An early challenge for the Steering Committee existed in the presence of a parallel proposal from Idaho for a different Cluster. Another group, based in Lewiston, had also submitted a proposal to the Foundation. That proposal was not selected, but included the potential of teams from the Nez Perce Reservation and, for that reason, drew the attention of the group that submitted a proposal that the Foundation chose to fund.
After receiving word about their selection, the organizers (led by Birdsall and Johnston) made contacts and several invitations to the other groups to join in by adding teams. While one team representative from the town of Kamiah did attend several Steering Committee meetings, it soon became clear that none of the Lewiston-based teams would take part in the project. While several mentioned the attendance requirement, it seemed that an alternative and plausible explanation was that the Reservation-based teams were accustomed to separate, rather than shared, programs and chose not to interact with Idahoans from across the state.
Another strong influence at work on this division among the teams was the fact that the organizer of the unsuccessful proposal was also a resource via Lewis Clark State College; and some teams, especially Weippe, expressed some loyalty to that institution rather than to the Idaho Cluster as it evolved. Apparently, the initial rejection of the LCSC proposal was an influence on the Weippe team throughout the project.
The conundrum of how to include the Reservation teams was never
solved. However, the final group of teams did include only Council
and Priest River from the original proposal. Plummer, Pierce, Weippe, and Bovil was added because of interest from residents there.
Throughout the project, the three teams of Plummer, Pierce and Weippe, while represented on the Steering Committee and the Grants Committee as well, had a different level of participation. There seemed to be a division among the teams that was never completely bridged. Part of this is, of course, the result of local politics and history and the impact of the division is, in fact, hard to determine. Many team members mentioned it as a "difference" but were hard pressed to articulate why it existed or whether it had a negative impact.
A weakness in all the Idaho teams was the minimal involvement of young people. Organizers made several visits to local schools, tried to recruit through teachers and local youth groups such as 4-H but had little success. Each team had one or two teen members but even these members were unable to recruit other teens. Team members were discouraged by this and described their continuing efforts to recruit young members. One team member noted that her daughter was on the team and never spoke much during the workshop but then used one of the workshop activities at school with great success.
The composition of teams reflected the variety of community roles in each town. Occupations and ages varied as did the length of residence. There was little ethnic diversity in the teams although a few did have members who are Native American.
Attendance at the workshops was a challenge for all the teams participating and each used alternates so that the required ten members would be present at all six workshops.
Overview of Team Projects
Many of the teams began the MIRA workshops with a project in mind. In fact, that project may well have been used as a recruitment tool and motivator. Workshops did, however, influence project ideas. According to members from several teams, their project idea was not only influenced by workshop topics and contact with the trainer but by other community teams. Reports of teams helping each other to access resources within the state that might be helpful to a project were common and the exchange of name, phone number or web site address were mentioned often by team members.
Team projects for the Idaho Cluster clearly had a theme: enhance communications within existing institutions most often the library. Four of the teams-Council, Pierce, Weippe, and Plummer-used this approach and used their MIRA project grant to purchase equipment for the local library or visitor center with the added dimension of offering classes in the applications of technology to the public. The Plummer team varied this approach by creating a business directory and web page for business in the community.
Priest River used the approach of offering computer classes and creating community web pages but added the variation of using some funds for the services of a grant writer for three months to seek continuing funds. The Bovil team developed a project that included a voice mail system for the entire community and several other technology infrastructure options such asanew91 1 relay and a siren for the fire department.
Team Structure, Roles and Process
Typically, each team had a core group plus several alternates to insure meeting the required attendance number of 10. While no member was replaced, some alternates became more involved and some core members less so. A contact person, usually the representative for the Steering Committee, organized transportation to the workshop and also served in the role of reminder for the group. Dates for workshops were set well in advance but the reminder still proved important and in all cases was done by telephone or e-mail notice. Team size also varied with Priest River the largest team at 37 and as many as 15 attending a workshop together.
Five of the six teams displayed strong feelings of camaraderie and identity. Traveling to the workshop together seemed to have a positive influence on team cohesion and all five reported enjoying the time they spent together. As the workshops progressed and the necessity of developing a project became more urgent, all the teams met more often between workshop sessions. Members of these teams also offered examples of how they had used information or activities or techniques learned at the workshops in other aspects of professional or volunteer life. Some had shared handouts with other clubs, some used activities with youth groups or church associations.
There was a fair amount of interaction among the teams, too, as evidenced by visits to one another's team meetings or travel to another MIRA community. On each team, there were members who had never visited the other communities.
Only one team, Weippe, encountered internal problems with dissension and generally expressed dissatisfaction with the MIRA experience. The group from Weippe was displeased with the workshop topics and trainers, and the Grant Review Committee and several members mentioned that the $15,000 team project grant was not a large enough award to merit the amount of time required by the workshops.
One team member did mention that their negative attitude was probably linked to the fact that Lewis-Clark State College MIRA proposal was rejected and that had tainted the team's attitude. This team, which had the shortest distance to travel to the workshops, was also the only group that complained about the trip! The contact person/ team leader did report that the team, which had proposed using their team grant for match for a much larger state library grant, went through some struggles when that grant request was turned down and they had to develop "Plan B." However, the group did persevere and has completed installing a small scale technology center in the local library. Her final comments on the MIRA project indicated that "Getting a grant is kind of like winning the lottery-it's a prize that comes with a price; there will be jealousy and envy as well as celebration."
