[This is a draft proposal with dates subject to change based on when foundation funding and a keynoter, such as a Kennedy, Shriver, or…, are finalized.  This draft was initially posted and outlined with proposed dates in April 19, 2008.]

 

Kennedy Shriver Re-visioning Conference

           What works for today’s domestic & international needs?              

This country runs on laws. 

If you want to change the country,

write its laws.

People’s Lobby founders, Edwin and Joyce Koupal

www.PeoplesLobby.us

www.WorldServiceCorps.us

 

In the 1960’s, with about 3 billion people roaming planet earth, John Kennedy and Sarge Shriver offered a vision to deal with the world and our nation’s needs and ignorances.

 And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.

 As today’s world approaches 7 billion, our needs are more complex and require smarter involvement by Americans and with others.

            My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

 

1.           Can rebuilding a robust Kennedy Shriver vision work today?

2.           Can citizens successfully influence Congress to introduce and pass People’s Lobby’s non-partisan, citizen-initiated American World Service Corps (AWSC) Congressional Proposals?

3.           http://www.worldservicecorps.us/world%20service%20key%20proposal%202yr%20volunteer.htm

4.           Can the AWSC be cost-effectively implemented?

5.           Will Americans respond in large enough numbers to field 21 million AWSC volunteers over 27 years into already existing governmental and non-governmental organizations?

6.           Can existing organizations manage the increase in volunteerism?

7.           Will other nations respond with similar programs?

8.           Could other nations responding by implementing their own robust World Service Corps shift the world from spending so much on battlefield contests to nation building contests?

 

These and other questions would be researched and answered at a series of People’s Lobby Education Foundation (501c3) conferences.

 

I.  Initial Conference of those named in People’s Lobby’s proposed American World Service Corps (AWSC) Congressional Proposals.

The first conference would feature representatives from each of the organizations mention in the AWSC Congressional Proposals (Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, Habitat for Humanity, Head Start, Doctors Without Borders, Red Cross, International Rescue Committee, OxFam, Mercy Corps, and State Conservation Corps) and perhaps some other organizations.  This initial conference would measure responses from participating organizations to Peoples Lobby’s proposed AWSC congressional legislation.

 

1.           Would the organizations listed in the proposed bill, and others that can be added under the bill, welcome an influx of twenty-one million American volunteers over the ensuing twenty-seven years to serve with them?

2.           Would you (the orgranizations) oppose or support the AWSC Congressional Proposals?

3.           Would you propose changes to the proposed legislation?  If so, what would they be?

4.           Would implementing the AWSC help or harm your organizational goals?

5.           How would you manage the potential influx of additional volunteer of varied ages and experience levels?

6.           If supportive, how could they (the organizations) help rekindle the Shriver Kennedy vision?

7.           Would enough older, experienced Americans volunteer to sufficiently help address some of the increased management needs stemming from the increased number of volunteers?

8.           How could and would communities where volunteers serve contribute to keep overhead costs down?

9.           What, if any, community commitments should be required of areas served with AWSC volunteers?

 

We are requesting Maria Shriver and California Volunteer Coordinator Karen Baker to at least help pull together and host the first conference and a perhaps some later conferences.  We also will seek their continued help when needed as the conference structure is established and implemented. 

 

The first conference could be held in Sacramento or at Claremont Graduate University in southern California. 

 

II.  School research under Kennedy Shriver Re-visioning Conferences Awards Program.

After the initial conference, a number of other research conferences would then commence at various universities and colleges dealing with such questions as those above.  From any interested departments, such as Public Policy, Government, Economics Journalism, etc., departments, teams of three - five students would produce papers, media productions, etc. that would research, analyze, and draw conclusions around whether Congress should pass and implement People’s Lobby’s non-partisan, citizen-initiated American World Service Corps (AWSC) Congressional Proposals.

 

Each school shall submit ten papers or productions that will compete for three prizes awarded to the winners at each school:  $250, $500, $1,500.  If schools have more than ten team submissions, they will establish a process that culls the number down to ten submissions for the Shriver Kennedy Re-visioning Conference panel of judges.

 

III.  The mix of colleges and universities we are presently considering include:  (Subject to change)

1.           Claremont Graduate University.

2.           Citrus College.

3.           Claremont Colleges.

4.           Cleveland State University

5.           Dominican University.

6.           Georgetown.

7.           Michigan State University

8.           San Francisco State

9.           Seattle University

10.       Sonoma State.

11.       Stanford.

12.       University of Louisiana.

13.       University of San Francisco.

14.       Seattle University.

15.       Vanderbilt University.

16.       American Military University,?

 

In addition to any questions listed as samples in this outline, students and professors may research and integrate other analyses into their projects. 

1.          What economic models reflect the strengths or weaknesses of implementing the AWSC proposals?

2.           Will economic modeling determine whether funding 27 years of fielding 21 million AWSC volunteers is an economy draining cost, beneficial long-term investment, or stimulus?

3.           What are the longer-term spin-offs of implementing the AWSC?

4.           What is the likelihood of this kind of program being replicated by other nations?  What would be the effects of that?

5.           What are the implications on national and international politics and policies of implementing the AWSC?

6.           How would this impact military service?

7.           What are the primary impediments to implementing the AWSC?

8.           Who or what groups are likely to oppose?  To support?  Why?

9.           Who benefits and who suffers from implementing such a program?

10.       What is your estimate of the revenue stream that the unorthodox funding streams in the proposed legislation will yield?

11.       In today’s political climate, what are the voluntary “Forbes 2% Solution” and “Non-tax Paying Corporate Donation” revenue streams proposed in the bill likely to yield?  Why?

12.       What other revenue streams would you propose?

13.       Will implementing the AWSC cause cost reductions or increases in other budgeted areas in the short and long run?  To what degree?

14.       How does having 18 – 70+ year olds, rich and poor, volunteering together to address national and international needs affect community and nation?

 

IV.  Proposed media judges.

We will request the following media to provide judges from their staffs: 

1.           American Spectator.

2.           Foreign Policy Journal.

3.           Colbert Nation Show.

4.           Daily Show.

5.           LA Times. 

6.           Nation.

7.           National Review.

8.           Newsweek.

9.           New York Times

10.       Oprah Show

11.       San Francisco Chronicle.

12.       Time.

13.       The Nation.

14.       US News.

15.       Washington Post.

 

Each judging entity would judge entries from one school.  The schools would be randomly selected and assigned to the judging entities.

 

Each student team will submit a 2-10 page Executive Summary that accompanies their project submission, which may be a paper, audio, video, documentary, or creation of their choice.

 

V.  Projected timing

People’s Lobby Education Foundation (501c3) needs rapid funding in order to acquire staff and cover costs of this project.  People’s Lobby’s rebuilding staff of one + a few volunteers cannot pull this off without timely funding.  The preferred schedule is:

A.          The initial Shriver Kennedy Re-visioning Conference hosted by Maria Shriver by July of 2008. 

B.          Agreements from participating schools and media judges by August, so the Shriver Kennedy Re-visioning Conference can be presented to incoming classes in September.

C.          Project completion from schools by December 15thy and the ten submissions then assigned to judges by January 10th.

D.          Media judging completed by February 10th.

E.           Winners announced in February.

F.           Executive summaries and full reports submitted to Congress at opening of 111th Congress in February or March 2009.

G.          Top student winners make Congressional presentations regarding their findings.

 

Isn’t it time to involve our students in deciding whether citizen-driven legislation can work for the world we are leaving them?

 

Draft re-posted August 3, 2008

Outline of grant application to foundations and for presentation to Maria Shriver.