9:05 began with silence
The minutes were approved as written.
9/25, 12/3-4, 1/29, 4/1-2, 5/21, 7/23
There was an extended discussion of the retreat proposed for the December meeting..
Eventually we appeared to agree to two different retreats, one at the September meeting and one at the December meeting.
September meeting will devote the morning to introductions and routine business; the afternoon to the discussion of what do we want in a director. It was also felt that we need a facilitator to lead the discussion and help us ask the right questions. Some names were suggested: Wilmer Jossem, Pete Yoder, and Ken & Katherine Jacobsen.
Those volunteering to plan the September discussion are: Dwight Schumm, Barb Garlinghouse.
The December meeting, perhaps with Irene McHenry as facilitator, will focus on what it means to be on the board and some aspect of board development (fund raising, for instance).
9:30 David Hoeksema, of Renaissance Group, Inc., gave a report on the capital campaign preliminary (Bridging the Gap) feasibility study. The report was distributed.
He recommends proceding with the campaign but setting a goal of $2M instead of $3M.
Roles for committee members:
Note that none of those require you to ask for money.
Approve a 3 year campaign goal of $2,000,000
Rolling back from $3M to $2M shows we listened to the interviewees. It's also better to exceed the goal than fail to meet it.
This reduction in the goal will require a shift in the focus of the campaign from that proposed at the beginning.
In the current proposal, the focus is on facilities, as that's the concern expressed by the donors -- a feeling that we need to improve the look of the place to make it more attractive, the assumption being that improving the environment will increase the enrollment and there is some evidence for that. The focus should be on safety first, then atmosphere, making it more home-like than institutional
There is a reduced focus on the farm classroom, because that may be easier to solicit external support.
This also results in a reduced effort to build the endowment. There was a brief discussion of need-blind enrollment / scholarships / full-enrollment. Bob Winchell reminded us that we want to maintain the nature of the school more than we want full enrollment.
There was some discussion of wording the "Program Enhancements" -- we will be held to meeting the donor's wishes. The amount, $70,000, is not enough for the farm classroom -- perhaps there is another farm project that could be completed for that amount? It's better to be able to complete the project and show it as completed than to raise only part of a larger goal.
The committee expressed Thanks to David for the effort and presentation.
After David's departure, there was a "short" break, on return, we continued the discussion.
The committee approved the recommendation to proceed with a $2,000,000 capital campaign over a 3 year period, and continuing the services of the Renaissance Group in conducting the campaign This will require doubling our giving over the 3 years, as we include the annual giving within the campaign.
The committee approved merging "Farm Enhancements" with "Attract & Retain Students & Faculty" goals in the campaign literature
About a dozen applications have been received so far, some were "encouraged" -- meeting the suggestion mentioned earlier by Bob. The candidates have been informed that review of applications will not begin until September.
Margie is quite happy with her new assistants. Carrie Marsh has successfully anticipated Margie's need on at least one occasion. Allen Gunderson has also been quite helpful in planning for the campaign. Reports -- annual giving has been steady for the past 3 years. Total contributions are down slightly but the number of gifts is continuing to increase.
The ISACS self study survey analysis for selected topics was distributed. In reviewing the data, there is some overlap between faculty and administration, so the numbers need to be interpreted.
The topics covered were selections from those for which there were a
number "fair" or "poor" ratings.
Jan was particularly concerned with the students rating the board as
"fair" -- how can we increase the visibility of the board to the
students? (and what does that rating mean to the students?)
Jan asked committee members to reflect on these items and send her suggestions about what the school might do to improve in these areas.
We reviewed and approved the proposed changes to the student handbook
Between meetings, Consultation committee approved commencing work on the boys bathroom, in the hope it would be done by IaYM time. The work has not yet started, and is currently scheduled for August. The work involves retiling the bathroom, new sink & toilet fixtures, a new mirror, and repainting. Cost will be about $24,000, which is less than the $30,000 estimate for the capital campaign. Consultation committee felt the work was sufficiently important that it needed to be done even if the capital campaign did not go forward.
The electrical work in the capital campaign includes burying the electrical lines all around the campus. It's already been done for the Science Building and the Duplex. The others (Main) need to be either buried or raised so they're not a hazard. Other electrical upgrades throughout the campus are included in the capital campaign.
Facilities projects will be made available to interested volunteers during IaYM(C).
Consultation committee recommended and we approved the budget for removing the concrete on the farm.
Dwight Schumm recommended assuring that the location where the concrete is buried be chosen with an eye to the future. Dan Treadway said he believes there's already some buried to the south of the present location.
"Field to Family" is an organization that promotes organic / slow food (as contrasted with fast food) -- environmentally conscous cooking.
It was a great (incredible) year, we received 99% of projected income. There was a significant savings in insurance costs, by virtue of not having liability insurance for a good part of the year -- we hope not to repeat that in the future.
Promotion was underspent again -- The money is a designated gift, so the unspent portion was rolled over to next year. That's the $42,000 as an expense in June -- transferred forward.
Bob asked about health insurance for students. It's required of the students, and generally paid by the parents. Some parents are willing to bear the risk of not having health insurance, but we require temporary policies for such students when they go on school sponsored trips.
The 4Plex loan: The remaining payments on the 4plex loan will be made from the operating budget, rather than from the capital funds, freeing up capital funds. We plan to make equal payments over the remaining life of the loan.
We reviewed the preliminary budget for the coming year. The amount shown for annual
giving is greater than that specifically shown in the capital campaign,
but it would be a reduction to lower it and we feel it is inapropriate
to reduce the plan on annual giving.
We plan to avoid a new loan for the laptops, but rather to pay for them
out of the operating budget; this is in keeping with our idea when we
increased the tuition when adding laptops.
Presuming we can actually reach 615K on tuition (54 students) we will
have a 38,000 surplus -- the money will be used to pay the loans for the
4Plex and the Mazda, and vehicle replacement costs -- the big vans are
felt to be too much for our needs in general, and we hope to replace the
oldest with a new, smaller one, if the money is there.
In general, we hope to move away from using loans if we can cover the costs from tuition...
The question was -- if we're not getting more tuition in when we raise the gross tuition, what's the point of increasing it? "We haven't affected the non-blinkers yet!" (those who write the tuition check without blinking) --
Discussion of the annual giving numbers suggest that we should reduce the number to what we expect to receive -- make it match the capital campaign.
The paragraph added to the staff handbook relating to grounds for
dismissal is intended to clarify the current information. This is a
result of discussions with the lawyer.
We approved the proposed addition to the Staff Handbook
Last year we decided to ask annually for a small increase in funding, rather than asking for a larger increase every few years. In keeping with that, we approved asking for an additional 5% ($1500) this year.
Submit nominations to consultation committee for subcommittee assignments, and/or officers
We passed around the list of staff development that has been done in the past year.
To see the new website before the new one goes on-line in early August, go to http://www.scattergood.org/new .
We reviewed the planned arrivals of new staff.
Did you do what you planned? Lucy will ask our December facilitator if she can address the question of how we can/should assess ourselves.
Was it helpful to have the reports early? General agreement was yes. If we do that, do we still need as many hard copies?
If you have trouble getting the reports from the web / email let Lucy know.
Adjourned with silence at 3:05pm