1. PURPOSE OF MEETING
J. Todd said the call would cover items aimed at making for the most effective possible January 28th meeting. She thanked those who had joined the call for participating and asked that they introduce themselves.
2. WHO IS ON THE CALL?
Jane Todd (call chairperson)
3. REVISIONS TO AGENDA?
4. BRIEF UPDATE FROM CO-CHAIRS RE OVERALL FORUM SITUATION
B. Lindgren said that he and L. Radke had recently taken part in a very positive discussion with US EPA representative Liz LaPlante. He said that Liz LaPlnte had been very positive about the Forum and wanted to see it continue. He said the conversation did not get into the specifics of funding but that Liz had reiterated EPA support for Forum activities, as laid out in agreement with EPA, for the next couple of years. B. Lindgren said that much of the discussion centered on "re-inventing" the Forum, ensuring the Forum was not unduly bound by tradition, remained flexible, progressive and open to new concepts and ideas.
L. Radke added that Liz had alluded to an expanded role for public input in the revised Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which has yet to be released.
(see Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement Preview slides at link below, as provided by Kate Taillon, Environment Canada:
J. Bailey reported that emphasis on funding issues continued. He noted that it was his perception that govenment agencies involved in the Binational Program remained supportive of the Forum, (despite the lack of federal funding) and hoped for progressive, deliberate and timely action by the Forum to ensure sustainability of the organization. K. Oswald noted that provincial expenditures were to be reduced in the near future.
5. REPORT/DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL INCORPORATION
-J. Todd thanked H. Sorensen for the report on potential incorporation. K. Oswald said the report was excellent. He said he was not against incorporation but that the Forum should take care to ensure they were not "rushed" into any particular course of action, including incorporation. J. Todd said a decision re incorporation needed to be made in a timely manner, suggesting a decision to incorporate, or otherwise, be made on January 28 in Thunder Bay.
K. Oswald said that incorporation as a non-profit could result in a different type of relationship with government agencies. He asked B. Lindgren to contact Liz LaPlante/EPA and Nancy Stadler-Salt/EC to obtain the views of their respective organizations with respect to incorporation.
ACTION ITEM: B. Lindgren to contact Liz LaPlante/EPA and Nancy Stadler-Salt/EC to obtain the views of their respective organizations about incorporation.
B. Hartley pointed out that the Thunder Bay Remedial Action Plan Public Advisory Committee operated as an incorporated non-profit group for many years and that several other RAP Public Advisory Committees continued to operate as formal non-profit entities. He said the Thunder Bay Public Advisory Committee was nearly identical to the Forum in that it was part and parcel of both federal and provincial legislation. He said the Public Advisory Committee had been able to accept yearly operating funds from government agencies, other funds from government agencies and also funds from private and other sources. He said the arrangement had worked out well.
K. Oswald asked about the status of potential partnership with the Lakehead University Foundation. H. Sorensen said Rob Stewart could better answer this question and that she would endeavour to have Rob provide relevant information to Forum members prior to the January 28, 2012 Forum meeting in Thunder Bay.
ACTION ITEM: R. Stewart/H. Sorensen to provide information about potential Forum partnership with the Lakehead University Foundation prior to the January 28, 2012 Forum meeting in Thunder Bay.
K. Oswald asked H. Sorensen if she felt it was better to incorporate federally or provincially. H. Sorensen replied that her report was meant to provide information, not opinions, but given the nature of the Forum organization, federal incorporation would probably make more sense.
6. PROGRESS ON ACTION ITEMS FROM NOV. 4/2011 FORUM MEETING/LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY
Concise action items/status from the NOV. 4/2011 Thunder Bay meeting held at
1. Obtain clear, timely communication from Canada as to the presence or absence of ongoing
cooperation with, commitment, guidance and financial support for the LSBF
2. Partner with a suitable charitable organization, like Lakehead University Foundation, to obtain
funds and implement activities for Lake Superior restoration and protection
STATUS: Ongoing (action item in notes above seeking update from R. Stewart)
3. Explore potential for incorporation as a non-profit or charitable non-profit organization
4. Build the strength of the relationship with the Superior Workgroup and Task Force; ensure
frequent, meaningful, interaction, exchange and cooperation
STATUS: In progress
5. Communicate with Binational Forums on other Great Lakes, where they exist; work together
with these groups to increase the effectiveness of L. Superior and Great Lakes restoration and
STATUS: ??? (note in to John Jackson seeking update)
6. Work to expand participation of tribes and First Nations in the Binational Forum
STATUS: Ongoing (B. Lindgren stated that Christine Ostern would likely provide further info on or before Jan. 28/12)
7. Forum members have a wealth of relationships throughout the entire Superior basin. All
members should bring these relationships to bear in ways which assist implementation of
Binational Program objectives
STATUS: Complete (If anoyne has any further information to forward, please do so - to J. Bailey - no personal information will be disseminated in this exercise)
8. Make revisions to the Forum Charter, as per suggestions made at the November 4th Forum
meeting in Thunder Bay
STATUS: In progress, B. Lindgren pointed out that it would be useful to wait until after the Jan. 28 Thunder Bay meeting to undertake potential revisions
9. Plan an effective January 27/28, 2012 meeting in Thunder Bay aimed at exploring best
methods for Forum engagement in L. Superior restoration and protection
10. Post/distribute the latest information with regard to the GLWQA and LaMP in order to
inform discussion at the Jan. 27/28, 2012 meeting.
STATUS: Complete - See:
11. Work to secure funds such that Forum members, Canadian North shore representatives and
other relevant parties, from both Canada and USA, attend the Jan. 27/28 Thunder Bay Forum
12. Planning calls on Dec. 7th, 2011 and Jan. 4th, 2012 will take place in order to ensure that:
-action items from Nov. 4th are being addressed
7. UPDATE RE JANUARY, 2012 MEETING
-Planning for this meeting ongoing. Draft agendas and details posted at:
There were no suggestions for revision to the January 28th Forum meeting agenda.
8. OTHER BUSINESS
-There was no other business
9. NEXT MEETING/(INTERIM CALL?)
-January 27/28 Thunder Bay
-The call was adjourned at 09:50 a.m. eastern.