I agree that we need to have an entity to continue our work, to hold us accountable to each other and to help us all do better work together. This may be semantics. Providing a service AND becoming an official 501c3 with paid staff, an office, etc. is what I think the issue is when referring to whether or not we as GAPS provide a service. The functional value of the group and the need for it to continue seems clear to me. However, I don't see a value in GAPS becoming yet another agency. The service we provide is to each other in a supportive environment. The direct services like meals, furniture distribution, etc. are things that would be the responsibility of an existing entity - who also is a member of GAPS. So, like I said -- I see the phrase "doesn't provide services" from a different perspective than you may Suzanne.
Craig Brooks <(©¿©)> -----Original Message----- From: Suzanne Belongia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 6:06 PM To: Paul Mundt; Poverty Roundtable Subject: RE: next meeting 9-19-02 ............... I'm wondering if we are certain about the statement that GAPS (or whatever we call ourselves) doesn't provide services. I say that because the work groups (or committees, or whatever we call them) that are/will be getting things done -- the expansion of meals,etc. at Bethany, the website, the mentoring/relationship building, and whatever else may be possible -- all exist as part of GAPS and are/will be led, most likely, or at least at first, by folks who are at the GAPS table. Isn't then, this work being done in the name of GAPS? In addition, without a stable place to gather, strategize and be accountable to, I wonder how effective some initiatives would end up being. For example, the meals/services at Bethany. It seems to me that since that expansion started with GAPS that we ought to be there if Bethany needs support with extra food, laundry supplies, volunteers, whatever. If, then, the faith communities would be organized to provide that support, we would do that through and because of the connection to GAPS, wouldn't we? I wouldn't want to turn GAPS into a task force (with a short-term organizing goal) rather than a group with a continuing mission. Perhaps quarterly meetings are all we'd need to keep the ball rolling, but it seems to me that there needs to be some sort of constancy to this work and that the various work groups would be tied together by the commonality of GAPS membership. Further, I would like to see the various work groups truly tied together and playing off each other, which would only be possible with consistent leadership from GAPS. ...............
