Meeting Notes – Essay Example

I. Introduction a. What the meeting is about – calling on volunteers for action b. What is Read for Life c. How individuals can contribute by assisting with adult literacy
II. Enhancing literacy
a. Statistics on the number of adults who are illiterate
b. How volunteers can change the statistics and numbers
c. Past contributions of Read for Life and future developments
III. Giving back to the community
a. Why volunteering is important
b. How volunteering is expected to change numbers of literacy
c. Questions on literacy
d. Case Studies
e. Expectations for volunteers
IV. Open discussion and communications
V. Call to action for all volunteers
Guidelines: The meeting conducted will begin with an introduction about literacy and the overview of Read for Life. The guidelines will be followed with the ability to pursue individual commitment and calls to action.
All questions and thoughts will be taken at the end of the meeting. Extra information will be provided, including brochures about Read for Life and volunteer information that will assist with those that are a part of the organization.
A Read for Life organizer will be present during the meeting to help with questions and to provide a speech before the Horizon Books persuasive speech.
Active contributions with those present will be done through the main format. The beginning presentation will begin with an introduction and noting the expectation for all volunteers to listen to the speech. There will also be a requirement to turn off cell phones and other noise distractions. The question session at the end will be devised by individuals standing and going to the center of the room to ask about the program and creating a line based on who is there so the questions can be asked in a systematic way. The most important part is the question and answer session, specifically because it takes away ill – perceived thoughts about volunteering and the organization (Strauss, 1991).
References
Strauss, David. (1991). “Persuasion, Autonomy, and Freedom of Expression.” Columbia Law Review (91), (2).