[SJAAboard] Quick report on PRN meeting

[Craig Scull]

My additions and interpretations of the morning's chat with the Arab group follows since Rob covered what I had noted regarding the city meeting--

Starting with the conclusion first, from our preliminary chat, the American Arab Cultural Center of Silicon Valley and the SJAA have little to no time conflicts in scheduling and we believe it is in our collective interests to do a dual-application with AACCSV because it will show a greater usage of the site if we both have a contractually authorized usage of Houge Park. If the SJAA continued to use the site as infrequently as we do, then the site could be construed by the city to be underutilized, and therefore worthy of closure. No one has said this, it's just a concern I have in the long run. Also, preventing others from using the space during the time when we do not need it would not be community minded or support the *greater good* (insert your interpretation).

We don't yet see any real conflicts for space with AACCSV, assuming that their offices would go in building 2. If in building 1, they would occupy about 8 feet of the entire rear wall (fashioned into something like cubes). I don't know if their space needs are growing or if they have been stable for years.

There are some risks. For example the president of the AACCSV with whom we spoke talked about how he felt SJAA would have a compatible use of building 1, but he said in such a way to imply that AACCSV would be on contract and we would have negotiated use through them, even going so far as to say that AACCSV would "only require a portion of the proceeds from any SJAA fundraisers." Rob may not have heard that part because I don't see it captured in his notes. This is when I started trying to encourage a "dual-application" because I know that the arrangement AACCSV was suggesting would never be approved by the SJAA board. We also talked about documenting the agreed-upon terms of shared use as part of the application to the city. We still do not definitively know if a dual-application is even possible, but there were other applicant groups in the city meeting who asked the question of collaborative use of buidlings and the city response was favorable.

AACCSV spoke confidently that building 2 was no longer occupied by the preschool and cited a source for knowing this.

Also, as I believe Rob noted, there are no other competing orgs looking to use Houge park because they did not attend today's "mandatory" meeting. The daycare is no longer using building 2, the ping pong people were not present, and the square dancing group is long since gone. It really comes down to us and AACCSV, and they are interested in a dual application. In part, I think they know that a co-application with us may give them a stronger chance of getting the space since we have a long track record there as the incumbent. As Rob mentioned, Astronomical Viewing is even listed as one of the community goals for Houge Park, and 25% of the application weight is judged by meeting the community goal, so the cards are certainly stacked for us. We need to play that up in our application :)  We might also want to make some reference to students' declining interest in math/technology and how we are helping to inspire san jose youth to pursue technical interests
 and "reach for the stars." But I digress....  Other goals listed were ping pong, square dancing, and something else.

At the same time, AACCSV also does television programs giving them the capacity to reach a really large audience, so I think they have a strong community-benefit card to play.

Lastly, after speaking to Rob more about our contractual obligations, I believe
it is in our best interests to get a lawyer to review the statement of
work. There is no harm, and unexpectedly, not even a cost to the SJAA.

Craig





----- Original Message ----
From: Rob Hawley <rob at robhawley.net>
To: Sjaaboard <sjaaboard at sjaa.net>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 3:26:52 PM
Subject: [SJAAboard] Quick report on PRN meeting

Craig took more extensive notes than I did so consider this is the Cliff Notes
version.

We will be bidding for Houge along with an Arab-American group.  Craig and I met
with them after the meeting.  They primarily want Building 2. I believe our use
is complementary. Our proposal will commit us to cooperate with them.

The day care center did not show which excludes them from bidding. The other
groups there seemed to be focused on other properties.

Craig is accumulating questions to ask the city during the question period.  We
have a couple so far. If you have any more contact Craig not me. Craig is going
to ask some questions whether the city is open to modifying the building (e.g.
building a storage area for the loaner program). 

The Arab American group would like to build offices in building two.  I think we
convinced them to let us build in building one. Both parties agree they would
like to preserve building one as a large meeting area. They would like to
schedule meetings on Friday nights in building one, but are willing work around
our schedule.

Money making events such as the auction and swap are allowed under the RFP.  We
need to paint PRN a picture that shows the money goes back into supporting the
public program (at least as insurance).

We are listed in the community input section of the RFP (exhibit I).  That means
we qualify for Priority One consideration. Our proposal needs to highlight that.

25% of the evaluation is convincing the city we have the stability to implement.
Our board remaining stable as well as the length officers have served and have
been members all paint a picture of stability.

Beyond that PRN reviewed the parts of the response as they expect it.  I think
the current draft is a start.  I will review Phil's comments when I get back.
The draft was done quickly so no harm no foul if we trash it and start again.
Look most closely at the proposed Exhibit A. That was where I spent the most
brain cycles. We will have to add a provision to Exhibit A to cooperate with the
other group.

When I get back I would like to understand why people oppose Robert and I paying
for having a lawyer review Exhibit A (our formal statement of work). I
appreciate that the board might object to paying for it themselves. Why object
it if the legal review is free?  There must be some disadvantage that I do not
understand.

The senior group is moving.  That was the reason for the move-in delay.  I guess
I lose bragging rights.

Call me at home until Tuesday night if you have any further questions. Thanks to
Craig for attending and being part of the proposal preparation process.


Rob Hawley 



_______________________________________________
SJAABoard mailing list
SJAABoard at sjaa.net
http://sjaa.net/mailman/listinfo/sjaaboard_sjaa.net