SSHRC-CURA Meeting on VOICE for Children and Youth
April13, 2010 1-3PM
Present: Alex Michelos, Karen Rempel, Derrek Eberts, Brenda Firman, Hugh Fraser, Ken
Friesen, Alexa Okrainec, Amjad Malik, Lisa Maxwell, Kathryn McDoughton, Arnie Novak,
Diane Novak, Jerry Storie
Regrets: Bill Aston, K.P. Binda, Chris Brown, Al Gardiner, Sheila Giebrecht, Mel Lall, Lorne
Keeper, Jackie Kirk, Myrna Laramee, Don McCaskill, Gwen Monick, Randy Patrick, Helen
Robinson-Settee, Marion Terry
Meeting Notes

Review of April 6th meeting notes. Agreed that the meeting notes were detailed enough
and that they captured the essence of what took place in the meeting.

Finalization of power point

Logos will be added to front page to symbolize partners.

Wording change from “indicators” to “widely used indicators” to more accurately
reflect what is being referred to. It was also suggested to move the first sentence of
slide #6 into the first paragraph of slide #3 for further clarification.

It was also agreed upon to change the wording in the second point from “obtain a good
life” to what communities define as a good life.

There was discussion over the wording of question #1 in slide #5. Different
suggestions were mentioned to frame the question in a way that is a more appreciative
inquiry. For example, “What has happened in the past that you would like to see
repeated?” Another example, “What can we learn from the past about living a good life
in this community?” The importance of tying the past and future together was
mentioned as being an important element in the questions in slide #5.

The title in the first box of slide #6 will be changed to “Challenge.” Format for
Proposed Solutions, Actions, and Outcomes will be changed to begin by saying,
“Working in partnership, communities…” The idea behind the wording change is that
it puts communities in the centre with us supporting them.

It was suggested in the Action box to change “vital indicators” to “community
developed indicators.”
3.0

A brief discussion took place around clarifying the difference between partners and
stakeholders. In addition to giving input, a partner makes working contributions.

Governance structure agreed. Details to be determined.

Discussion took place on slide #9 about wording and whether or not the information in
the slide should be split into two slides. It was decided that the title should include
“benefits and expectations” in it to clarify the material presented in the slide. Under the
Benefits section of slide #9, it was decided add “a good life that benefits the
community” at the end of point one. It was also agreed upon to omit the word “new”
from the last point. Several changes under the Expectations of Partners section on slide
#9 were changed. Point one will read “In-kind and financial contribution” and another
point after it will read “Detailed letters of support.” Point two on slide #9 of
Expectations will be omitted as it seems redundant. Another point will be added,
“Researchers expected to be engaged with the community.”

There was quite a bit of discussion over slide #10 concerning wording and determining
the exact purpose for this slide as well as if the points currently contained in it are
appropriate. The question was brought up if this slide was to cover the priorities of the
project. It was suggested that the title of this slide be changed to “What Are the Project
Outcomes?” Wording changes and combining the first two bullets on slide #10 were
suggested. The bullet will read, “Local indicators of success for each community.” The
question was raised if the last two bullets on slide #10 were really indicators.Word
changes were suggested for the fourth bullet in slide #10 to read “Pathways for success
are identified for each community.” It was brought up whether or not that we need to
define the term “indicators” for communities. It was suggested that a new slide could
be added on “How Vital Outcome Indicators Are Used?” If this is done, the last point
under slide #10 could be placed in this slide.

It was suggested that the first point on slide #11 read “Identify and engage…”
Next steps
 A reminder was given that different partners need to send their logos to Karen to be
put on the first page. Also check whether or not the slides are in the right order
conceptually as well as if they flow well.
 Karen mentioned two different ways of approaching the next phase to get the
information ready for the actual grant application. The first way would be to form a
working committee of 5-6 people to begin with. The other option would be to look at
the SSHRC-CURA application and carve up the pieces of it to break it down and have
people begin working on the different pieces needed to complete the actual
application.

It was agreed that the second option of breaking down what is in the application would be
the best way to proceed.

It was agreed that the first communities discussed last week would be approached about
partnering. These first communities are:

Thompson

The Pas

Norway House

Cross Lake

Nelson House

Putkatawagan

St. Theresa Pointe

Ilford

Gilliam

Moose Lake or Cormorant (tbd)
There was some discussion around how to approach the different communities. A
communications plan will be developed. There was also discussion around The Thompson
Renewal Neighborhood Corporation as resource because they were serving a major organizing
role in bringing groups that could become potential partners together.
It was decided that there needs to be a strategy of the best way to approach contacting potential
partners and a script for talking with them. This will be the focus of the next meeting on
Wednesday, April 21st at 1PM.
The meeting adjourned at 2:50PM.
Prepared mostly by Lisa Maxwell although Karen Rempel couldn’t help editing 