The Langston Hughes-Andrew Carnegie Center, Inc.

Minutes

September 26, 2005

4:00 p.m.

Plymouth Congregational Church

Attendance: 

Jan Dicker, Barbara Watkins, Elizabeth Schultz, Reta Cosby, Linda Luckey.  Guests:  Michele Eodice and Moira Ozias (from the KU Writing Center

KU Writing Center

Michele Eodice and Moira Ozias joined us to talk about what they do and explore ways they might partner with us and give us advice on future HCC activities.

• KU has students in about 190 majors. 
• KU students are assisted by the staff of the Writing Center. 
• The writing center has expanded its mission and focus to include community outreach
• Their view of community literacy is not primarily remedial, but meeting people where they are in their lives and careers
• Advice:  If HCC is doing grant writing for sustainability, look 10 years out, not just to the next program or the next year

Discussion re: Cooperation with KU Writing Center

• Jan suggested that the word “literacy” sends up some red flags.  Perhaps we should use another term
• Michele suggested that since HCC already has a network of folks who have been involved in some way or another, we should use that network to raise visibility.
• Beth reiterated that we need a track record of success in programming and fund-raising
• What were the reasons for this lack of success?
• Lack of 501c3
• New library discussions
• City commissions change of support for our endeavors, including the request that we partner with the art cooperative and the library - - slowed the process down

Kansas Reads: One-Book Program

Reta was complimented on her work with this program.  Group promised to assist with the implementation of the seniors reading to tots.  Reta also talked about an idea she is pursuing to have school children design a disaster response plan.

Reading dates:  November 14-20

Read to kids training November 5^th  (Note:  KU vs. Nebraska football game that day)

Discussion on the future of the HCC

After our guests left, there was a frank discussion on our reaction to the City Commission’s decision to re-open the Carnegie Building proposals.  There was universal disappointment and a sense of discouragement for the future.

The topic for the next meeting of the board must include a plan for the future of this group and all options should be considered.  There was not unanimity with the five members as to what we felt about the future or what course we should take.  After brainstorming, ideas the following strategies were proposed with no nod to any one.  Sustainability is an important topic that needs to be included in discussions of the future.

Go forward as planned by getting grant money and hosting events and programs.

Pro:  It is the course we’ve been on and the one we have the most familiarity with.  It speaks to the “We don’t need a building to do our work” sentiment.  It builds on the networks we already have in place. 

Con:  It is dependent on grant writing.  With the discouragement in our ranks, there may not be much enthusiasm for these efforts.  Grant money is scarce.  If we do seek grants, will the grant’s focus actually end up driving our mission rather than the HCC?

Become an advocacy group only

This would mean that we promote literacy issues in a political way rather than a programmatically.  We might attend library board meetings and City Commission meetings, write letters to the editor, and act as a political action group for literacy.

Pro:  It gives us a focus that we can accomplish.  It advances literacy and it may ensure that there is a literacy center in the plans for the new library.  Our mission may include being a web-based center rather than a physical center.  We could add networking/coordinating of all literacy efforts as part of our mission.

Con:  It changes our mission.  We could still be shut out of the library.  Our focus may be more technology based – perhaps an area the members of the board do not have expertise in.

Disband

We all agreed that this option has to be part of our future discussions.  Not ideal, but honest discussion should include this option.

Pro:  Admits to a good fight, and that there were some significant external pressures that were beyond our control.  The group was formed around the building possibility and that is no longer a possibility.  If the HCC “brand” (thanks in part to the Lawrence Journal World) seems to carry with it an aura of failure in the Lawrence Community, perhaps we should retire the name.  We could do something else with Monday afternoons.

Con:  Not to be dramatic but…the dream is dead.  The Lawrence community is not served.

No one in attendance wanted to re-submit a proposal to the City Commission regarding the Center in the next round of proposals regarding the Carnegie Building.  What is happening with Centennial school…anyone know?

Next meeting:

Regardless of the talks about the future, the agenda of the next meeting must focus on the November event connected to Kansas Reads.

Next meeting dates/times

October 10 and October 24

4:00 p.m.

Plymouth Congregational Church, Room 201 North