1:01pm – 2:13pm


In Attendance: Natalie Mason-Kinsey, Farrell Webb, Ellen Stohl, Carlos Fuentes, John Valdovinos, Deion Turner, Michael Neubauer, Theresa White, Pastor Charles Humphrey, Matthew Baram, Stephanie Barboza, Boris Ricks, Debra Hammond

Discussion Items:

A. DEIG Updates:

A list of the 14 proposals selected by Cabinet to be funded was added to Box. Additionally, a spreadsheet listing the 19 proposals selected by the Commission to be reviewed by Cabinet was also added to Box. Natalie shared that she is making herself available to applicants whose proposals were not selected, and encouraged commissioners to refer applicants that need feedback to her. It was noted that the three proposals that had to adjust their budgets before receiving final approval have done so, concluding the DEIG review process for this year. In regard to stipends, it was shared that there will need to be clarification regarding who can be receive them. Specifically, it was noted that students can be paid as employees or by receiving scholarships, but should not be paid through stipends. There was some discussion regarding the possibility of extending the page limit for future proposals to allow for submissions to be 3-5 pages in length.

A commissioner noted that some proposals may require continued funding to sustain their efforts, and suggested possibly allowing for renewals or re-submissions. It was suggested that the group could allocate a portion of DEIG funds for projects that would require additional funding, and funds for new proposals. It was suggested that the group discuss this in future meetings. Commissioners also identified the need to discuss the DEIG’s objectives prior to reviewing future proposals, to assess whether the proposals chosen to receive funding meet the grant’s purpose. A commissioner suggested asking future applicants to submit a letter of intent, which would allow the commission to recommend that some applicants combine their efforts if their proposals overlap. Another commissioner recommended including dates for commission members to receive training before reviewing proposals. It was noted that the incoming CSUN President or her Chief of Staff may request to meet with the Commission in Spring, to learn more of its role and accomplishments.

Commissioners recommended that the group revise the DEIG scoring rubric, to clarify the distinctions between scores. It was noted that the Cabinet collaborated in constructing the previous rubric, and may be consulted prior to finalizing future rubrics. The possibility of having a shared document for scoring future proposals was also discussed, and a member suggested utilizing Google Forms. There was some discussion regarding the possibility of selecting a sub-committee to review proposals in future grant cycles. This would allow for commissioners who submit proposals to recuse themselves from the review process entirely, and still remain a member of the Commission. Commissioners suggested that this practice would allow for transparency, and strengthen the integrity of the Commission. The group agreed that they will vote in a future meeting, to decide whether commissioners can submit proposals for the DEIG in future cycles. The possibility of implementing a blind review process was also discussed as a possibility.

Action Items:

1. Natalie will draft a calendar for next year’s DEIG cycle and share with the Commission through Box.