Loading...
Grant Application ammendment dispute (Oct/2002)Jim Witt - Dr. Turner meetin Page 1 From: Jim Witt To: CEDC Date: Fri, Oct 18, 2002 8:21 AM Subject: Dr. Turner meeting On Thursday I heard back from Dr. Turner regarding his review of comments submitted by those who chose to do so regarding amendments and grant applications. His response is that he felt it would be best if the CEDC met separately in order to work out their exact needs before meeting with CISD staff to discuss this subject. Last night I had an opportunity to visit with President Coker regarding this request. During that discussion we agreed to send this e-mail to propose the following to you as members of the CEDC. The proposal is that I call Dr. Turner and tell him that our comments regarding the amendments were fairly straightforward and those amendments should be resubmitted as soon as possible if they choose to do so. Also I will inform him that during our November meeting we would be examining the grant application process and after that a meeting will probably be scheduled with all applicants, not only CISD but the other districts, to review such. If you feel this is a proper strategy, we will proceed. If not, please respond no later than 5 pm on Monday. Thanks for your consideration. im Witt - RE: Please respond Page 1 From: <SBrock1214@aol.com> To: <JW ITT @ci.coppell.tx.us> Date: 10/16/02 7:04AM Subject: RE: Please respond Hi Jim: In response to your memo, first, I understand and empathize with Dr. Turner's concerns. The fact of the matter for me is that the amendments and grants did not include necessary support information to provide reasonable clarity and understanding. In other words, based on what was written in and provided with the grants and amendments themselves, I could not fully understand how they arrived at the amounts requested nor was it immediately clear to which proposal the amendments were attached. Additionally, the information presented did not provide sufficient support documentation to ensure that what was requested fulfilled and supported the identified need /request completely, accurately and in the most cost effective manner. It is apparent that visiting the grant application guidelines and instructions, including amendments and support documentation, is necessary and, therefore, scheduled as an agenda item for our next meeting. If necessary, I, for one, am open to meeting sooner to discuss and resolve these particular issues and the subsequent concerns of Dr. Turner. I look forward to hearing from you -- Steve Brock 214.725.9253 Original Message From: JWITT @ci.coppell.tx.us [mailto:JWITT @ci.coppell.tx.us] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:28 PM To: sbrock1214 @aol.com; tquinn @bigfoot.com; jlcoker @gte.net; ecarter @twu.edu; valerie.strong @verizon.com; david_hermanski @yahoo.com; sbbod1@yahoo.com Subject: Please respond. > ** High Priority ** > Please respond. Jim Witt - Amendment Requirements Page 1 From: Diane Ebersberger <sbbodl @yahoo.com> To: <jwitt @ci.coppell.tx.us> Date: 10/16/02 2:49PM Subject: Amendment Requirements Jim: First, an apology for missing what I just reread and realized to be a "noon" deadline rather than "anytime" October 16th. Hope my comments are still helpful. I also expect that you will be editing and summarizing our comments. Please feel very free to do so with mine, especially since I realize that I may be missing important history on these issues. For what it's worth... - I think there is some danger in providing Dr Turner an explicit response before the Board's next meeting and discussion on amendments. The discussion and vote on the amendments at the last meeting reflected several somewhat different opinions /expectations, which I expect you may also see reflected in comments you receive now. (For example, I sensed some frustration from David that the Board was being "too picky" about grant details when the overall objective of the CDEC is to get money to the schools. I shared some similar concern about the continuum between exercising reasonable fiduciary responsibility /public accountability and the Board's adopting a secondary mission of teaching grant writing perfection / "professionalism ", but there appeared to be others with quite strong opinions about "crossing is and dotting i's".) I think the Board will benefit from fully airing a discussion of expectations and guidelines not only about amendments, but also in regard to original grant submissions. I think the Board and the City will be better represented by a consensus position after one is reached than by individual comments today that may not match up with future review and voting behavior. This would also better serve Dr. Turner because a consensus position will be more actionable and produce more reliable results. That said, here are some of my own personal thoughts as an individual Board member. - The written documents that are submitted as original grant requests or to request amendments are the "public record" of the information upon which the Board bases its decisions and would ultimately be judged by the citizens as to whether we appropriately discharged our fiduciary responsibility. As such, the documents need to be able to stand alone in making the case for the expenditure or adjustment. CISD attendance at Board meetings is appreciated for Jim Witt - Amendment Requirements Page 2 questions, clarification and a show of support, but the documents submited in advance should be clear enough to stand on their own. - Here are specific examples of why I felt an adequate public record justifying additional expenditures was not created in the amendments as submitted. - ESL Amendment A - $733,152 was presented as "Salaries for 16.5 English as a Second Language Teachers at $42,000 (Full -time) and $21,000 (part- time) ". This presentation appeared to me to be a mathematical error, since 16.5 FTE's at the quoted salary rates would have correctly been $693,000, which was the amount originally approved for the grant. The $733,152 amount is presented a second time as the "Total Budget Request (actual salaries and benefits) ". I learned only through discussion that the originally requested and approved $693,000 and basis of $42,000 per FTE was a formula estimate, and that the new total requested reflected actual salaries and benefits for the same 16.5 FTE's that were justified in the original grant. However, from the written documentation "(actual salaries and benefits) ", it was not clear to me whether the new amount for salaries and benefits was even for the same 16.5 FTE's originally approved, or for additional FTE's or even for much higher salaries for fewer teachers. A correct mathematical representation in the first line of the budget and a simple statement of explanation that the new amount represented actual versus estimated average salaries for the same 16.5 FTE's would have provided a more clear public record for the request. - ESL Amendment B - There was no written explanation that this amendment was a request to increase the total FTE's approved for the original grant. The request was laid out exactly as Amendment A for the same program and so appeared initially to be in conflict with the number of FTE's requested in Amendment A. The written request should have made clear that an additional FTE was being requested AND should have included, for the public record, the rationale for the need for additional staff (only verbally explained to the Board as related to higher than anticipated student count). The amendment was also confusing for the same mathematical incongruency seen in Amendment A, in this case representing $20,353 as "Salaries for .5 English as a Second Language Teachers at $42,000 (full -time) and $21,000 (part- time) ". Again, verbal explanations were helpful, but I did not feel I could vote for the amendment on the strength of the written record of the request. Issues in the other amendments were similar. I would Jim Witt - Amendment Requirements Page 3 also suggest that in material submitted by CISD and in any background material supplied to the Board by staff for historical reference about an original grant, comparisons should be made between amounts ultimately APPROVED rather than amounts originally proposed. Let me also say that I personally felt some of the criticisms expressed by other Board members about the "professionalism" or lack thereof evidenced in the quality of the grant requests exceeded my personal standard and were a bit extreme. I am looking for adequate documentation to assure a "reasonable man" that the intended use will be met consistent with the law, the need is real, the proposed amounts are justified /make sense for the intended purpose, etc. Beyond that, I am not interested in rejecting grant proposals or amendments purely on "form" as long as the DOCUMENTED "substance" meets my reasonable man test for fulfilling the Board's fiduciary responsiblity. I would also suggest that the Board consider some reasonable adjustment process, perhaps outside of a formal amendment, to address the estimated versus actual salary discrepancies that are bound to occur again given the timing of grant requests, approvals, and teacher hiring. I'm sure this will come up as part of our discussion of amendments. On the other hand, I do not think that the CISD should ASSUME that additional funds for any purpose will ever be granted without appropriate documentation of the rationale for the additional amount. Again, hope this all makes sense and is helpful, Jim. I do plan to give you a call and take you up on a history lesson before the next Board meeting. Regards, Diane Ebersberger < ADDRESS >Diane Ebersberger < /ADDRESS> <ADDRESS >226 Crown Point Drive < /ADDRESS> < ADDRESS >Coppell, TX 75019 < /ADDRESS> < ADDRESS >(972)393 - 5212< /ADDRESS> <P> &nbsp; < /P> <ADDRESS> &nbsp; < /ADDRESS> <P> &nbsp; < /P> Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More Jim Witt - Amendment Requirements http: / /faith.yahoo.com Page 4 Jim Witt - Suggestions for CISD Grant Amendment Requests Page From: "jlcoker" <jlcoker @gte.net> To: <jwitt @ci.coppell.tx.us> Date: 10/13/02 9:47PM Subject: Suggestions for CISD Grant Amendment Requests Jim: Here is a "mockup" of what I would need to see in a properly documented amendment request: "Original amount approved in ESL Grant Agreement XXXXX: $693,000 Modified amount being requested for Grant Agreement XXXXX: $773,000 Incremental amount of funding requested: $ 80,000 Reason for amendment request: The actual salaries and benefits of the teachers hired have exceeded the amount estimated in the original grant request. Attached is the documentation for the costs of the actuals being incurred by CISD for the teachers in this program. The number of teachers remains XX, as was in the original grant request." Jim, I think something as simple as this example would suffice, at least for me. The numbers above are not accurate, just something similar to what I remember off the top of my head. I would also recommend that you resend your memo with an email subject that will catch the attention of the board members more directly, like "URGENT: Input requested on Grant Amendments by Wed. noon ". Please let me know what feedback you receive. If you haven't received some by end of day Tuesday, I will be concerned. Thanks, Jerry CC: <Jerry.Coker @blockbuster.com> Jim Witt - CISD Grant Applications Oct. 9 Page 1 From: Betty Carter <f_carter @twu.edu> To: <jwitt @ci.coppell.tx.us> Date: 10/13/02 6:03PM Subject: CISD Grant Applications Oct. 9 Dear Jim, I'm afraid this note to you will be a long one, so bear with me. Below are my problems with the amendments and proposals that came to us for approval on October 9. I want to emphasize that these proposals were overall no better nor any worse than the ones we received earlier in the year. The reasons these were rejected stemmed from reasons we had previously discussed with the proposal writers /reperesentatives from CISD administration the the school board. Although the specifics varied, the problems are endemic to the proposals originally received. Consequently, I wouldn't encourage CISD to use the earlier proposals as models, but rather look at the specifics mentioned below as well as the general problems state in my next memo when writing future proposals. (1). The Three Amendment As: My problem here was that I didn't know what the applicants were requesting. Several of us asked the CISD representatives what they wanted. When that basic question comes up, think there's a major problem with the presentation. I don't know the best way to present such a request, but I would think it would work somewhat along these lines: Amendment to Proposal (Here Give Title of the proposal or the number system that CEDC uses to differentiate among proposals. As readers we didn't know what was being amended) Previously Approved Funding - I'd give a dollar amount here; the formula (x teachers @ X Salary = Y Amount) is ok also, but the numbers have to jive. Additional Funding Requested (Don't think it would hurt to write a sentence stating why, e.g., teachers applied with more experience than originally estimated, CISD gave raises, etc.). Here I'd give a figure (I realize that this amendment was written before all personnel were hired and that the figure may well be a ball park one, but I would think that the committee should know that the amount of funding for each teacher would probably increase by some dollar amount, reflecting general experience levels and CISD raises). With these three lines, the cooperation knows (1) what is being amended, (2) why the amendment is necessary, and (3) how much money CISD is requesting. Although the problem above (what did they want ?) was enough to kill the proposals, there was another basic problem that sealed their fate. We were given dollar amounts and personnel numbers that didn't make sense. Some of these numbers were incorrect. Both the personnel units and the actual dollar amounts didn't jive with the monies and personnel units actually approved. The math has to work on a budget. It didn't. Jim Witt - CISD Grant Applications Oct. 9 Page 2 (2) Amendment B - My problem with Amendment B harked back to the original proposal. When that one came up for discussion, I told the writers my basic problem with the proposal: What they failed to do was tell me *why* the proposal would give CISD students a good, acceptable (whatever is the honest adjective) program for Spanish in the elementary grades. This proposal just stated that CISD wanted a number of teachers; there was no correlation between this number and previous programs, no mention of contact hours /student teacher ratio in terms of good instruction, no indication that the particular configuration of the proposed program would in any way help elementary youngsters with beginning Spanish. (There was mention that some programs helped, but not that the proposed one did or that the proposed one matched the programs that did show promise.) My problems about this proposal were stated to the group and the warning clear: next time get your act together. Well, next time came on October 9, and they didn't have their act together. The request for funding an extra 1/2 time person gave no indication of need. I rejected it. (3) The Broadcast Journalism Proposal: My problem here was lack of context. The grant writer basically said, "our equipment is outdated; we need new equipment. Trust me on this." Well, maybe I came from Missouri in a former life, but I want more than "trust me." Again, I am not trying to create a template for writing a proposal, but I could see the addition of the following kind of information important: (a) How, specifically, does this course aid in career development? How many students have taken the course; how many have gone on to some kind of work in broadcast journalism? (b) Is this a course necessary for kids to take in order to enter the field? Do they need this as a platform before going to college or junior college or some kind of trade school? (c) Instead of telling me that analog technology is outdated, prove it. What do they use at specific colleges, jr. colleges, trade schools? Do a telephone survey. Call the local post- secondary schools. Ask them. If this course is a prerequisite for courses at other campuses, how might the lack of up -to date equipment harm CISD students? (d) Does this course (or the sequence of courses) lead to immediate employment? If so, what kind of equipment do local employees use (again, get on the phone and call). Will the lack of digital equipment put CISD students at some kind of *known* disadvantage. (e) What are the specs for the equipment requested? This area may not need an absolute finite level of detail, but I wonder why did the proposal writer choose the equipment she did? She mentions brand names (such as Sony). Why Sony? What features was she looking for? Otherwise, it looks like she just thumbed through a catalog and came up with prices -- a practice that leads to sloppy requests, requiring amendments later on (which may not be honored in the future) or tying up grant money while the purchasing office tries to create specs. Rather than deal with specifics, the grant writer strung together some quotes from kids without any connecting narrative to alert the readers (members of CEDC) as to the purpose of these quotes. I saw this as lazy Jim Witt - CISD Grant Applications Oct. 9 Page 3 writing and uninformative. I rejected the proposal because, as written, it was a gimmie letter (give me more money) lacking in educational need. (4) Proposal for Technology Systems. I rejected this proposal because the writer didn't address the educational value of the materials requested. She told (again, told rather than showed) us the curriculum materials requested would meet the objectives of the course. I want to know more. I want to know not only if these materials meet the objectives, but do they do so well. The analogy I used at the meeting was one of making grant money available for digging holes. Folks could apply for equipment, which, in my way of thinking would vary from teaspoons to post hole diggers to shovels to those big yellow trucks that scoop out dirt. Each would meet the objectives of digging holes. The question is: Which would do so the best, and why? Because this question wasn't answered, I rejected the proposal. Those are some of my specifics for rejecting the proposals of October 9. Since I see this note has gone on forever, I'II send you a second one about my problems with the proposals in general. I want to emphasize that the kinds of information I called for (such as proof of outdatedness of television equipment) is by *no* means a requirement that should have been included. What I was looking for was some kind of context for that need. As a lay person, these were thoughts that came into my head. I believe that a professional, well versed in the subject and the situation, would come up with others, much more appropriate to the case. For example, if there were some kind of statewide showing of student productions, perhaps those that were the most successful came from schools with the new equipment. What I want is detail and specificity in context, and was using my comments as examples. Betty Carter Jim Witt - CEDC Application Writing In General Page 1 From: Betty Carter <f_carter @twu.edu> To: <jwitt @ci.coppell.tx.us> Date: 10/13/02 6:05PM Subject: CEDC Application Writing In General Dear Jim: This note should be the second one you get from me. The first addressed my problems with the particular CEDC applications of October 9. This note addresses problems in general. To my mind, these general considerations are of greater importance than the specifics of the Oct. 9 proposals. Let me preface the below comments by saying that I realize that in many ways this process is revolutionary in terms of school finance, and I believe that this revolutionary nature may be at the root of some of the confusion between the CISD and the CEDC. It appears to me that most school financing occurs with the financiers paying their taxes and having those taxes sent to school districts to use as best they can. If there're generally perceived problems with that use, either conceptually or fiscally, then the ones with the spending power or influence (typically the superintendent or school board members) are removed from their positions. There are also certain targeted means of campus, or special interest, finance, such as the giving drives going on now to supplement individual campus budgets or for band parents to purchase uniforms. But the process the CEDC is involved with is different and is, in many ways, a reversal of traditional funding patterns. Rather than have the educational establishment declare need, and ask for money to meet that need, the ballot language that appropriated the sales tax defined the need (promoting literacy, foreign language, and /or career technology for a skilled workforce) and the job of the school districts is to show how their personnel or programs or materials can meet that need. When the districts are able to do that showing, then the CEDC is able to grant the monies it can. It is in the showing that CISD has failed. I want to emphasize that the problems with the applications are not ones of adding a decorative daub or including a special phrase or catch word, but rather of sound thinking and good writing. Neither has been apparent in the CISD proposals. Here are my general suggestions to future proposal writers. (1) Know Your Audience. Here is my take on the audience, which is the CEDC. First, we are a group of citizens concerned with helping improve the education offered to students living in Coppell. Knowing that, proposal writers should ask themselves if they've addressed this question in their proposals. Have they raised the issue of improved education? Without going through each of the proposals, my overall answer is "No." (I suspect the proposal writers would think that this issue is implied. If it's a major concern of the audience, I wouldn't leave that concern to implication.) What the proposal writers have largely done is said: "We want this particular thing," as if they were facing a giant Jeopardy Board and stating, "I think we'll take Literacy Programs for $200,000, Alex." Like the Jeopardy players, I believe the CISD has some questions to answer at this point. How does this proposed program, or these personnel, or this particular piece of software fit into the stated need? Why is this proposed program, or these personnel, or this particular piece of software chosen? If it is a program, such as the Spanish Language program in the elementary schools, for example, then how was it created? By studying other programs, by reading the research on Spanish Language in elementary schools, by trying Jim Witt - CEDC Application Writing In General Page 2' to continue a once successful program in CISD? How does this proposal fit into the overall educational goals of the district? How will the funding of this program, or personnel, or this piece of software help improve the educational offerings of the district? I think this failure to address the basic concern of the CEDC is an opportunity wasted and has led to all kinds of problems. Since, for example, the CEDC wants to help improve education, and feels little sense of having done so, then the corporation is frustrated. I think this frustration leads to concerns about prioritizing applications which may be a huge headache down the road. How much easier to have each application address this major concern of the audience. Second, the CEDC is composed of lay people. Yes, some of us have strong ties to education as teachers, spouses of teachers, even as former (and in some cases present) students. But we are not sitting on this board as educators. Consequently, my advice to proposal writers is to drop the jargon. Don't use words like TEAKS, TAAS, or tris without explanation. One of the most common pieces of advice to writers is to act like your audience knows nothing. This advice doesn't mean to talk down to your audience, but rather to explain possible ambiguities or jargon or specialized contexts so that those not familiar with the situation can have your take on it rather than create their own. (2) Think of your audience when writing. I would think that someone asking for money (or anything, for that matter) would want the person reading the request to be engaged in the request. I would not think that the writer would want the reader to be bored, confused, or uncertain about the request. I have never had the former experience when reading the CISD proposals; I've typically had the latter. Here are some specifics. A. Several proposals have come complete with a list of programmatic goals and objectives. I find page after page of such numbing, particularly when they are accompanied by no narrative from the proposal writer. In these cases, the reader is asked to match the requests to the program goals. That interpretation might well be incorrect (since the readers are lay people and unfamiliar with the basics behind the request). Frequently there is only a tangential relation between some of the goals or objectives and a request. For example, software requested in the application might only address three particular objectives. My advice: choose the goals and objectives most closely related to the proposal; show the reader how this relationship works; and, if it appears important to include all the goals and objectives, put them in an appendix. That way the writer won't clutter the proposal with unnecessary information and leave the page count (appendices don't count in the total number of pages) for strengthening his or her case. B. One of the recent proposals mentioned that three teachers were teaching a particular course and that twelve students were enrolled in each class and that the total enrollment for the course was 119 students. I couldn't for the life of me make the math work out here and that small bit of confusion nagged at me during the entire reading. The confusion came from the writer not knowing her audience and addressing their particular levels of non - expertise about the school system. We didn't know how many classes were taught per day by each teacher and how the number could come out to be an odd one. With just one explanatory sentence, the proposal writer could have eliminated this confusion. Over and over during the discussions of the proposals last year, CEDC members kept repeating "I'm not sure what they mean here" and asking for clarification. This kind of behavior is a bad sign. In writing the proposals, look for possible areas of Jim Witt - CEDC Application Writing In General misunderstanding, particularly by the readers who are not familiar with the day to day workings of a particular school, and clear these up. C. Have the proposal writers make it clear what they're asking for. Last year we received a proposal for funding teacher salaries and providing some materials and training for a summer literacy program. Look back through that proposal. That materials and training would be included in the proposal is never made clear until the budget page. Look at the abstract for that proposal. The information is about the program, but the writer doesn't make it clear what she is asking for in the abstract nor in the first section. That's a pretty long reading time to keep us in the dark about the basic request. (3). Do the work for your readers rather than have the readers do the work for you. Proposal writers should tell the reader what is important and then support that opinion. (In technical terms, that means use topic sentences and relevant supporting documentation. By extension, these paragraphs should work together to create a coherent whole. I find that frequently the proposal writer includes information without connecting the various ideas, thus creating the appearance of wandering all over the place, inserting points, but not using them.) What happens when readers try to figure out what's important is (a) they lose the flow of the overall piece; (b) are apt to draw incorrect conclusions; and (c) become tired or frustrated with the entire process. A recent proposal used student comments exclusively as part of the section on Program Need. There was no narrative to tie these comments together, leading me as the reader to figure out what points the writer was trying to make. Consequently, one quote which praised the program, led me to think: "OK. If it's so good, why are we trying to fix what ain't broke ?" Think how much more effective the section would have been if the writer had made connections for the reader, somewhat like: "Students, such as What's His Name, show great enthusiasm for the course as the following quote shows. [lnstert quote.] However, despite this enthusiasm, there is also frustration created by a lack of working, up -to -date equipment, as The Next Named Student shows in the following quote. [Insert Quote]." Another proposal, concerning technology systems, came to the CEDC on October 9. It referenced a report generated by the Career & Technology Evaluation Committee and indicated that report was available on request. Think of how much easier the proposal writer would have made the reading act if she (a) told us in a short appositive what the Career & Evaluation Committee report was; (b) told us where it was available for request and (c) gave a telephone number, contact person, or instructions for picking up said report. Instead, she was asking the committee to do the work rather than doing it herself. Similarly, the same individual directed the committee to TEA web pages in one of her proposals (or maybe both, I don't remember). But rather than send readers to the exact site, she sent them to a more general web page, making them try and figure out which course description we were to access. (4). Follow the guidelines. Last year, and I believe in one of the Amendments this year, we were asked to fund teachers in schools where the law prohibited such (Valley Ranch), prompting me to wonder if employees of CISD read the guidelines. The section in the application on program /project purpose /need /importance asks that the proposal writer include "the relevance to one or more of the three approved funding areas promoting literacy, foreign language, and /or career technology for a skilled workforce." I Page 3 Jim Witt - CEDC Application Writin In General Page 4 would suggest CISD personnel look back over the proposals and see if they can find statements that directly relate to this component. In reading the applications from last year, I found myself confused about the concept of literacy (there were conflicting definitions -- or, to be more precise, conflicting implications -- of literacy in the 2002 proposals, for example). Even if the statement appears obvious (that English as a Second Language or Spanish Language instruction is relevant to foreign language programs because .... ), the fact that it's requested indicates that the CEDC wants the proposal writer to draw that connection. Let me emphasize that there is no secret definition that the CEDC is looking for. Proposals that meet certain definitions of literacy, for example, are no more privileged than those that meet others. The trick here is for proposal writers to have a clear definition of terms (such as literacy) and be able to show how the particular proposal addresses this particular definition. (5) Be clear. The lack of clarity is a problem in the proposals that appears time after time. Last year we received a proposal to fund literacy teachers. I was unclear about the nature of the proposed program: Was it a pull -out program or in -class instruction? That confusion should have been cleared up in the proposal itself, but, because it wasn't, I asked the spectators to clarify that point. I was told this was not a pull -out program. Two members of the CEDC have children involved in this program, which, according to them, is a pull out program. Now I'm really confused and wonder: Who wants to fund a program that no one can define? (6) Stay focused. When I read these proposals, I frequently have the feeling that the authors have decided what they want to ask for and then tried desperately to fill ten pages so they can apply. The entire proposal would be more successful if the authors selected several points to make, related those points, and then backed them up. But all too often the proposals ramble. For example, a recent proposal for technology systems wandered for about a half a page discussing targeted occupations in the area. Only a few of the occupations mentioned had relevance to the requested materials which raised the question: Why go there? Is the proposal only for funding targeted occupations? If so, should the CEDC only fund the software that deals with these? Better to make some kind of point about these targeted occupations, or ignore them all together. (7) Use the appendices. These proposals shouldn't be overloaded with appendices, but sometimes appendices can be used to further explain a situation or to give added information that may be tangentially related to the proposal. Last year, for example, we received a request to fund literacy teachers. The proposal stated that the teachers would have specialized skills. The CEDC wondered what those skills were. How simple to put a job description in the appendices. (8) Look professional. I understand the Superintendent has requested that teachers be cognizant of their appearance and that they always strive to look professional. I would extend that concept to the proposals that come out of the CISD offices. They should also look professional. It's not going to matter in the overall awarding of funds that part of the cover sheet is handwritten, but think of how much more professional a typed cover sheet (except for signatures) appears than a handwritten one. Pages should be submitted in the correct order, the math should agree, and misspellings Jim Witt - CEDC Application Writing In General must be eliminated (which happily happened in the second round of CISD applications). Professionals use research to make decisions and cite their sources in a separate reference (which can be an appendix). (9) Don't oversell. No one expects any program or teacher or piece of curriculum software to solve all the educational problems of a district. Sometimes programs appear as part of a continuum rather than as complete answers in themselves. Just come clean with what these programs are expected to do and how, if necessary, they fit into an overall educational plan. Jim, I don't know if any of this has been helpful. If so, use what you wish. If not, you know where your delete button is. Betty Carter VIA E -MAIL JW:kb T H E• C 1 T Y• O F COPPELL Date: October 11, 2002 To: CEDC Board Members From: Jim Witt, City Manager Subject: Amendment Requirements MEMORANDUM On Thursday afternoon I received a call from Dr. Turner of CISD regarding the action of the CEDC on Wednesday evening. Dr. Turner was very pleasant, but concerned about the rejection regarding the three amendments and the one grant. Of particular concern to them, obviously, are the amendments to the three previous grants. Dr. Turner asked me for some direction regarding the information style and content that needed to be used in the grants. I thought before I went off on my own I would ask for input from the CEDC members regarding comments they might like for me to include when I communicate with Dr. Turner regarding the style and content for grant amendments. If you have any specific comments, please forward them to me by noon on Wednesday, October 16, so I can communicate them to Dr. Turner. Also if you would like, you may take one of the proposed amendments and mark it up and forward it to me through the mail or fax it to me. You may fax your comments to (972) 304 -7063 or e-mail your comments to j witt @ci . coppell . tx . us. Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to give me a call at (972) 304- 3672.