maine. One idea offered was to support Trainers in advertising their own offerings. MA noted that the Commission needs to be conscious of being broadly inclusive and not appearing to prefer one set of trainers over others. Staff has incomplete knowledge of all trainers in the field. NH suggested creating a call for trainers and hosting a site they could post their own opportunities so it is not the Commission selecting, similar to what ASC has done. The call could be directed to as many past BHC presenters as we have current information on. Past attendees might also be a resource.
Another idea was to dig more into the data available from RegOnline to see if there was a way to correlate requests with type of organization, level of management experience and sector. NP noted that it is of interest to see where they come from to target outreach for future conference(s).
Input on MOU language with affiliate Service Enterprise hubs.
The group noted that most of the specific responsibilities need for a Hub MOU were present in the SE introductory document. JY noted that putting it in the format of an MOU would require some additional information beyond responsibilities of the “sub hub” and MCCS: parties involved, duration, staff contacts, a brief description of the project and the overall goals of the arrangement.
Group felt that the MOU should set a bar for participation that is fairly low to encourage multiple hubs, including keeping the cost of participation low. Ultimately, the intent is to spread out the expertise and to encourage enough organizations to participate in cohorts hosted by these sub-hubs to reach a tipping point where a demand for training is created. It was also noted that the number of target agencies or cohorts needs to be sensitive to geographic distribution. An sub-hub in York or Cumberland county might have many more possible agencies to train compared to a more rural area of the state.
MA will draft a sample for the next meeting.
*Liaison reports
BHCSV liaison report covered under item #1. No PIE report.