Eastern Coal Region Roundtable

Spring Board Meeing

Twin Falls State Park

Mullens, WV

04.18.07

MINUTES

Attending:

Board members: Craig Hartsock, Bruce Golden, Mike Steinmaus, Dewey Houck, and Keith Pitzer.

Staff: Hanna Wheeler

Guests: Alan Comp and Alan Palo.

The following items of business were discussed:

1. The minutes of the previous meeting were read and accepted.

2. The financial report shows $550 in the bank.

3. The revised mission statement as submitted by Mike Steinmaus was considered. Keith pointed out that this version seemed to limit the organization’s work to educational activities and would thus not allow for lobbying or advocating at all. It was generally agreed we did not want this limitation. Rather than take meeting time to modify this draft, Dewey motioned and Bruce seconded the motion that Alan Comp and Keith will submit a new revised mission statement for board consideration by May 1. All were in favor.

4. The new logo developed by Hanna was unanimously liked and accepted. Bruce moved, Mike seconded.

5. The discussion of job description and requirements for future ECRR Coordinators focused on transportation. It was thought the position should require having transportation. This was in consideration of need to travel to conferences, meetings, etc.

It was also observed that serving in a small rural town such as Kingwood, WV without transportation could be limiting on a personal level as well. A motion that “applicant must have a valid drivers license and means of transportation to travel on ECRR business” was made by Bruce, Dewey seconded. All were in favor.

6. The decision making protocol was briefly discussed then tabled for future consideration.

7. Hanna gave her Coordinator’s report (see 04.18.07 Coordinator’s report on googlegroup) covering her activities since last meeting. These included newsletters produced, grant proposals written, membership drive efforts, placing computers from OSM into watershed groups, scheduling meetings such as an upcoming

meeting with OSM officials in Pittsburgh. This meeting will include Hanna, Bruce and Keith. They are to meet with Roger Calhoun and George Reiger of OSM. The purpose is to advocate for ECRR direct support and continuance of the Watershed Cooperative Agreement Program as well as continued support for the OSM/VISTA program. Hanna was commended for her excellent work on the newsletter and the website in her year of service with ECRR.

8. Dewey requested that Hanna provide a list of priorities for the Board with a timeline and contacts.

9. Hanna’s OSM/VISTA term ended last week. She is continuing on a temporary basis while funding for and recruitment of another VISTA for the Coordinator position proceeds. One possible source of near term support would be to receive a summer internship. This could pay Hanna for her work while the Coordinator position is recruited. The Coordinator/OSM/VISTA position’s sponsor cost will be covered by ACCWT. This led to further discussion about recruitment for this position. There are

currently some candidates in the pool of OSM/VISTA applicants. Bruce volunteered to screen these for consideration for ECRR. A review panel of at least three board members will interview individually by phone and Keith will interview personally if the office is to stay in Kingwood, adjacent to Friends of the Cheat office. This position needs to filled no later than mid-July for assured funding. Alan can authorize an early start date to take advantage of training with Hanna.

10. The resources and energy of ECRR could change significantly if the submitted Targeted Watershed Capacity Building Grant were successful. This would support a paid full time coordinator position and lead two years of capacity training for watershed groups. The grant seems custom made for ECRR’s role, which would be supported by some established and accomplished watershed groups from different states for implementation of the proposed workplan.

11. Board member job descriptions were discussed briefly. Most of us had not adequately reviewed this and other materials posted by Hanna on the google groups ECRR site. It was agreed all board members would review this and respond by end of April. Craig will compile responses and report to us.

12. Board recruitment was also discussed with the knowledge that additional energy and influence is needed on the board. Craig asked for each board member to submit a candidate for consideration by June 1^st. Regarding board terms that are ending this year, Alan suggested that a retiring member should recruit his own replacement.

13. The concept of an ECRR “champion” was discussed to some length. Alan Palo was attending out of interest in this. Recruited by Mike, Alan has worked with two watershed groups in southeast Ohio on a volunteer basis. The role of “champion” would be to spark activities in a way that board members seemingly do not do. This could be by providing peer to peer guidance to other board members as much as to the coordinator position.

Alan Palo expressed interest in the work that coal country watershed groups are doing but was not interested in significant lobbying, meetings, travel, etc. He will consider this role and further consult with Mike about the possibility. He will respond within two weeks.

14. The group discussed the Roundtable’s membership drive. Mike gave a report from Ohio. He spoke about membership in the Roundtable at a Southeast Ohio Council meeting and recruited an organizational member for the Roundtable. Hanna pointed out that speaking to personal contacts (in the way that Mike did) is a good model for recruiting supporting memberships. She pointed out that membership can support the very low overhead costs of the Roundtable and encouraged all board members to recruit supporting memberships.

15. Another topic from Alan Comp was that a larger national or regional organization could possibly play an adoptive/partnering role for ECRR. River Network was approached but did not seem to be able to do so at the present time. This is yet another recruitment idea which could serve both ECRR and Appalachian coal county.

16. The group discussed AML and its impact on watershed groups. Bruce pointed out that many states will not receive a lot of money. However, the group pointed out that a small amount of money can go a long way in states with a small amount of abandoned mine lands. The group decided that a phone conference with state leaders from each Coal Country state would be an appropriate way to influence funding for AMD treatment. Hanna will compile a list of state leaders and make arrangements for the call.

17. Dewey made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Keith seconded.