Community Vitality Center Governance Board Meeting Minutes

Regency Room, ISU Memorial Union, Ames, October 11, 2002

Present: Dan Brown (arrived late AM), Beth Danowsky, Jane Halliburton (left at 1:30 PM), Mark Hamilton, David Osterberg, Steve Padgitt, Joan Phillips, Randy Pilkington, Randy Pleima, Guy Powell, Doyle Scott, Tim Shields, Carol Smith, David Vermedahl, Mark Edelman, Sandy Burke

Presenters: Steve Carter, Judy Eyles, ISU Pappajohn Center, Barbara Lograsso, SBIR Program; Mike McCarville, Webster County Development & Sirolli workshop; Lars Peterson, State SBDC Director.

The meeting of the Community Vitality Center (CVC) Governance Board was called to order at 9:45 AM by Mark Hamilton, CVC Governance Board President. Hamilton asked Mark Edelman about the day’s schedule. Edelman welcomed the Board and distributed copies of the fall issue of Extension to Communities’ quarterly publication which featured the CVC. Edelman also distributed expense voucher forms, copies of the minutes of the June 21, 2002 Board meeting. and a copy of the agenda.

Hamilton asked if there were any comments or revisions for the minutes of the June 21, 2002 Governance Board meeting. Joan Phillips moved to accept the minutes as written. Seconded by Guy Powell. All members voted “I”; none opposed. Minutes of the June 21, 2002 Governance Board meeting were approved.

Hamilton reviewed the day’s agenda. Edelman said that the items on the agenda were the same as distributed a week ago, but the order had been changed. The action items would be the request for a regents center designation and approval of the development process for the second round of projects. There was discussion of moving the action items to earlier in the agenda as some members would be leaving early. Hamilton asked if the approval of the development process would be proforma or would it need discussion. Edelman said that it was not necessarily proforma although it was proposed that the process be similar to that used for the first round of projects but that the Board may want input into it. The group discussed the possibility of moving the discussion of the development process and time line and the discussion of the preliminary ideas and projects to 11:30. It was moved by David Vermedahl and seconded by Doyle Scott to accept the agenda with the changed time for the action items. All members voted “I”; none opposed. Agenda accepted with the changed times.

Everyone introduced themselves and Edelman then introduced guest presenters Steve Carter, Director of the ISU Pappajohn Center and Judi Eyles, Associate Director. Edelman said that the Pappajohn Centers were among the entities that the CVC will be collaborating with and he asked Carter for an overview of the centers.

Carter handed out materials and said that three important issues for entrepreneurship were the creation of a culture that thinks about creating businesses, that the resources and infrastructure must be in place, and the physical environment in terms of lab space, equipment, etc. must be adequate. There are now good resources at the Research Park but they have had to limit their focus and work predominantly with technology based companies. Eyles talked about the “hands-on” experiences that they provide for students and the minor in entrepreneurial studies that they have started. Carter said there is now a good flow of students coming out with experience. The question is how to get all of this out to the state because there is a definite need out there from the feedback they receive.

It was noted that there was a new Wellmark Community Ventures Fund. UNI and IU have a certificate programs in entrepreneurship but not a minor. Hamilton said that there are impediments to entrepreneurship in smaller towns and asked if the speakers had any thoughts about how the CVC can facilitate these issues? Carter suggesting starting with the culture and Eyles suggested relying on partnerships. Edelman noted that this was an ongoing discussion and that the two sources of entrepreneurial ideas in rural communities appear to be from (1) people in communities that need to develop their ideas, and (2) from students at universities who might want to come back to smaller towns under the right conditions and resources. Carter agreed and gave two rural examples. There are businesses owned by persons 60 or older who need to make provision for a new buyer but there are also communities who think they can support a local business but can’t find the talent locally. It is their experience that most entrepreneurship is not coming out of business schools but rather from the substantive disciplines with students who have the skills but not the business ability.

David Osterberg said that the biotech businesses were very “whiz-bang” but not very applicable to small towns. Carter said that general entrepreneurship training & mentoring is applicable to small towns because the culture, infrastructure, and resources need to be there regardless of the type of business started. There are rural areas of the state that have the nurturing environment. Randy Pilkington added that each of the four Pappajohn Centers is unique to the area it is serving and that at UNI they are trying to improve their outreach to rural areas. Carol Smith said that innovation is not synonymous with high tech, that it doesn’t have to be high tech to be a good idea. Vermedahl noted the company that makes shock absorbers for wheel chairs. He asked if entrepreneurship was almost a personality thing and how did you go about teaching this. Carter said that there was a continuum of entrepreneurs and that some persons will start company after company and others would never be comfortable outside a corporate environment. Most people fall somewhere between.

Edelman next introduced Barbara Lograsso who is with ISU’s Center for Advanced Technology Development. She handed out materials and gave an overview of the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR). The SBIR is a set aside for small business for federal research and development projects. Ten federal agencies participate, but the largest amount of money is with the Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health. The agencies have very specific problems to solve. Hamilton asked how the CVC could interface with this and Edelman asked how could rural entrepreneurs access the RFPs? Lograsso said that the SBIR provides a searchable list of topics to see what might match with a company and that she did seminars on how to make proposals. Pilkington asked if any companies in Iowa were successful in getting SBIRs. She showed that 8 projects had been funded with a range of $70,000 to $750,000 and that 2 additional projects had each received more than a million in funding. Edelman noted that SBIR was part of rural incubation efforts in other states. Hamilton asked how people could get into this pipeline. Lograsso said that she can visit with people and companies to brainstorm and that she also did ICN workshops. Phillips noted that volunteer development groups found this very time consuming. Lograsso noted the partnerships among development organizations are important. Phillips suggested further linkage with small development organizations. Lograsso also noted that companies should look for dual applicability not just for the federal agency but for private consumers as well.

Edelman noted that he has often been asked if the federal government provided small businesses with targeted access to developmental funding resources and contracts? This is the one program that helps you build a market for your small business by using the federal government as a customer of your product or service. He added that most business incubators encourage and provide information on the SBIR program as part of their resources for local entrepreneurs. Lograsso said there were not many other places where you can access $850,000 of resources for taking an idea and developing it into a prototype. Halliburton asked if the SBIR could work with a development group or whether it had to be just individuals. The response was she will make presentations to any group and provides assistance in developing proposals and it depends on the idea being developed and agency need that is identified.

Edelman introduced Mike McCarville of Webster County Economic Development and said that Ft. Dodge was implementing a Sirolli process. McCarville gave an overview of recent economic developments in Ft. Dodge. The Webster County area is losing in the work age population group and that it can attract top talent but is having trouble retaining them. Webster County decided to implement the development process outlined by Ernesto Sirolli. There is to be a conference about this process with Sirolli himself on October 28-30.

McCarville said they were taking a regional approach involving a number of counties in the area. Osterberg commented that those very counties were the same ones with CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation). Osterberg also asked if winning the prison was really a “win.” McCarville said that the prison had resulted in 400 jobs averaging $35,000 and had impacted employment in the smaller towns all around as well. Osterberg wondered if the prison was a negative image that prevented other companies from coming in. McCarville didn’t think so and said that the beef plant would have caused problems. Danowsky said she had previously been working in Ft. Madison and that people in Ft. Madison were finding the prison an economic development item.

Vermedahl asked how this would enhance entrepreneurship using an example of a person who wants to start a business and knows how to stamp metal. McCarville said that it would connect the entrepreneur to resources. Padgitt wondered if the reason that Ft. Dodge was not retaining employees is that it did not have cultural amenities. McCarville said that he had another whole group working on just that issue. That group was working on river front redevelopment, a bike trail, soccer fields, etc. Edelman said that the CVC could provide some resources, if board members wanted to attend the Sirolli training in Ft. Dodge. Osterberg noted that his own Iowa Policy Project, which funds small research projects, had an ongoing project on the importance of amenities in hiring employees. Phillips said she had been working on a project to convince a community that it needed an aquatic center.

Edelman indicated the next items on the agenda were (1) the proposed process and time line for projects and (2) review of the preliminary project ideas that had been submitted to the Director to date. The proposed project development process mirrors what had been used last spring although a preproposal step is not being recommended at this time. The process proposes that an RFP be distributed in two weeks. A peer review process is included to provide suggestions for improvements to the proposals and to assure the USDA that projects have gone through a competitive review process. A short form is also proposed to generate new ideas for future consideration.

Shields asked what level of funding would be expected and Edelman replied that about $220,000 could be expected for projects if funding levels stayed the same. Powell suggested removing Positively Iowa from the potential contact group because it was becoming inactive now that the CVC was functioning. Osterberg suggested adding a broader range of organizations and suggested the Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation and the Nature Conservancy.

Padgitt said that we would have to work much harder this time to get the word out about the proposals request. Last time the time line prevented doing much more, but there was criticism that last time it was too much of a closed process. He noted that the time line still was short this time. Brown suggested adding some information about the time frame for the third round so that if someone missed this one they would know when the next one would be. Padgitt mentioned the need for a news release.

Hamilton asked that if proposals were received were very off base, could they be eliminated and not taken to the peer review process? Edelman said that if proposals were in electronic form then he could distribute them to Board members. Another possibility would be to have the Executive Committee give approval to the projects. Hamilton said that he would rather have the full Board making input into the project decisions. Shields asked what might be easiest for Edelman and that he would be comfortable with the Executive Committee making a first cut if a proposal was way off the mark. Edelman said that he had been approached about an historical project to restore a building and had been comfortable saying that it would not fit into the types of things the CVC would consider for funding. Edelman said that he could distribute a synopsis of the projects to the board.

Padgitt said that the last time the Board wanted to focus resources on two themes and he wondered if the Board should revisit that again. It would give Edelman and the Board a way to decide what would not fit for the CVC. He said that the RFP should reflect this. Shields asked if the Board had criteria for the projects and that there were criteria for the last set of projects and he wondered if the group should have this again. Edelman said that the themes of last time were entrepreneurship and rural infrastructure. If the Board wanted to reaffirm themes, change them and so on then that would be criteria for the Executive Committee to use for overview of the submissions. It would also give guidance to those wanting to submit proposals. Shields said he would agree.

Hamilton said that last time the themes emerged from projects on the table and then they saw how they worked together. Smith said that the two previous themes were broad enough for most communities. Hamilton said that an important aspect was if the project was really going to make a difference. Shields asked if the Board should codify these criteria and what the focus of projects should be. Edelman said that criteria had already been incorporated into the 2 page proposal form, especially section II D which asks for real impacts in real communities. Brown suggested that the CVC’s purpose is item II D and it ought to be moved up front to item A. Danowsky looked at the CVC objectives stated in the USDA Center Development Proposal and noted that with the stated interest in the economic, social, cultural, and natural resources of a community that it gave quite a bit of latitude to proposals. She interpreted that to mean that the CVC has an interest in a broad range of vitality. She wondered if the Board should take two of those areas each year. Hamilton said that the CVC should focus on whatever the most urgent need is out there. For him, the meaning of success is the stabilization of rural population.

Edelman noted that another concern was that earmarked funding doesn't last forever. There may likely be as few as 3 years of start-up funding for the CVC. By then he suggested that the CVC should be known for something and should be diversifying the funding base of the Center. Since the Board establishes the themes, nature of the projects, and Center's agenda, the question is whether we are more likely to achieve the Center's objectives in 3 years with a broad based agenda of projects or a focused agenda of projects that are inter-related. Pilkington said that if the topic ideas were limited then that would only produce proposals in those areas, but there might be good ideas and some non-traditional approaches for other topics. Danowsky suggested looking at the 8 goal areas of the Iowa 2010 report and perhaps how to direct the CVC to those. Hamilton said that maybe we could become known for thinking “outside the box.” Shields said that in 3 years the CVC has to have a reputation that will get it funded. Smith asked what reputation did the CVC want. Brown said, “innovation.” Smith wondered if the CVC would get a reputation by default. Edelman responded that the Center will become known by the success of its projects and for what the Center does.

Brown asked about the purpose of the sheet asking for, “Topics of Priority Concern or Project Ideas.” Hamilton said that it was a way to get ideas. Brown wondered if the time due should be the same for the project idea and the proposals because if someone had a good idea, then they wouldn’t be able to do an actual proposal. Edelman said that last time they did use the project ideas and folded them into the entrepreneurship proposals. Smith said that the Project Idea sheet was a way to get a scan of what was important. Vermedahl suggested that somebody submitting an idea perhaps could submit an actual proposal one year down the road. Brown said that he believed that the deadline for the project ideas should be earlier than that for the actual proposals. Edelman said that for the first round they did receive ideas that were folded into the projects selected. Pilkington remarked that Edelman had been soliciting ideas since the last meeting. Hamilton added that Edelman was always after ideas.

Danowsky suggested that the topic/project idea sheet be revised by putting a “II D” type sentence on it. She said that the topic/idea sheet was really asking for II A and II D. Brown thought that on the actual proposal sheet that II D should be rearranged and become II A. Smith thought that the topic/idea sheet would be an ongoing situation.

Edelman asked for other names to add to the list of contact groups. Suggestions given were the Food Policy Center, the Leopold Center, the Practical Farmers of Iowa, and local development groups. Danowsky added that there were other names on her list from the Rural Development Council. Padgitt wanted the news release to give a web address so that someone interested could go immediately to the forms.

Edelman said that the February 1st date to submit the CVC portfolio to the USDA was contingent on the federal appropriations process and the time frame of USDA decisions. Brown said that his office in the USDA was told there were, as yet, no real time lines for the federal appropriations process.

Padgitt said the proposal announcement should state a suggested funding amount. He thought that using the dollar range for the past projects would be a good way to do this. He also thought that the announcement should say that there could be up to a 24 month time frame for carrying out projects. Edelman said that last time he had included a cover letter along with the proposal request forms. It was his intent to put this information in the proposal request and to put a cover letter with it. Danowsky asked what was the financial range for the current projects and Edelman said it was $8,000 to $50,000. Phillips asked if this was the range we should use again and Edelman said yes, it was. Shields moved that the proposed development process and time line be accepted with the slight revisions that had been suggested regarding sections II D and II A and the cover letter information. Halliburton seconded and the Board voted ”I”, none opposed. Motion carried to accept the proposed development process and time line with the suggested revisions.

Edelman began a review of the ideas for future projects that had been communicated to him. Hamilton said that project 2, “Iowa Community Outmigration Exit Interview Study,” was an idea that he had suggested. Osterberg said that it would seem to need a survey research approach. He thought it would be good to separate out the 18-22 year olds who have gone to college and not come back and also look at those older such as those who couldn’t be retained mentioned in McCarville’s discussion of Ft. Dodge. Brown wondered if in a survey if the respondents would tell their real reasons. Pilkington said that you only have what they tell you. Halliburton noted that a number of former Iowans were coming back. She wondered if you also could find out why they came back. Padgitt said a survey would be expensive. Burke added that it would be hard to find those who had gone out of state. Smith said she wondered why people were staying and she was amazed about recent, new entrants to agriculture who were coming back. Phillips mentioned amenities and telecommunications and that economic developers usually were not thinking about people but about buildings. Padgitt said it would be excellent if it could stimulate or augment other studies, but he was skeptical of a stand-alone study. Brown asked if the study could focus on things we hear such as, “taxes are driving people out” and could the study validate these things. Shields suggested that the study create a methodology that communities could use. Edelman said that the best we can hope for is to leverage our CVC resources to get others to partner or to get them to do the thing we want done. Hamilton suggested that the CVC develop a methodology and then go to the University to seek additional resources.

Halliburton said that perhaps the CVC could pull together the best practices. Padgitt added to look at consequences and benefits. Brown thought that project 3, Telecommunications Issues, had already been studied and that the focus should be on implementation. Danowsky said that there was 80-90% availability of high speed internet but that only 12% were making full use of it. The telecommunications issues were educational in that you needed to show people how much better use they could get of high speed compared to dial-up internet. Shields said he wondered where the 80-90% coverage could be as people where he is at couldn’t get a T1 line. Danowsky said that the information came from two surveys one done by the Iowa Utilities Board and the other was a consumer survey.

Edelman asked if there could be brief comments on the proposed ideas and then the Board could vote on them. Hamilton asked if for idea 7, Community Conversations Forums on Entrepreneurship Round 2, they shouldn’t take the original 10 communities and go a step further with them. Edelman said that he had received requests from 6 more communities to do a forum. Smith said she is on the Project Team and is looking forward to the community forums and has been working with a group that would been interested in the second round. She would like to see follow-up in the communities doing the forums to help implement the ideas that develop. Vermedahl indicated the community forum had generated excitement, collaboration, and interest in his county. Danowsky asked about the outcomes from the forums and questioned what the results would be. Osterberg thought that if they were a good idea then think about continuing them and maybe there should be more. Brown said that he already had USDA funding for four staff people who doing this. Shields said the communities should be helped to get to outcomes. Powell asked what were the communities interested and the dates for the forums. Edelman listed them. Padgitt asked if the CVC should dedicate some funds to an independent evaluation of its projects. Hamilton wondered if the 10 communities should be a model that then is taken to a university and then get the university to do them throughout the state.

Padgitt said that the forum/conversation model had its set of true believers and proponents, but he wondered what were the real outcomes of the forum method.

Brown said the Bush Administration wanted performance results and to think about whether there should be just studies or concrete results. Scott said that we should bring things to communities that they can actually do. Hamilton said that if something was going to happen on its own without CVC involvement then the CVC should not become involved.

Discussion moved to the Community Foundation idea. Shields mentioned the private, non-profit organization the Nebraska Community Foundation. The study on Nebraska counties on the transfer of wealth was mentioned. Osterberg moved that the Board continue consideration of number 1, a Community Foundation Initiative; seconded by Brown. Danowsky said that there were actually two parts. Smith said that a series of task forces could be created. Danowsky called the question regarding project number 1. The Board voted “I”; none opposed. Motion carried to continue considering the Community Foundation Initiative.

Edelman introduced Lars Peterson, State Director of the Small Business Development Centers. Peterson gave an overview of the SBDCs funding status in light of last year's budget cuts. SBDCs have gone from 16 regional centers to 14 centers--mostly through retirements. Currently there is no SDBC located in Southwest Iowa. Calls are being transferred to SDBC people in other areas of the state. The average client had 10 employees and that it was expensive to get new industry into the state. Iowa is a state of small and mid-size companies. The SBDCs worked with leadership of small companies, e-business, a network of consultants, startups, and turnarounds. Brown asked if the CVC was doing things with the SBDCs so that they would be seeing results and not just studying. Edelman indicated that $10,000 of Project 1c is allocated to SBDCs to work with the Pappajohn Centers and CVC on pilot projects and followup to the community forums.

Hamilton asked why communities would be coming to the CVC for the entrepreneurship forums when the SBDCs and the Rural Development of the USDA exists. Brown thought it was a communication problem. Edelman suggested that the many communities do not now they potentially have a problem or what resources are available. During the pilot forum held in Grinnell, the economic development officials were not aware of any problems of entrepreneurs that were not being handled. However, the entrepreneurs in the audience indicated that was really not the case. As a result, the rest of the meeting focused on how to improve communication and what can be done locally and regionally. Pilkington said that the SBDC at UNI knew that they were not getting out to the rural areas and they developed a pilot project out into 5 communities near Waterloo. Hamilton asked how the 16 communities requesting community forums came to the CVC. Edelman said that requests for forums were generated through the CVC board, Project Team, Iowa Peace Institute, USDA Rural Development, and ISU Extension network of offices across the state and that was the spark for convening the forums.

Danowsky said that there should be a balance of reports and studies in the CVC portfolio and that we should develop action money. Peterson said that the SBDCs were the, “best kept secret in Iowa.” Pilkington said that if you wanted to discuss what to do about entrepreneurship the SBDC leaders should be in on the discussion. Danowsky suggested having a focus group. Hamilton asked if the community conversations should be taking place. Brown asked why he had 4 FTEs at the USDA and the CVC is doing these community conversations. If there is duplication, he will eliminate the staff positions. Edelman indicated that the community forums project was a collaborative project with the Iowa Peace Institute, ISU Extension, USDA Rural Development and others and that a USDA RD staff member was involved in helping to develop and moderate the forums. So the CVC is working with USDA and not competing with it. Edelman said the community forums were designed to help community leaders identify what the local resources are, whether or not there is a local problem, and what it is that that their community may want to do regarding enterepreneurship. In many communities, the forum activity would normally have to occur before community leaders would know enough to make a request or proposal to the SBDC or USDA Rural Development for services. Pilkington said that he would question doing the conversations. Brown was concerned that if the community conversations identified a need, who were they going to pass the ball to?

Edelman expressed concerns about the lack of trust in the Director and the Project Teams in coordinating and managing the projects and it appears that the full Board is attempting to micro manage the details of the projects. Since the Board just meets quarterly, it will have to rely on the director and the Executive Committee to review and make more of the decisions. He said Lars Peterson, State SBDC Director and SBDC representatives have been invited to participate in all of the entrepreneurship forums as their schedules permit. USDA RD staff are helping to conduct the forums. Edelman also said that he and the Executive Committee were attempting to follow the full Board’s wishes and gave the example from the first Board meeting of putting the three entrepreneurship related projects together and coordinating them as one project as the Board had requested.

Hamilton asked when there would be “graduates” from the forums. Smith said that would be at the end of November. She said that the community was providing the focus for the public deliberations and they would begin to think of what the logical next step would be and about providing other services. She said that she agreed with Edelman that the community engagement process such as the forums should preceed discussions with agencies providing services.

Danowsky asked if it was possible to reduce last year's funding for the forums. Hamilton suggested bringing together the graduates of the forum with service providers and asking them why they didn’t come to the USDA in the first place. Shields didn’t think the Board really had the time to get into these detailed discussions. Pilkington said that he would see the topic of entrepreneurship remaining on the table but the question was one of how to proceed.

Vermedahl suggested getting the graduates of round one of the entrepreneurship forums together with service providers before the next Board meeting on January 10th. This would help the Board determine what niche the CVC needs to fill. Shields moved to accept Vermedahl's suggestion. Vermedahl seconded. The Board voted “I”; none opposed. Motion passed to have a meeting between persons participating in the entrepreneurship conversations and service providers before the January 10th Board meeting.

Osterberg moved to accept proposed idea number two, the outmigration study. Scott seconded. Vermedahl wondered if there could be a partnering with the board of realtors to find out why people were moving out. Shields asked if there was a methodology we could do. Brown said that it might be muddying the waters to also ask why people were moving in as well as moving out. Hamilton said that there could be two sets of questions in the city offices, one for those coming in and another for those going out. Danowsky called the question. The Board voted “I”; none opposed. Motion carried to proceed with considering an Outmigration Study.

Attention turned to idea number three, the Telecommunications Issues. Shields said that from the conversation earlier in the meeting that it looked like this was already being done but that he continued to be surprised that there supposedly was 80-90% broad band availability across the state. Danowsky said that they could get together on the telecommunications issues. Padgitt said that the focus should be on the educational aspects of those issues. Shields moved to table this idea until there was more information available. Brown seconded. The Board voted “I”; none opposed. Motion carried to table the idea of the Telecommunications Issues.

The fourth possible idea was a Tax Increment Financing Study. Shields suggested that the TIF concept be broadened to look at a broader range of policies that communities use to encourage investment in economic growth. Powell moved to strike it from consideration. Danowsky seconded. Osterberg said that was not the proper way to make the motion, that it should be in terms of voting “No.” Powell removed his motion. Osterberg moved to vote “No” on idea number four on tax increment financing. Powell seconded. The Board voted “No”; none opposed. Motion carried to not proceed with a study on Tax Increment Financing.

Idea number five involved Community Assessment Teams. There was discussion that this was already being done in several places. Shields moved to take it off the list. Powell seconded. The Board voted “I”; none opposed. Motion carried to remove the idea of Community Assessment Teams.

Idea number six was a Rural Poverty Reduction Project. The amount of money requested was $5,000. Burke said that rural poverty might be a topic for further community conversation forums. Osterberg moved to keep the project idea; Danowsky seconded. Brown urged the Board to vote “No.” Board members Osterberg, Powell, Pleima, Danowsky, and Phillips voted “I”; Brown, Scott, and Pilkington opposed. Motion carried to continue with considering a Rural Poverty Reduction Project.

Edelman asked for an information clarification. He asked that as he sent out the request for proposals did the Board want to highlight topics approved today and had the Board now decided what topics to have on the agenda for the second round of projects. Brown suggested to use as examples the projects already in progress. Shields said that the language might be that “the Board was currently considering these projects.” Danowsky said that she thought the Board was doing an “All Call” for projects and ideas. Her suggestion would be to leave the door open and just use the four broad categories of economic, social, cultural, and natural resources. Shields said that the RFP could still do the broad topics but also solicit the specifics for the topics already proposed. Edelman said that there was to be a meeting for idea number one and also a meeting for idea number seven. Padgitt remarked that by using the “door open” approach for the request for proposals that would be going in the opposite direction of the previous approach. He wondered if a message should go out that entrepreneurship was still to be a strong focus.

Hamilton said that there needed to be a quorum to vote on the Regents Center designation. Edelman said that the CVC needed to do this to comply with the Board of Regents policy. Scott moved to request the Board of Regents “Center” designation. Phillips seconded. The Board voted “I”; none opposed. Motion carried to request the “Center” designation.

Edelman briefly reviewed the entrepreneurship pilot forum held in Grinnell on October 8th. He also talked about the ICN conference to be held on November 12th regarding the Rural Development aspects of the Farm Bill. The CVC project for the cost study of electronic records for county recorders was moving along and there had been a joint meeting between the bar association and the recorders.

Edelman reviewed the draft of the proposed request for proposals for a media and public relations initiative for the CVC. Shields moved to proceed with soliciting the proposals for a media and public relations initiative. The motion was seconded. The Board voted “I”; none opposed. Motion carried to proceed with requesting proposals for a media and public relations initiative.

Shields urged that the CVC Board have a discussion about what the CVC should be know for. Osterberg motioned to adjourn; seconded by Brown. The Board voted “I”; none opposed. Meeting adjourned.