6/26/2014 CULTURAL COUNCIL Minutes

Home Browse Search

Thanks for your work here, Bruce, in coordinating all these points. I don't believe you added too much since clarity re. a successful application should be something that applicants appreciate. Realizing that you are looking for feedback and time is of the essence, I've included just a few thoughts/questions: Since most of the priorities and guidelines are written in the third person, my suggestion is to be consistent in using the third person in the opening statement under priorities and in the second and last guidelines. Re. Funding Priorities: #2: Could we add "or for the benefit of the Mashpee community' (especially since "All About 7" did not take place in Mashpee)? Should we add proposals that benefit "the underserved populations" (as is seen in the Falmouth guidelines)? Re. Local Guidelines: #1: Did you deliberately leave out that a letter of support must be attached with the application? (I believe that CC Maritime Museum did not initially include a letter by Oct. 15 and then was approved for a $600 grant.) #2: To qualify further, can we add "Based on the amount of grant money available each year..."the MCC usual grants are...? (similar to Sandwich) #4: overlaps with sixth priority (Intentional?) #5: Do we have until the end of January to mail letters of approval? #7: I'm not sure if you mean events that have already taken place for the benefit of the Mashpee community OR that applicants will not receive funding for events that have already taken place before MCC approval is received. Either way, I think some clarification would be helpful (as with#10 Mid-Cape CC and with the Falmouth starred statement on p. 2). Other possible additions: 1. Something on the idea of#8 Mid-Cape CC re. prioritizing multiple applications submitted by the same applicant 2. Something re. reimbursement(as included by Sandwich and Falmouth) 3. Statement re. publicity(as included by Falmouth) Again, these are merely a few ideas to consider, nothing more. Madeleine