Hey all,
I just did a quick read-through of their proposal and thought I’d provide some feedback. Anyone else who has read it please also chime in.
–they emphasize a close working relationship with the evaluation committee, guiding them all along the way. Obviously, this has many benefits. The danger I saw in it was the potential for them ending up telling us what we want to hear.
–they are interested in building as much as possible off of what Monitor has already done, and also in talking to Monitor about their process. That seems wise to me.
–like most the proposals, they are weak in the area of the issue of a public persona
–they specifically mention evaluating how realistic RE-AMP expectations of the membership are. I’d be interested in seeing how they define “realistic” and seeing what came up around that
–Joyce has used them, Ed do you have any insight?
–Lois DeBacker  is listed as a reference
–I just noticed that consultant they plan to lead the evaluation is on the board of the Illinois Environmental Council. Does it make sense to have a board member of a RE-AMP organization do this work?

——————————————-
Gail Francis
L&P Analyst
RE-AMP
(715) 945-2164
Ojibwa, WI
ampanalyst@gmail.com
——————————————-

——————————————-
Original Message:
Sent: 01-28-2011 18:22
From: Elizabeth Wheeler
Subject: Uh-oh.

Dear Evaluation Committee,